By June....one way or the other? Do we all agree?

It's a balancing act.....dependent on the audience.

Say the USSC overturns all the bans.....de facto, same-sex marriage legal nation-wide. Any further challenges in Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, whatever now have precedent and those State bans are overturned by Lower Courts based on the USSC decision....game over for the anti-SSM crowd-

Now....to the Religious Right, typically in safe Republican districts (Red-Red-RED Districts), the GOP runs on "Elect me and _____ (GOP Prez Nominee) and we'll try to get Justices on the courts to overturn the ruling."

Now the GOP Prez Nominee himself doesn't engage in that.....on a national level, he's got to be as "neutral" as possible on the matter .."I personally think marriage is between a man and woman...but the Court has made its ruling" or some such namby-pamby "Take it either way" line.

Other Republicans in more Purple areas run on "The Court made its decision and I think that's the end of it."

It's sort of like abortion....Repubs with "pro-life" voters claim they just need "one more election victory and we'll get rid of Roe"......

Repubs with pro-choice voters say "Roe has been the law for decades....folks here in Frostbite Falls care about more important issues like lower taxes, jobs, and less Gov't interference in their lives."

But like abortion, the real GOP position is...."don't rock the boat." IOW, if the USSC rules against the bans and SSM becomes legal nation-wide.....excluding GOP RHETORIC.....the actual pro-active position of the GOP will be to let it stand.

But this doesn't mean they won't keep fooling the Social Cons....again, just like they have on abortion for 30+ years.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the four gay marriage cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee sets the stage for the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans to be decided once and for all.

With the high court's previous DOMA ruling in place and its refusal to stay lower court rulings bringing marriage equality to a number of states, it can be tempting to think nationwide marriage equality will be a sure bet this year.

For precautions sake though, Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson has spelled out what will happen should SCOTUS go the other way: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/01/what-happens-if-we-lose-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cases.html


With respect to same-sex couples who already have married as a result of court rulings, Lambda Legal strongly believes -- as a federal district court in Michigan ruled just yesterday with respect to marriages entered in that state before the 6th Circuit's adverse ruling -- that those marriages will remain valid and will need to continue to be respected by the states in which those marriages were entered. Nonetheless, the validity of those couples' marriages may be challenged and those couples may want to take additional steps (such as executing wills, durable health care powers of attorney, and securing second parent adoptions) to provide them and their families extra peace of mind and security.

With respect to whether same-sex couples would be able to marry and would have their marriages respected in other states, that would vary from state to state. States in which marriage equality was achieved by a ruling under the state's constitution, by legislative reform, or at the ballot box, would be unaffected. Unmarried same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (the states whose marriage laws the Supreme Court today agreed to review) would be forced to seek reform through the political process. States in which a final judgment has been obtained in federal court would be required to continue to allow same-sex couples to marry and to respect out-of-state marriages entered by same-sex couples unless and until someone with standing makes a motion to reopen the judgment and that motion is granted (unless stays are properly obtained before then). In some states, there may be no one with standing interested in seeking to set aside the existing judgment. Same-sex couples in states in which a judgment is on appeal or can still be appealed whose judgments have not been stayed should be able to continue to marry and to have their out-of-state marriages honored by the state until the existing judgment is stayed or reversed.

There's no question that it would be a mess. This is one additional reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the 6th Circuit's aberrant decision and hold that same-sex couples, like all other couples, share the fundamental right to marry and that it violates federal guarantees of equality and liberty to refuse to allow them to marry or to deny recognition to the marriages they lawfully have entered in other states.

 

Brilllliant!!! One small problem. There are compelling government interests in placing age restriction on driving and drinking. No one has identified what compelling government interest there is in restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

 

Problem with his argument is....if State "A" makes it legal for a 16 year old to get a drivers' licence ....and the teen goes to State "B" where you have to be 18 years old to get a drivers' licence?

State "B" still has to honor State "A"'s licence. So by his own post, he's saying Texas would have to honor a Vermont same-sex marriage license as valid in Texas.

 

I agree they could swing that way, pun intended.

But the proper decision will always be to leave the issue up to the states because marriage is not an issue covered by the constitution.

And anything that is not covered by the constitution goes to states rights. Any other is an improper decision.

And amendments after that one do not override it.



You see, that's the stickler here.

You're wanting one right to override another's.

Discrimination is an awful thing, but it is another form of discrimination when you override another's rights.

 

What "right" would you lose...if a gay couple is allowed to marry?

 

Here's the thing. There are no rights being overridden by SSM being legal. Now you may not agree with current public accommodation laws, and to that I say too bad. Gays already have rights for public accommodation REGARDLESS if they were married or not. Two gays could say they are getting married in a state that doesn't have SSM and they would STILL have to make the cake out of public accommodation laws.

Having SSM legally recognized by the state does not trump anyone's rights.

 

Not exactly. There is no federal law that protects their rights to public accommodation, and likewise none in many states, my own included.

