mal
Diamond Member
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics
Well then... It's apparently on.
peace...
Well then... It's apparently on.
peace...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics
Well then... It's apparently on.
peace...
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics
Well then... It's apparently on.
peace...
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics
Well then... It's apparently on.
peace...
Yes it is. It is on.
Very exciting. Can't wait until June!
.
Two different cases here.
United States v. Windsor - this challenged part of DOMA, the part that says gay couples can't get Federal benefits. What it doesn't challenge, apparently, is the bigger issue of whether states could refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses. In any event, DOMA was always unconstitutional, it was passed by Congress to get the issue off the table when it seemed Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Because it took another decade for a state to actually legalize same-sex marriage, it's taken a while for for someone to say the Emperor has no clothes. Striking down DOMA would effectively make gay marriage legal for the whole country, because the nine states that allow it would issue licenses to people the other states and the Feds would have to recognize.
Hollingsworth v. Perry is the more troubling one to me, because as I've said, I'm never really comfortable with the courts legislating from the bench, using their one-stop shop for doing so, the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker clearly had a conflict of interest, when he crafted a ruling that was geared towards previous rulings made by Justice Kennedy. Even the 9th Circuit reeled him back a bit, and frankly, when you get reeled back by the "9th Circus", you've probably gone too far.
The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)
Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.
If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.
I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...
.
The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)
Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.
Both Kennedy and Roberts have their legacy to consider. Roberts is young enough to not want to be on the wrong side of this...
I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...
.
Not a bad idea.
What the fuck, as long as you're handing out rights may as well hand out some useful ones.
Just something else that the government will force onto the majority. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?
If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.
After the fiasco of Roe v. Wade, they might just rule against same sex marriage and let it be fought out where it should be, in legislatures.
If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.
After the fiasco of Roe v. Wade, they might just rule against same sex marriage and let it be fought out where it should be, in legislatures.
Just something else that the government will force onto the majority. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?
How is this being forced upon you?
If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?