SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Sorry I've been gone a while and i told you I wasn't gone forever. That if be back for this interesting and enjoyable debate. I've spent a lot of time in Australia the past few months (awesome country btw) but I'm back... So to continue:

As most people know, the SCOTUS is hearing the arguments for and against the States rights to regulate marriage as they see fit. Months ago I told you that the arguments used to remove DOMA, that were so celebrated by the homosexuals and their advocates, would come back and bite them in the ass. I even provided verbiage from the DOMA decision as to why and how. I also told you that if you think Kennedy is going to do an about face and vote against state rights in favor of a federally defined concept of marriage benefitting homosexuals, you were completely delusional.

And, as usual, it looks like I was right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-historic-same-sex-marriage-arguments/

Get ready. I tried to tell you. Kennedy will NOT vote against state rights. When this is over there will only be 11 states where gay marriage is allowed and you will have to hope and pray (nm that won't do you any good) that you can convince enough people to vote for it because that's the only way it will become allowed.

ETA: Notice even liberal Justice Breyer is questioning the right of the court to make these decisions over the people. If he votes against them, they have no chance.

 

It's nice to see you back!

 

Welcome back!

The SC is known for asking skeptical questions of both sides, even those that they agree with. I doubt Kennedy will vote with the state in this case. I'm predicting either 7-2 or 6-3, depending on how Roberts votes. Kennedy's never been a champion of state's rights, and I doubt he'll start now. In any case, there's no way that the states will win this case.

 

Thanks buddy!! Been real busy with my job and enjoying a roundabout in Australia. But I'm back just in time for this great debate!!

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I disagree. The DOMA decision was exactly that as evidenced by his comments in the decision. He voted to support state rights over federal rights. Kennedy has championed state rights for years. And this will be no different.

I expect a 5-4 vote. But depending on Breyer it could be 6-3 in favor of the states.

Oh and thanks for the welcome back!!

 

There's no way Breyer's going with the states. He's one of the most liberal justices on the court.

Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg are almost guaranteed for SSM.
Thomas and Scalia are almost guaranteed against it.
Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito are swing voters in this case.

It all comes down to those three, and the only one I see swinging over is maybe Roberts. Heck, Alito too maybe. But there's no way they'll get all three swing voters.

 

Roberts has already made his position clear that he's going to vote against gay marriage. And alito voted against gay marriage is the DOMA decision. He definitely won't vote for it here.

And Breyer is actually one of the least liberal of the liberal bunch. He votes conservative 31% of the time which is more than any of the other liberals. With that being said I expect him to vote with the other liberals.

As far as Kennedy he's already intimated how he's going to vote when he wrote the DOMA decision.

There's really only one vote that matters and that's Kennedy. Unfortunately for the homosexuals, Kennedy already hinted which way he was leaning.. Both in the DOMA decision and in his comments to the lawyer for the homosexuals when he said it would be very difficult for the court to overrule a millennia of precedent.

You have to understand, in the DOMA decision Kennedy ruled against DOMA because he was putting forth the argument that the STATE has the right to define marriage over the federal government. And now the homosexuals want him to flip flop and take the position that the federal government has the right to define marriage and not the state.

Not gonna happen.

 

Be that as it may, the case last year that the SC decided to leave up to the district courts seems to show a change in the wind since DOMA.

In any case, we'll see come June.

 

I lost all faith in the USSC over the years. They seem to have only one agenda, strengthening the power of the government. Nobody should have much faith in them after they declared themselves a taxing entity far beyond their Constitutional powers. Quite frankly this one is a no-brainer in favor of State's rights, but the fact it's even at the USSC just goes to show how decayed and activist the lower courts have become.

 

No homosexuals and their advocates get this wrong all the time. It wasn't the states or antigay marriage group that was begging the SCOTUS to take up those cases. It was the homosexuals. The homosexuals wanted them to take up the case and make a definitive decision and uphold those rulings in their favor. But the court denied them that.

Then when the court was presented with a case that made the issue state v federal rights... They took it up. They did so because they are going to rule in favor of state rights over federal.

 

Sad to see so much judicial disconnect and personal/political decadence deciding these issues. If you can't be impartially unbiased and fair/just in these decisions, why are these people allowed to remain in these high positions of power. Judges are not supposed to be voting the party line in any decision they make. To do so shows a complete disrespect for their positions.

With that said, don't have a clue how this is going to come out and have no dog in the hunt.

 

Everybody has a dog in the fight. Everybody. Either your okay with financially supporting homosexual marriage and the consequences that stem from that or you are not.

