What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[Ninja108]

This is from a post on Equality on Trial:

"So you all may know (I've posted it before on a amicus curie) I have a good friend in family law here in South Florida. Well we are all from Michigan, where he has family there in law that are part of the DeBoer v. Snyder case (for the pro-ME side). He emailed me and said that they (counsel) received word from the SCOTUS this morning that they will advise on Friday 1/16 if review is granted.

I have no doubt that this was relisted for Friday as to determine which case is the appropriate vehicle to close this chapter! Can't wait to see which case(s) are selected from the four! Hell, take all four, affirm all lower court judgements, reverse the 6CA (adios SUTTON/COOK!) , and put Baker into the dustbin of history!"

I hope this is true!!!

That is my hope as well. Strike both in and out of state bans on gay marriage and let's be done with it.

 

[Alnitak]

SCOTUS has granted four petitions, including two license cases from Michigan and Kentucky. The briefing schedule is listed below.

 

[LutheranGuy]

All of that work comes to down one day of 90 minutes of talking coffee breath. Such a fleeting procedure for an outcome with such finality. It is just mesmerizing.

 

[scream4ever]

Technically it'll be two and a half hours.

 

[DonQuixote]

Yes, they extended the session for this.

Here's to joining the rest of the civilized world - at least on paper.

 

[Ninja108]

Seen wayyy too many people in cyberspace who think they will split the baby, striking down the part of the bans that forbid acknowledgment of marriages performed elsewhere while upholding state bans.
IMO, if that happens, it will still be a loss.
We need all or nothing, period.

 

[scream4ever]

Seen wayyy too many people in cyberspace who think they will split the baby, striking down the part of the bans that forbid acknowledgment of marriages performed elsewhere while upholding state bans.
IMO, if that happens, it will still be a loss.
We need all or nothing, period.

People were expressing the same concerns before Windsor. We've got this trust me

 

[Teddybear71]

How sure are we realistically of winning this, considering the makeup of the court? Personally, I'm shocked that in this day and age even ONE justice will vote against equality, let alone 3 or 4 (or more)... And can the win be reversed again if the court gets stacked with conservative justices?

Someone really needs to remind justice Thomas that he wouldn't even be on the court if it weren't for another Supreme Court ruling half a century ago...

 

[Alnitak]

Lambda Legal has updated its case list.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/pending_marriage_equality_cases_as_of_1-15-15.pdf

 

[Alnitak]

How sure are we realistically of winning this, considering the makeup of the court? Personally, I'm shocked that in this day and age even ONE justice will vote against equality, let alone 3 or 4 (or more)... And can the win be reversed again if the court gets stacked with conservative justices?

Someone really needs to remind justice Thomas that he wouldn't even be on the court if it weren't for another Supreme Court ruling half a century ago...

We've been following the history of gay rights issues before the court for a long time and I can say in my opinion that the chances of losing are less than winning the lottery.

 

[DonQuixote]

Matt,
I like your analogy. I suspect you're right.

 

[scream4ever]

How sure are we realistically of winning this, considering the makeup of the court? Personally, I'm shocked that in this day and age even ONE justice will vote against equality, let alone 3 or 4 (or more)... And can the win be reversed again if the court gets stacked with conservative justices?

Someone really needs to remind justice Thomas that he wouldn't even be on the court if it weren't for another Supreme Court ruling half a century ago...

Based on the signals the justices have given us (mainly not granting cert to rulings in our favor and denying stays to favorable rulings which haven't yet reached them), it's all but certain for them to rule in our favor. To reverse it at this point (or with a different court in the future) would mean putting into question all the marriages which have taken place in states where stays/cert was denied. It would result in a legal nightmare. In short, it would be nigh on impossible.

 

[Teddybear71]

Gosh, that means when we're done, we're done. I feel I may very well shed a tear or two when that day finally comes!

 

[Kulindahr]

Seen wayyy too many people in cyberspace who think they will split the baby, striking down the part of the bans that forbid acknowledgment of marriages performed elsewhere while upholding state bans.
IMO, if that happens, it will still be a loss.
We need all or nothing, period.