 

Except you want the Supreme Court to force ALL 50 states to recognize.

That is overriding states rights and the right of association.

 

Was states rights being overridden when segregation was ended? Was states rights being overridden when interracial marriage bans were overturned?

You fail to realize that the individual person also has rights as well that the state should not be able to trample on either.

 

! Yes, they were.

2. That's the conundrum of the American constitution. Sometimes in order to protect the rights of the minority, you have to stomp on the rights of the majority, and vice versa.

My poli sci teacher use the phrase, the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, to describe this.

 

States are subject to the people. If they are discriminating against somebody that isn't necessary to discriminate against well exactly what is happening should happen.

 

It's all part of the system of checks and balances, and usually only furthers minority rights and equality when the majority seeks to turn them into second-class citizens. It's already clear PRE-ruling that if the USSC rules to strike down the bans, as expected, that this is something the majority are in favour of. So it's hard "tyranny of the minority".

 

I've never understood the prohibition on polyamourous unions either. I'm guessing your only reply here will be that if I don't agree with you I'm just too immoral to be reasoned with, which is generally the conservative's reaction to any thing they disagree with

 

Many of the bans were passed by referendum - by a majority vote of citizens. If what you claim is actually true and a majority of voters are against marriage bans, none of these would have passed in the first place.

The fact that so many did, and were later overturned by either one judge or a small panel of judges makes it clear that every such case was an example of tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority.

 

I was referring to overall national opinion, which is currently between 55%-59% in favour of marriage equality, depending on which pollster you look at. However, even on the state level public opinion has shifted dramatically, so it's unlikely that those bans would pass today in anywhere but the reddest of states. Most moderates and independents are solidly in favour, as well as 30% of Republicans and a majority of 18-50 year old registered Republicans.

In the grand scheme of things, it's the majority imposing itself on the minority who 'disagree' with marriage equality.

 

The referendum process itself is unconstitutional when applied to a matter of civil rights. Is it that you really do not understand the basics of how our constitutional republic works, or do you just pretend not to, because of same sex marriage? What exactly is your problem with marriage equality anyway?

 

I wasn't speaking of anything you just wrote. I was simply showing evidence to invalidate the claim that a majority of Americans support marriage equality laws. Nothing in my post addresses the constitutionality of referendums or the workings of the American republic.

 

Consider what it actually means if the majority opinion in many states is against marriage equality, but the overall national opinion is for it. It still shows a wish for a minority to impose its will on the majority - in this case a minority of densely populated states imposing their will on a majority of less populated states.

More importantly, how can any opinion poll be considered to be anywhere near as accurate of a measurement of overall opinion than the results of an actual vote?

 

The majority of the state constitutional bans were passed a decade ago, in 2004, and Alaska's ban dates back to 1998. Polling in individual states that had constitutional bans (untill they were struck down in federal court) were showing majorities in favour of repealing the bans.

The point is, due to the seismic shift in opinion on this issue, the law in many of those states certainly didn't reflect the wishes of the people in them, and GOP state lawmakers were systematically blocking legislation calling for new constitutional referendums on SSM - despite the polls.

If you look at the polling, it's clear that if new referendums were held in all the states that passed amendments dating back to 1998, the outcome would be different, or significantly closer - and it's foolish to claim otherwise.

Moreover, I would say that over half the states have majorities supporting SSM today, not just the more populous ones.

 

Well the prohibition had to do with the fact that the sanctity of marriage is undermined by both Plygamy and gay marriage.Furthermore, if groups of people can get married, or if 2 men can get married then it undermines societal function because it undermines family structure. Yes Single parent households are also a major disfuntion, and should be corrected but its no excuse to allow abnormal and preverse structures to take the place of a the family. Father and Mother, and children should be promoted not on religious grounds but rather on social governance grounds.

 

Well I figure if they let conservatives breed and get married, than that is about as perverted as you can get so SSM isn't so bad.

 

So you were not bemoaning the fact that those referendums were overturned by judges? My bad. But you did call it tyranny. So do you think that the "will of the people" should trump the rule of law on civil rights matters and why?

You might also want to look at the poles at the time that those votes were taken as opposed to now. Sure in some states you might get the same result, but nationally the trend is clear.

 

The results of an actual vote is hardly a measurement of "overall opinion", as the majority of people who are eligible to vote, simply don't.

Moreover, those votes are solely a measure of the opinion of the majority of those voters, in that state, at that time. It cannot honestly be stated to represent current, overall public opinion on the matter.

 

If you look at the post I replied to, and the post it was a reply to, both were discussing the tyranny of the minority/majority.

That would be the right term regardless. The original term is "Tyranny of the majority" and is the expression of the problem of democracy.

The judicial review process is a check on that problem, but has a significant risk of becoming a tyranny of its own - with as few as five non-elected judges exerting their will over the entire country.

Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with my opinion of the same sex marriage issue. It was just a discussion as to whether the majority actually supports these bans.