Conservative states trying to hold out on marriage equality

[Skylar]

Centiorari.

Fuck. I keep spelling that wrong.

 

[jillian]

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.

there are instances where there is original jurisdiction. this isn't one of them.

 

[Skylar]

[
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.

Writs of cert. are issued by the SCOTUS for any case they want to hear. They can pluck any case from any court, anywhere, as I understand it. Petitions for writs of Cert are requests for the SCOTUS to issue a Writ and pluck the case up for review by the Supreme Court.

Are there restrictions on who can petitions for writs of cert? I don't think there are.....but I don't know.

 

[bendog]

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.

there are instances where there is original jurisdiction. this isn't one of them.

Yeah but talk of muddying the waters ... literally in some cases.

SCOTUS for law students Original cases SCOTUSblog

 

[Skylar]

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.

They could. But I doubt they would. You only need 4 justices to grant cert.. And Roberts is all about the integrity of the court. He's definitely sign on if there was legal chaos afoot.

The court seems to be intentionally taking its sweet damn time about it. I suspect the rising sentiment among the American people in favor of gay marriage is the reason. The closer the people come to a consensus on the issue, the less dramatic any decision in line with that consensus will be. And the SCOTUS does try and avoid drama.

 

[jillian]

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.

there are instances where there is original jurisdiction. this isn't one of them.

Yeah but talk of muddying the waters ... literally in some cases.

SCOTUS for law students Original cases SCOTUSblog

well, we could go off on that tangent....

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Quit speaking Gay. Don't you know any English?

 

[Plasmaball]

i say texas falls soon....

 

[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.

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.

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

 

[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.

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

De facto, de jure, whatever. The fact is NYC places undue burden on gun ownership, unless you are a police officer, a retired police officer, or know somebody. It is cronyism at its finest, probably why progressives like you support it.

 

[Skylar]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Is that the valid legal reason you are going with?

 

[Pop23]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

 

[bodecea]

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

Oooo! Scary!

 

[bodecea]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

 

[Pop23]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

Yes, why do you ask?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
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.

Writs of cert. are issued by the SCOTUS for any case they want to hear. They can pluck any case from any court, anywhere, as I understand it. Petitions for writs of Cert are requests for the SCOTUS to issue a Writ and pluck the case up for review by the Supreme Court.

Are there restrictions on who can petitions for writs of cert? I don't think there are.....but I don't know.

Only 5% of cases heard by SCOTUS were brought directly to SCOTUS, the rest made their way there via appeals.

They can't go picking and choosing which cases to pluck out and hear, they only have original jurisdiction in a few instances.

1. when one state is suing another
2. all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;

Article III section 2 COTUS

 

[bodecea]

i say texas falls soon....

Steers and Queers....Steers and Queers.

 

[bodecea]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

Yes, why do you ask?

Actually, no it doesn't. Living a lie rarely works. Marrying someone you aren't attracted to just to keep some kind of hetero fantasy going doesn't work well either.

 

[DriftingSand]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.