Conservative states trying to hold out on marriage equality

[JakeStarkey]

Gay marriage Conservative states hold out - Yahoo News

 

[jillian]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

 

[Skylar]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

 

[jillian]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

 

[Yurt]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

 

[jillian]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

they have no reason to rule unless and until a circuit goes against the others.

 

[Skylar]

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

They didn't say, so we can only guess. My best guess is that they were concerned about the implications of a binding precedent decision on the matter of the State's authority to define marriage. As USSC decisions tend to cast far greater legal waves than do circuit court decisions.

So they are allowing the lower courts rulings to stand. To date, they have preserved every lower court decision overturning a gay marriage ban.

So far, there's no contradiction between circuit courts, with every single one ruling that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Without such a conflict of rulings, USSC intervention is unnecessary. As the practical effect of the SCOTUS denying centori and the SCOTUS overturning the bans themselves is the same. Save without the binding precedent when the lower courts ruleindividually.

 

[Skylar]

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

The courts didn't say that marriage couldn't be denied for any reason. Rights are denied all the time. Ask anyone in prison. The standard for denial of rights is the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule that the violation service a compelling state interest and have a rational reason.

Gay marriage bans have neither. Legally speaking, they're based on some pretty shitting reasoning. With most boiling down to 'because we can'.

 

[bendog]

And even if a circuit (the 5th or 11th) would uphold a ban, it's no sure thing they'd take it up .... immediately. They could simply sit back and watch the chaos ensue as gay citizens from 40plus states have divorce decrees with property and child support/custody issues that 10orso states refuse to enforce. You get ten thousand or so families in Tex, La, Miss, Sc, and GA with kids not getting support, the pols may have no choice.

 

[martybegan]

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

The courts didn't say that marriage couldn't be denied for any reason. Rights are denied all the time. Ask anyone in prison. The standard for denial of rights is the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule that the violation service a compelling state interest and have a rational reason.

Gay marriage bans have neither. Legally speaking, they're based on some pretty shitting reasoning. With most boiling down to 'because we can'.

Kind of like Gun laws in NYC.

 

[Iceweasel]

We've had marriage equality since interracial marriage laws were overturned. There's no ban on something that's illegal. Gays don't speak English, they speak Gay.

 

[jillian]

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

The courts didn't say that marriage couldn't be denied for any reason. Rights are denied all the time. Ask anyone in prison. The standard for denial of rights is the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule that the violation service a compelling state interest and have a rational reason.

Gay marriage bans have neither. Legally speaking, they're based on some pretty shitting reasoning. With most boiling down to 'because we can'.

Kind of like Gun laws in NYC.

there is no gun "ban" in nyc. i'll remind you, yet again, heller never says you can't regulate. it only says a total ban is unconstitutional

 

[jillian]

We've had marriage equality since interracial marriage laws were overturned. There's no ban on something that's illegal. Gays don't speak English, they speak Gay.

thanki for your useless input

 

[Iceweasel]

thanki for your useless input

Useless to those fluent in Gay.

 

[Yurt]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

they have no reason to rule unless and until a circuit goes against the others.

i thought scotus has original jurisdiction over all constitutional matters...here i thought the 14th was at issue. i agree about no split, but i thought they would take the case based on con law issues.

 

[jillian]

thanki for your useless input

Useless to those fluent in Gay.

no. useless to people who find bigots unappealing and ignorant.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think all sane peoples need to start sticking our foots up the fags ass.

 

[jillian]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

they have no reason to rule unless and until a circuit goes against the others.

i thought scotus has original jurisdiction over all constitutional matters...here i thought the 14th was at issue. i agree about no split, but i thought they would take the case based on con law issues.

which is why I believe the court will only act if the circuits do something they disagree with.

that said, we both know they *could* have taken it and ruled, as they should, that equal protection requires that the fundamental right of marriage be protected for gay americans. but we were discussing why they punted, not whether they should have.

 

[bendog]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

they have no reason to rule unless and until a circuit goes against the others.

i thought scotus has original jurisdiction over all constitutional matters...here i thought the 14th was at issue. i agree about no split, but i thought they would take the case based on con law issues.

No. The Supreme Court takes petitions for cert only from US Circuit Courts and State Supreme Courts. You are right that its jurisdiction is limited federal laws and/or US constitutional issues.

 

[Skylar]

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

The courts didn't say that marriage couldn't be denied for any reason. Rights are denied all the time. Ask anyone in prison. The standard for denial of rights is the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule that the violation service a compelling state interest and have a rational reason.

Gay marriage bans have neither. Legally speaking, they're based on some pretty shitting reasoning. With most boiling down to 'because we can'.

Kind of like Gun laws in NYC.

Depends on the gun laws, I suppose. Some gun laws in Chicago couldn't hold up to the 'Strict Scrutiny' rule. And neither have gay marriage bans. The Chicago laws could at least meet the 'reasonable' standard. While gay marriage bans can't even do that.