 

What consequences do you foresee?

 

Well increased healthcare costs for the taxpayer. That includes the ridiculous amount of them with HIV and aids. Considering they're 44x more likely than a straight person to have aids.

They're attempting to force chirches to allow them to rent their facilities. They would have more of a "legitimate" platform with which to inundate children with in schools with their behavior. Of course they would have the right to adopt giving people, who are FAR more likely to molest children, unfettered access to children. And we haven't even began to talk about the other benefits of marriage that are paid for both directly and indirectly by American citizens.

Sorry I'm on a phone. Difficult to not have errors. And I can't format it like I'd like.

 

this is the part that blows the case for the other side

"He also pressed attorney John Bursch, representing the states that ban same-sex marriage, to explain how granting gay couples a right to marry would harm traditional marriages"

there is no harm, and they can't provide any....

- - - Updated - - -

I thought republicans thought tax cuts don't cost us anything

 

Welcome back glad to see you return.

Until it is decided that it's ok to criminalize sex acts because of their higher propensity for disease communication, then that isn't a factor that will ever be brought into play.

And your notions about molestation are based on false definitions of philias.

Personally, I can tell you with experience, that the landscape will not be altered all that much but allowing SSM.

 

churches are exempt and allowed to discriminate, always have been

 

Of course tax cuts cost. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about benefits for marriage.

the question is not does it harm regular marriage the question becomes is the behavior detrimental to the state to the point where the state determines its not acceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhhh no they're not. Hence the legislation in Hawaii.

 

Welcome back man! Hope you had a nice trip! I hope to go there one day.

 

Sex acts don't have to be criminalized for a state to determine the behavior is detrimental and for the record they WERE criminalized before.

And no your argument about different Philips is nothing more than an excuse. You can't even make the argument that someone who engages in sexual conduct with someone underage has a Philips unless he HONESTLY answers your questions. Further did you know someone can have sex with a 10 year old and is NOT necessarily considered pedophilia?

Oh but you don't want to talk about that because it blows your excuses out of the water.

And thanks much to you and armysoldier!! Glad to be back

 

Yet in the cases where they could have upheld the bans pending the SCOTUS court ruling they have denied those in each case allowing for SSM to happen in those states. Sorry you are just plain wrong.

The real question is are you going to duck out again after the June ruling so you don't have to post you were wrong?

 

They didn't do so because they didn't have a question presented to them which would allow the same sex bans to be upheld. Once they got that they took up the case.

Don't worry I'll be here. And I expect you to show up in my thread when they rule.

 

Don't worry I will, but it will be to boast about how wrong you are when they rule in favor of SSM. I've got side bets which will net me some good money over it too.

Bets are at 5-4 in favor of SSM although I hope it will be 6-3 in favor of SSM. What are you going to do when SSM is legalized across the land?

 

If your going to use the possibility of disease as an argument against legalizing SSM, then you have to accept that a lot of straight people engage in the same conduct, and by not applying it equally then it's discrimination.

If someone rapes a child, then it's already considered illegal. Trying to apply the term homosexual to someone who rapes a male child is deceitful and lacking of knowledge regarding the different philias related to differing ages of children. Adult men in relationships with Women who rapes a child, it makes him either a pedo, a ****, or an Ephebophilia. The sex of the child has no bearing on that. Thus, your notion that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles is both inaccurate and again, deceitful as it creates an image in uneducated readers heads that is not true.

I'll talk about it anytime any day, though i'll try and be more respectful to your and your position then you are of me and mine.

No problem, always fun debating with you

 

One thing can be for certain. I put good money on it being yet another 5-4 vote which ever way it goes.

One thing to remember is that I remember Roberts asking some tough questions about the ACA case. He still upheld much of it (changed it) it even though many people including lots of liberals thought SCOTUS was going to tank the entire thing.

 

Courts do not and should not(and thankfully it appears will not) vote according to the Changes of the Wind, but rather precedent. And that precedent, has LONG been established before Liberal groups wanted to march this before the Court. Marriage is a Federal Right, but the definition of Marriage is left up to the States.

That precedent has long been held, and there's no logical reason for overturning it. And "It's not fair..........." Is NOT an argument against precedent. I already explained why Marriage should be left up to the States in an earlier thesis, a thesis I believe Kennedy would largely agree with.

Thankfully, this issue(or non-issue as it were) can finally be addressed politically, legislatively as it were. And I'm a proponent of the Paul Solution.