Gay marriage in US could take decades to achieve

[Rolyo85]

I disagree completely. Dismissing the Prop 8 case on standing is NOT ruling that marriage is not a right, it's withholding any ruling for the time being. Which is also why they can revisit gay marriage, not to mention that there are numerous facets to the issue, which would be why they're already considering TWO cases at the same time.

 

[T-Rexx]

I will say this though,by the time Loving Vs. Virginia was decided 37 states had allowed interracial marriage.

This is a good point.

The current court seems persuaded that gay marriage should be decided at the state level because nine states had already decided to adopt gay marriage by the time it heard the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in March. So much progress has been made in the gay rights movement, the court is understood to believe, that it is not necessary for them to adopt gay rights sweepingly for the entire nation.

In 1967, thirty-seven states had already decided to allow mixed-race marriages when the court heard Loving vs. Virginia. The court in 1967 did not rule that so much progress had already occurred in the anti-miscegenation movement that it was not necessary for the court to outlaw anti-miscegenation for the nation. It took the opportunity of Loving vs. Virginia to do the right thing for America.

This Supreme Court under which we currently labor is one of the worst in history. It is the result of 20 years of Republican appointments out of the last 32 years. The Supreme Court in 1967 was the result of 27 years of Democratic appointments out of the previous 35 years.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Kulindahr]

In Prop 8's case,it would most likely let the lower federal court or state ruling declaring Prop 8 null and void if they dismiss it on standing.

It would be a declaration that state laws are meaningless and state supreme courts are incompetent to interpret it.

The federal court asked for the California State Supreme Court's ruling on whether the proponents had standing, because representing a state law in court is a matter of what state law says. The California high court said that by California state law, the proponents are legitimate representatives of the matter.

If SCOTUS denies standing when a state supreme court says that the party in question is a legitimate representative of the state measure, then it means there really are no grounds for standing, and in the future SCOTUS could decide that the attorney general of some given state doesn't have standing, regardless of what state law says, just because SCOTUS feels like going that way. That would be flagrantly unconstitutional, because there is no other authority in the constitution for deciding who can represent a state other than that state itself.

Thus, dismissing it on standing will be a declaration that state laws and courts are irrelevant.

 

[Kulindahr]

This Supreme Court under which we currently labor is one of the worst in history. It is the result of 20 years of Republican appointments out of the last 32 years.

The assertion is true, but the reason is wrong: the reason is that for some three decades,appointments to the Court have become totally political. Republican and Democrat alike have made appointments made not on the basis of any candidate's scholarship or adherence to the Constitution, but on ideological grounds, a matter that just keeps getting worse.

 

[kayman23]

You just described one of the great strengths of the U.S. and called it "sad".

Wow.

That's not really a strength when you have a large number of states displaying hubris towards the rights and disenfranchisement of societal minorities including people of color, LGBTs, or women rights.

 

[kayman23]

The assertion is true, but the reason is wrong: the reason is that for some three decades,appointments to the Court have become totally political. Republican and Democrat alike have made appointments made not on the basis of any candidate's scholarship or adherence to the Constitution, but on ideological grounds, a matter that just keeps getting worse.

Yes, this is true. However, whom are the ones that approve the appointments? The Senate whom has become a house of idiots and ideological sychophants that thinks that if somebody is for status quo versus objectivity then it is a good thing. As a consequence, many judicial confirmations are a result of passively bigoted US Senators that enjoy the fact that the nation is in this social limbo A'OK with this problematic situation.

I'm not here for that type of idiocy.

 

[Ninja108]

Keep in mind,Section 3 of DOMA is being dealt with right now. Section 2 is the one dealing with the states right issue.

 

[EastMed]

That's not really a strength when you have a large number of states displaying hubris towards the rights and disenfranchisement of societal minorities including people of color, LGBTs, or women rights.

I'm inclined to agree. It's the mark of of a conservative/liberal divide where constitutionally, conservatives hold the upper hand.

 

[hotatlboi]

I think it is going to take far longer than 40 years.

I disagree. Just look at the recent examples on other gay related cases. It only took 17 years to reverse Bowers v Hardwick. Given how fast the issue of gay marriage is moving, I think the suggestion of 15-20 years is about right for the Supreme Court to take another look at defining it federally.

 

[scream4ever]

I disagree. Just look at the recent examples on other gay related cases. It only took 17 years to reverse Bowers v Hardwick. Given how fast the issue of gay marriage is moving, I think the suggestion of 15-20 years is about right for the Supreme Court to take another look at defining it federally.