Can't happen. It's too obvious that to honor marriages from outside a state but not acknowledge them when done inside the state is a violation of equality before the law. The only way they could have pulled the above scenario was to take only a case with out-of-state marriages and ignore others until later, but that would make them look stupider than if they took the stupidest decisions they'd each made and wrapped them together.

 

[Kulindahr]

How sure are we realistically of winning this, considering the makeup of the court? Personally, I'm shocked that in this day and age even ONE justice will vote against equality, let alone 3 or 4 (or more)... And can the win be reversed again if the court gets stacked with conservative justices?

Someone really needs to remind justice Thomas that he wouldn't even be on the court if it weren't for another Supreme Court ruling half a century ago...

I'm thinking 6-3. It could even go 7-2; Alito occasionally manages to put obvious matters of reason ahead of his prejudices, and with so many states now actually performing same-sex marriages, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes that way this time. Since Scalia has been known to make up his own facts to support his positions, he's a lost cause, though, and Thomas isn't going to go where Scalia doesn't lead.

 

[scream4ever]

This article makes me MUCH more confident of Roberts ruling in our favor:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...y-marriage-john-roberts-could-change-his-mind

 

[cocksucker4use]

It is interesting that SCOTUS in combining the questions of the four separate suits, parses the right to gay marriage into two questions. Namely, whether the 14th amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether states that do not do so must recognize such marriages legal in other states that do. It would appear that if the decision on the first question is affirmative, then the second question is moot. Or, perhaps not. The first question could be denied, while the second is affirmed. Or, affirming both questions would guarantee equal protections to same sex spouses in all states. Period.

The 14th Amendment holds states' and federal powers are subject to protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Perhaps more specifically, citizens in all states are granted equal protection under the law. Thus, laws regulating marriage may not discriminate between one group or class of citizens and another.

In the court cases to date, it would appear that advocates for Gay Marriage are confronted with a situation not unlike campaigning against Mitt Romney. That is, you don't have to say a lot. He will repeatedly and undeniably prove yours to be the better candidate by word and deed.

The arguments against gay marriage are specious: The Bible says so; It detracts from mixed sex marriage; The purpose of marriage is procreation, ergo...; Same-sex marriage discourages mixed sex marriage for the purposes of procreation; Religious freedom will be compromised, and so on. Obviously, same sex marriage neither threatens nor harms anyone or any institution. It is impossible to come up with an argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on religious or social prejudices, and such arguments can not obtain in the face of the protections granted us by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[hotatlboi]

Man the GOP candidates dodged a huge bullet if this issue is settled before the primaries start. Being against gay marriage is going to be untenable in the 2016 election and would have been a huge wedge issue for Dems if it was still in play. Of course the Dems still have marijuana as a wedge issue.

 

[hotatlboi]

Seen wayyy too many people in cyberspace who think they will split the baby, striking down the part of the bans that forbid acknowledgment of marriages performed elsewhere while upholding state bans.
IMO, if that happens, it will still be a loss.
We need all or nothing, period.

That would be a terrible result, maybe even a step backward. Because that could undo marriage rights in all the states that have had it legalized through the courts, leaving only a handful of states in the north and west that have done it through the legislature or popular vote. So while theoretically opening it up to everyone, in reality it would only be available to relatively affluent people who can afford to travel to one of those states (potentially far away) to have their marriage.

 

[TX-Beau]

Seen wayyy too many people in cyberspace who think they will split the baby, striking down the part of the bans that forbid acknowledgment of marriages performed elsewhere while upholding state bans.
IMO, if that happens, it will still be a loss.
We need all or nothing, period.

Is that legally possible? Can The Nine order a state to violate it's laws by de-facto enforcing something another state has legalized. If it's illegal to be married in Texas, is it possible to enforce illegal marriages from California? If the Nine tried that, I suspect the lawsuits would fly even faster.

Say it's legal to posses Mary Jane in - oh I don't know - Colorado, and I bought me some killer ass hydro in Denver, could the Nine rule that since the transaction was made where it was legal, Texas must therefore enforce my right to possession?

That would just mean there was no legally enforceable ban, since any idiot would simply hop the state line, get married, and expect Texas to enforce the license, while collecting in Texas all the rights and privileges incurred wherever the licence was issued - which The Nine would have made mandatory.

I suspect not.