Gay Marriage: The Tide is Turning And There's No Going Back

[metta]

Gay Marriage: The Tide is Turning And There's No Going Back

http://digg.com/d31ZA3b

 

[Tommy2Tone]

For some reason I don't trust the SCOTUS. I see a ruling of 5-4 agaist same sex marriage. With that being said I see this as a issues just like Roe vs wade.

 

[scream4ever]

Nearly every legal analysis I've read (even those from conservative commentators) is saying that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

 

[doctorsun]

Nearly every legal analysis I've read (even those from conservative commentators) is saying that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

They have to. This issue has never been argued at this level before. The Supreme Court is *SUPPOSED* to be impartial and look at issues before them from strictly Constitutional points of view. If they truly do that, then there's no other possible outcome. The 14th amendment bars States from taking rights away from citizens. There are no valid arguments in defense of banning same-sex marriage that are not rooted in religious beliefs. For that reason alone, what can the Supreme Court do BUT rule in favor of the plaintiffs? Now, clearly, it's not that simple. Personal biases do come into play, but I think there is a really good chance of things going in our favor.

 

[BearBoi]

To rule against the plaintiffs would amount to handing veto power over the law, perhaps even the Constitution, to any group of fucktards that manage to get an amendment passed by a tiny majority.

At that point, why bother having a court system? Just let mob justice rule. That’s all you’d be doing anyway, right?

Despite the 5-4 makeup of the SCOTUS, I also foresee them ruling against Prop 8.

 

[doctorsun]

I wasn't just commenting on the ruling that SCOTUS will make. I do believe it's likely to be 5-4 in our favor, but even if not, it doesn't prevent gay marriage from happening. It merely reaffirms a "right" to bar same-sex marriage in a state. It would set back our movement to some extent, but not destroy it for good.

No, what I meant was that it remains to be seen whether a constitutional amendment would be adopted to define marriage as man and woman only.

It's a very unlikely event at this point, but still possible given the backlash that may ensue. Senators who were once against a Federal Marriage Amendment may suddenly wish to take it upon themselves to overrule "activist judges."

There are too many Blue Dogs (coalition of moderate/conservative Democrats) in Congress who are beholden to socially conservative views and very anti-progressive districts.

If the Supreme Court votes to overturn Prop 8, it would set a powerful precedent essentially overturning EVERY State's ban on gay marriage. Once Prop 8 is deemed unconstitutional, any first-year law student could make a case for overturning bans in any State that has one. How can the Supreme Court rule that ONE State's ban is unconstitutional but another's is not? It would also hinder any attempt to pass an amendment on a Federal level because it doesn't make much sense to pass an amendment to make something constitutional when the Supreme Court has already ruled that such amendments are unconstitutional in and of themselves.

Basically, if this goes our way, it will be a very, very historic day.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

I guess that I didn't give Prop 8 much thought because I had always thought (perhaps naievely so) that Prop 8 would rightly get tossed with the rest of yesterday's waste. I thought to myself "let them waste their monies." Now it is up to the "Court Gang" to take a stand.

 

[doctorsun]

It wouldn't make a Federal amendment impossible, but it would be a solid argument against it. A Supreme Court ruling that overturns State-level amendments on same-sex marriage based on their unconstitutionality would give a lot of ammunition against any movement to do the very thing that the Supreme Court has already ruled as wrong on a Federal level. Plus, there's the fact that it's already very difficult to ratify amendments that limit the power of the States. So, I don't see a Federal amendment ever being a serious threat. You're right that we shouldn't take it for granted, but it shouldn't be our biggest fear.