But they're not even going to take a "look" with Perry persay, so they could take a case even just a couple years (i.e. Sandoval) down the road and rule on the constitutionality.

 

[Ninja108]

But they're not even going to take a "look" with Perry persay, so they could take a case even just a couple years (i.e. Sandoval) down the road and rule on the constitutionality.

It depends on what they do with Prop 8. If they dismiss it on standing but let the 9th circuit court ruling on it stand,there's a good chance the Sandoval case won't make it to the Supreme Court.
IF section 3 of DOMA is struck down,expect to see a lot more lawsuits dealing with section 2 which deals with states acknowleding gay marriages performed in other states.

 

[hotatlboi]

But they're not even going to take a "look" with Perry persay, so they could take a case even just a couple years (i.e. Sandoval) down the road and rule on the constitutionality.

We don't know whether they will rule on the merits or not.

 

[scream4ever]

It depends on what they do with Prop 8. If they dismiss it on standing but let the 9th circuit court ruling on it stand,there's a good chance the Sandoval case won't make it to the Supreme Court.
IF section 3 of DOMA is struck down,expect to see a lot more lawsuits dealing with section 2 which deals with states acknowleding gay marriages performed in other states.

If they dismiss it based on standing, then the 9th Circuit ruling is thrown out but the district court ruling stands. If the decision deadlocks, or they refuse to rule altogether, the 9th ruling stands. A friend of mine suggested that the Supreme Court may for several years allow states to overturn their bans one by one in court (and allow Circuit courts to legalize marriage equality in whole districts) by simply refusing to hear said cases.

 

[Ninja108]

If they dismiss it based on standing, then the 9th Circuit ruling is thrown out but the district court ruling stands. If the decision deadlocks, or they refuse to rule altogether, the 9th ruling stands. A friend of mine suggested that the Supreme Court may for several years allow states to overturn their bans one by one in court (and allow Circuit courts to legalize marriage equality in whole districts) by simply refusing to hear said cases.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california...-standing-the-prop-8-outcome-is-the-same.html
Tis true,if they dismiss on merits only the district ruling will stand. If they do a DIG,the 9th ruling will stand. EVen if they make this 9th court ruling null and void,the lawsuits in Nevada and Hawaii will also deal with gay marriage bans,which I'm almost certain will be met with the sames results prop 8 was.
As for the rest,I think is their game here,as dumb as it is to let the state and circuit courts deal with this issue. There IS the theory do that the four conservatives took Prop 8 and DOMA for that very reason,so they could kick the can down the road as much as possible,espescially with Prop 8. If they can take away the 9th circuit's ruling,that would make the lawsuits in Nevada and Hawaii a tougher road to climb then otherwise.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pondering the last bunch of posts here, it strikes me that no matter what SCOTUS does here, our states in the 9th circuit are going to have gay marriage affirmed in the next few years. If they try to kick the can down the road, the 9th is going to get bolder and start ruling more on substance, until every state has seen a suit leave them having to accept same-sex marriage as equal; if they uphold Perry on narrow grounds, the same will happen, and if they go with the proponents the 9th will ignore them and keep ruling that this step toward marriage equality is guaranteed by the Constitution.

And meanwhile, around the country, other courts are going to be ruling that the Constitution demands this step toward equality, until the only way SCOTUS can continue to ignore it is to pretend the Constitution isn't for the people at all, but just for the states -- a theory that went by the wayside generations ago.

 

[Ninja108]

Indeed Kulin, unless Prop 8 is upheld,I see the remaining states that cover the 9th having full marriage equality sooner versus later even if they dismiss the one ruling. As for DOMA,I don't see anyway section 3 is going to be upheld. I do think it will be on the federalism issue versus the equal rights issue sadly but it will still be struck down.
And when that happens,Section 2 will be a lot harder to justify going foward.
One thing is going to be 100% true though. The South and Oklahoma (which is honestly the most homophobic state in the U.S. IMO) are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming,just like they have in the past on other civil rights issues.

 

[EastMed]

There's a neat set of possible Supreme Court outcomes from HRC here:

http://www.hrc.org/standformarriage

http://www.hrc.org/

 

[Ninja108]

I think section 2 is the most likely outcome for both. Sections 3 or 4 would be almost impossible to spin (although Alito,Scalia and Thomas will try) in a legally justfiable matter.