Marriage Equality; does the end game begin?

[JakeStarkey]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

 

[deltex1]

Your end game began a long time ago I suspect.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

 

[Redfish]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

yes, normal and traditional are the enemies of the left. disfunctional, immoral, deviant, and aberant are the society of the left. Its a sickness.

 

[1751_Texan]

I can't wait till cats can marry dogs.

 

[Redfish]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

 

[Redfish]

I can't wait till cats can marry dogs.

jake wants to marry his dog

 

[bodecea]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

Stand in line then.

 

[1751_Texan]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

 

[Redfish]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

same argument being used for gay marriage--------equality, discrimination, being allowed to marry who you love, fairness, tolerance. EXACTLY the same legal arguments.

 

[chikenwing]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

The very same that is applied to 2 men or 2 women

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

W-a-y past time for equal rights for all and there's no valid reason to deny it.

 

[deltex1]

Benefits.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

The Insanity Defense...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The whining of the shrinking minority of the far, far right continues.

Someday they will be a blip in a foot note of history . . . then . . . poof . . . gone.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

This is a pretty big predictor. If the USSC takes this case up, I'd say its 90 - 10 that they will extend the recognition of same sex marriages across the nation. If they refuse cert, I see those odds dropping to say, 70 - 30.

Kennedy is loathe to deprive the States of autonomy. But he's also clearly picked a team in terms of gay rights, especially as it relates to children. Which he recognizes gay marriage would encompass. Kennedy has been the author of all the watershed rulings extending gay rights over the last 15 years.

The Lawrence decision overturning sodomy laws, the Romer decision recognizing explicit targeting of gays for the withdraw of the protection of law a constitutional violation, and the Windsor decision, that just slew DOMA. And establishes in 4 long ass paragraphs the litany of ways in which gay marriage bans harm both same sex couples and their children.

My impression is that Kennedy supports same sex marriage rights. But doesn't want to create binding precedent to do it. Which is why they've kept pitching the issue back to the lower courts, hoping that the cicuit districts could resolve the issue practically without the USSC having to establish the same outcome with the far greater ripples of precedent. I expect any such decision to be written by Kennedy (this is kind of his legacy), and for Kennedy to keep his ruling pretty tight, limiting its application narrowly to the specific legal questions being addressed.

I'd guess Kennedy will go far, far, far out of his way in this ruling to limit the applicability of his ruling elsewhere in hopes of keeping the long term binding precedent effects to a minimum. Expect caveats o' plenty, with elaborate explanations for why his ruling applies only to this specific situation.

But honestly, I don't think its even going to be close. I think the most likely outcome in my estimation is 6-3. The justices can read the hand writing on the wall. They don't want to be the next Leon Bazile. They know that this may well be the 'Brown V. Board of Education' of this generation. And I suspect they won't want to be on the wrong side of it.

Many of the denials of cert were done on a 7 to 2 basis. With only Scalia and Thomas dissenting. I think an improbable but plausible outcome will be 7-2.

 

[Syriusly]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage..

If you want to support incest and transgender marriage- that is your right.

 

[Syriusly]

I can't wait till cats can marry dogs.

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

same argument being used for gay marriage--------equality, discrimination, being allowed to marry who you love, fairness, tolerance. EXACTLY the same legal arguments.

Same argument used for mixed race marriage- equality, discrimination, being allowed to marry who you love, fairness, tolerance. Exactly the same legal arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

This is a pretty big predictor. If the USSC takes this case up, I'd say its 90 - 10 that they will extend the recognition of same sex marriages across the nation. If they refuse cert, I see those odds dropping to say, 70 - 30.

Kennedy is loathe to deprive the States of autonomy. But he's also clearly picked a team in terms of gay rights, especially as it relates to children. Which he recognizes gay marriage would encompass. Kennedy has been the author of all the watershed rulings extending gay rights over the last 15 years.

The Lawrence decision overturning sodomy laws, the Romer decision recognizing explicit targeting of gays for the withdraw of the protection of law a constitutional violation, and the Windsor decision, that just slew DOMA. And establishes in 4 long ass paragraphs the litany of ways in which gay marriage bans harm both same sex couples and their children.

My impression is that Kennedy supports same sex marriage rights. But doesn't want to create binding precedent to do it. Which is why they've kept pitching the issue back to the lower courts, hoping that the cicuit districts could resolve the issue practically without the USSC having to establish the same outcome with the far greater ripples of precedent. I expect any such decision to be written by Kennedy (this is kind of his legacy), and for Kennedy to keep his ruling pretty tight, limiting its application narrowly to the specific legal questions being addressed.

I'd guess Kennedy will go far, far, far out of his way in this ruling to limit the applicability of his ruling elsewhere in hopes of keeping the long term binding precedent effects to a minimum. Expect caveats o' plenty, with elaborate explanations for why his ruling applies only to this specific situation.

But honestly, I don't think its even going to be close. I think the most likely outcome in my estimation is 6-3. The justices can read the hand writing on the wall. They don't want to be the next Leon Bazile. They know that this may well be the 'Brown V. Board of Education' of this generation. And I suspect they won't want to be on the wrong side of it.

Many of the denials of cert were done on a 7 to 2 basis. With only Scalia and Thomas dissenting. I think an improbable but plausible outcome will be 7-2.

Pretty much what I am thinking- I wouldn't put any money on it- because the Supreme Court often surprises- but reading Kennedy's input on DOMA and Prop 8, it is hard to imagine him voting now that the children of homosexual parents should not have married parents.

Personally I suspect that Prop 8 was denied on standing- because if it went to vote on Constitutional grounds that the vote would be for gay marriage- and even though Kennedy is leaning that way, he wanted more consensus on the issue before the court issued a ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, brothers and sisters not.

The issue therefire has nothing to do with 'changing' marriage, or allowing 'new' marriage configurations; the issue concerns some states refusing to allow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in, thus violating the 14th Amendment.