I'm curious as to how you guys think the Supreme Court is going to rule on the gay marriage case. I myself think its going to be disastrous for our side. Lets hear what you think.
Well the Supreme Court could either settle the issue once and for all, or kick the can down the road...eventually we will win, it's just a matter of when. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 but then later corrected itself and overturned that ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Hopefully it won't take quite that long, and I'm still hoping that Anthony Kennedy's vote can be peeled off to secure a win this year. But the Supreme Court really is the number one reason why no queer person or ally of the LGBTQ community should EVER vote Republican. 3 justices are in their 70s and 1 is in her 80s. A Republican president appointing their successors really could set us back decades. If McCain had been elected in 2008, two more conservatives would have appointed to the Supreme Court in the past four years and we wouldn't even stand a chance of winning, and chances are there will be more vacancies in the next four years which will thankfully be filled by Obama rather than Romney, so we at least have a fighting chance.
By my count, there are four votes in favour of striking down Prop 8 and DOMA, 2 swing votes, and 3 assholes votes to uphold. I wouldn't be very surprised either way. If you need some reassurance, the California District Court judge who struck down DOMA a while back, Vaughn R. Walker, cited Anthony Kennedy often in his decision, so it's a bit hard to imagine Kennedy disagreeing with himself. Unfortunately, there are no signs that Antonin Scalia, intends to retire any time soon. I wouldn't be surprised if the bastard tries to hold out until Sarah Palin is sitting in the Oval Office. God forbid that ever happen.
With the world watching and strong stance by Obama and the Clinton's, it seems pretty favourable for us...unless they want the U.S to be labelled as a backwards country.
Does anyone know when they are deciding? I'm not an American, but I'm rather interested in the outcome. I hope they'll do the right thing. Good luck.
I think it's probably to be the more of a "can kicking" as mentioned above. I doubt it will be the biggest "all gays can get married" celebration, but I also doubt it will be completely against us, especially with the power behind it. Since this is the Supreme Court, we do stand a better chance.
I want to remain optimistic that they will find it unconstitutional. I just hope that people don't see it as a final victory and turn their backs on other really important issues, like trans healthcare, LGBT workplace and housing equality, protection against hate-motivated violence, etc.
i feel that because the President and many very big companies are behind the effort to get gay marriage legalized theres a good chance it'll be good! Also polls are showing that more and more americans are in favor gay marriage. My only concern is religion is going to get tied into everything and that could def mess it up.
Assuming the court rules that there's standing to even hear the case, DOMA will most likely be declared unconstitutional. Roberts or Kennedy (or both) have a very good chance of being the swing vote for striking it down, and even Clarence Thomas has a decent chance of joining that side because of the way he reads the constitution. The one that's really up in the air is Proposition 8. It's a state law so it wouldn't be surprising if the court ruled that it wasn't a federal issue. The argument that seemed to me most likely to work legally is this: In other words if the only difference between a same sex union and a marriage is the name, it's only there to put a stigma on the group that can't get married. There's alot more about it here: The Court’s five options in the California marriage case : SCOTUSblog
Actually, I think ruling a gay marriage ban unconstitutional will bring these other issues to light. It's all about humanizing the LGBT community in the eyes of those who see us as subhuman (or at least unworthy of certain legal protections/benefits).
I agree. I think that our community needs to focus on one issue at a time, since we are dealing with idiots/Bigots. Too much and their heads will explode.
No one who cares about those issues is going to turn their backs on them. Of course, there are some people who are only interested in the marriage equality issue in the first place. But they were never supporting the other things anyway, so it isn't really correct to say that they would be "turning their backs." You can't betray a cause you never supported in the first place. I do think that marriage equality will have the effect of bringing LGBT issues broader support from the general population. A lot of people think of them as a mass--persuading them about one will persuade them about the others.
What are the legal arguments being presented? ---------- Post added 19th Mar 2013 at 12:28 PM ---------- Hi, Here is the problem... Nothing to with rights but maybe a State's ability to enforce a law. Remember the Scope's Monkey trial? A teacher tried to teach evolution in a state that banned the teaching of evolution. The State won and won all the appeals. Not that evolution was correct or not but on a states right to enforce its LAW. Look at the argument being presented to the Supreme Court; === On March 26, 2013, the justices will hear arguments on what has been called the Proposition 8 Ban, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court, barring a ruling effectively “kicking” the case because of a lack of the state’s “standing” to appeal, will determine the constitutionality of California’s ban. At issue is an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which in part says: No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. === They might win on simply the law being the law and the State was simply enforcing it. We are not talking about common sense. If common sense was used there would be no lawyers. Expect anything. ---------- Post added 19th Mar 2013 at 12:32 PM ---------- Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ---------- Post added 19th Mar 2013 at 12:36 PM ---------- Second, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes's constitutional right to free speech because it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state: He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law.
