LGBT

xchrom

(108,903 posts) Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:55 AM Dec 2012

Why the Supreme Court Will Affirm Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/09-2

1. It never would have agreed to hear both the California case against Prop 8 and the New York case against the Defense of Marriage Act unless it was prepared to knock the whole edifice of discrimination down. It could have taken one of the cases only, and settled for a narrow ruling. But instead it seems to be reaching for a broad one.

2. It must know that history is against these bigoted laws, and the American people are against them, as the public opinion polls show and as the voters indicated on Nov. 6 in Washington, Maryland, Maine, and Minnesota.

3. The dream team of Theodore Olson and David Boies, who clashed in Bush v. Gore, are now on the same side, defending the right of same-sex marriage in California. They are sure to make formidable arguments before the court.

4. Justice Kennedy, the traditional swing vote, was the author of the two biggest Supreme Court decision so far upholding gay rights. He wrote the decision in the 1996 Romer v. Evans case, which affirmed the right of gays to bring discrimination suits. The Colorado amendment banning such suits was improper because “homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint,” he wrote. He also noted that the amendment “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the Supreme Court Will Affirm Same-Sex Marriage (Original Post) xchrom Dec 2012 OP

Good reasoning sellitman Dec 2012 #1

from your thread mitchtv Dec 2012 #2

Probably HillWilliam Dec 2012 #3

Such a ruling also allows them to appear more riqster Dec 2012 #4

I sincerely hope you are correct. MineralMan Dec 2012 #5

I am crossing my fingers for 6-3. beyurslf Dec 2012 #6

I have severe doubts that the Court will back us. Pab Sungenis Dec 2012 #7

Why do you consider Justice Kagan a "solid no vote"? I've read quite a bit of analysis Rowdyboy Dec 2012 #8

As posted innumerable times.... Pab Sungenis Dec 2012 #9

Thank you for the response and the link....I honestly had not seen it and now at least I know Rowdyboy Dec 2012 #10

actually that answer doesn't make her votes necessarily a no on either case dsc Dec 2012 #11

sellitman

(11,607 posts)

1. Good reasoning

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:08 AM

Dec 2012

and I'm not from that State but...

"Show me"

mitchtv

(17,718 posts)

2. from your thread

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:19 PM

Dec 2012

to God's ears

HillWilliam

(3,310 posts)

3. Probably

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:16 PM

Dec 2012

But whatchawanna bet Fat Tony and Thomas the Useless will be guaranteed to be on the wrong side of history. AGAIN. I'm thinking 5-4 to strike DOMA down (or just let it fail on lack of standing), then the games (and the howling) really begin.

riqster

(13,986 posts)

4. Such a ruling also allows them to appear more

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:39 PM

Dec 2012

Anti Big Government. That alone suggests they will against the restrictions.

MineralMan

(146,331 posts)

5. I sincerely hope you are correct.

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:43 PM

Dec 2012

beyurslf

(6,755 posts)

6. I am crossing my fingers for 6-3.

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:33 PM

Dec 2012

kennedy and roberts don't want to be on the wrong side of history.

Pab Sungenis

(9,612 posts)

7. I have severe doubts that the Court will back us.

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:14 PM

Dec 2012

There are four solid no votes: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kagan. There are three solid yes votes: Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg. We need to lure both Kennedy and Roberts over to our side, they only have to pick off one.

Rowdyboy

(22,057 posts)

8. Why do you consider Justice Kagan a "solid no vote"? I've read quite a bit of analysis

Reply to Pab Sungenis (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 AM

Dec 2012

on the cases involved and I haven't seen anyone else that has characterized her as part of the conservative block so you really take me by surprise by your contention. I don't deny that its possible, I simply don't understand your reasoning.

Pab Sungenis

(9,612 posts)

9. As posted innumerable times....

Reply to Rowdyboy (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:40 PM

Dec 2012

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-is-no-federal-constitutional-right-to-samesex-marriage.html

Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Unless she changes her position and actually votes to uphold marriage equality I will continue to consider her anti-gay and a stain on the Court. I probably will consider her to be that even afterward considering her positions against the Fourth Amendment in recent rulings.

Rowdyboy

(22,057 posts)

10. Thank you for the response and the link....I honestly had not seen it and now at least I know

Reply to Pab Sungenis (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:05 PM

Dec 2012

what to expect.

dsc

(52,166 posts)

11. actually that answer doesn't make her votes necessarily a no on either case

Reply to Pab Sungenis (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:06 AM

Dec 2012

The cases taken were a case that said that if a state recognizes a marriage, the feds have to as well (the DOMA case from New York). The other said that if a state grants a right (such as marriage) it can't turn around and take it away for no reason (Prop 8). Neither one found a federal right to marriage per se. The first case is pretty much a states' rights case while the second is a due process argument for removal of any right that the state has granted.

Reply to this discussion