What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[JackinSea]

I would think they'd (SCOTUS) take a very dim view of this stunt, at a minimum.

 

[Alnitak]

Do they have the authority to over-rule a federal judge? I didn't think so .....

Appeals of federal questions are taken directly to SCOTUS from state supreme courts, so in theory yes, but rarely seen.

 

[scream4ever]

Federal judge refuses to lift stay in Arkansas:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/federal-judge-wont-lift-stay-in-arkansas-same-sex-marriage-case/

Disappointed that they don't seem to want to appeal it. There really is no reason not to try as we have nothing to lose at this point.

Two additional points; we should soon be hearing from the Arkansas Supreme Court as to whether or not they will rule on the marriage case with the old justices or the new ones, and the 8th Circuit is poised to rule on the Missouri stay since they are going to have to very soon issue one for Nebraska since it's set to expire on Monday.

 

[T-Rexx]

I would think they'd (SCOTUS) take a very dim view of this stunt, at a minimum.

SCOTUS could have prevented all this nonsense by a sensible ruling in Windsor. The logical conclusion of Windsor would be that gay marriage should be the law of the land. But the court went to great lenghts to avoid the obvious in that case.

Similarly, had SCOTUS accepted the Cincinnati anti-gay discrimination case in 1998 and made the obvious ruling in that case, they could have avoided the Arkansas, West Virginia, and Texas laws/bills, at least one of which they will now be forced to rule on.

SCOTUS has not had a great track record over the last couple of decades. Previous courts have helped to steer the nation toward justice. This one has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to obvious conclusions everyone else reached long ago.

 

[Ninja108]

That weasel Moore recused himself. Seems he realized he had telegraphed his animus a little too overtly. I'm sure the rest of the judges hold the same backward opinions though as evidenced by this.

They are elected judges so of course they will rule against us.

 

[hotatlboi]

SCOTUS could have prevented all this nonsense by a sensible ruling in Windsor. The logical conclusion of Windsor would be that gay marriage should be the law of the land. But the court went to great lenghts to avoid the obvious in that case.

It is standard practice for courts to rule as narrowly as possible. The basic constitutional question on gay marriage had not been fully heard in the lower federal courts when Windsor was decided, so it is entirely correct that they felt it was premature to rule on that then.

 

[Alnitak]

SCOTUS could have prevented all this nonsense by a sensible ruling in Windsor. The logical conclusion of Windsor would be that gay marriage should be the law of the land. But the court went to great lenghts to avoid the obvious in that case.

Judges are not allowed to rule beyond the scope of the question before them. In Windsor the issue was DOMA, not state marriage bans.

 

[AstareGod]

SCOTUS will hear the cases from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 28.

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear oral arguments on April 28 in four cases that are likely to determine if states can ever ban gay marriage

The court will hear an extended 150-minute argument in cases concerning same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

http://www.trust.org/item/20150305152915-wx153/?source=jtTheWire

 

[T-Rexx]

It is standard practice for courts to rule as narrowly as possible. The basic constitutional question on gay marriage had not been fully heard in the lower federal courts when Windsor was decided, so it is entirely correct that they felt it was premature to rule on that then.

Judges are not allowed to rule beyond the scope of the question before them. In Windsor the issue was DOMA, not state marriage bans.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not a typical court. By its very nature, it establishes precedent in law. The concept of broad and narrow rulings therefore frequently has little meaning here.

The Hobby Lobby decision was claimed by the court to be an extremely narrow ruling. In fact, it has had quite broad implications.

And, as far as lower federal courts hearing complaints first, it is well to remember that Loving v. Virginia was heard by only a single federal court before appeal to SCOTUS. It went from lawsuit to SCOTUS decision in 33 months. And I don't believe that there were any other anti-miscegenation cases heard in any other federal courts prior to the Loving case. SCOTUS, in that instance, did not wait for America to decide the case for them.

 

[bankside]

This is where the U.S. becomes very British in its process of law.

No court has the discretion to rule on matters not put before it. It's common sense and the wisdom of experience. Those two things are sufficient to keep things that way.

 

[Ninja108]

The 8th circuit granted a stay in the Nebraska case, no shocker there.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Supreme Court of the United States is not a typical court. By its very nature, it establishes precedent in law. The concept of broad and narrow rulings therefore frequently has little meaning here.

This is false. Most SCOTUS decisions are not broad sweeping rulings. Most are just remanded to lower courts with some minor point of clarification.

The Hobby Lobby decision was claimed by the court to be an extremely narrow ruling. In fact, it has had quite broad implications.

Of course there are exceptions but generally they try to rule as narrowly as possible.

And, as far as lower federal courts hearing complaints first, it is well to remember that Loving v. Virginia was heard by only a single federal court before appeal to SCOTUS. It went from lawsuit to SCOTUS decision in 33 months. And I don't believe that there were any other anti-miscegenation cases heard in any other federal courts prior to the Loving case. SCOTUS, in that instance, did not wait for America to decide the case for them.

Whether or not it was in the courts, America had largely decided at least in terms of the law, since only 17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[scream4ever]

The 8th circuit granted a stay in the Nebraska case, no shocker there.

I really hope our side appeals to the SCOTUS.

 

[Ninja108]

I really hope our side appeals to the SCOTUS.

I'm hoping for that as well.

 

[chrisrobin]

Heard a statement on on marriage equality by Ruth Bader Ginsburg yesterday: she seemed pleasantly ambiguous.

 

[hotatlboi]

Heard a statement on on marriage equality by Ruth Bader Ginsburg yesterday: she seemed pleasantly ambiguous.

Of course she was, they can't comment on upcoming cases they will be ruling on.

 

[Teddybear71]

What's with all these "religious exemption" bills coming along now? I mean, I'm not surprised at how much the US has to be dragged into the future, but these discriminatory bills will have to be fought against as well, right? This battle is going to go on for at least another generation...

 

[T-Rexx]

This is false. Most SCOTUS decisions are not broad sweeping rulings. Most are just remanded to lower courts with some minor point of clarification.

It's true that most decisions are remanded to lower courts. But even in doing that, the court sets legal precedent for the entire nation. Virtually every time these "minor" decisions come up subsequently in another court, SCOTUS's actions will be referenced, even decades later.

The penultimate nature of SCOTUS decisions makes the decisions broadly influential, even when the findings themselves are quite focused.

Whether or not it was in the courts, America had largely decided at least in terms of the law, since only 17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.

This is true. Those states which had decided in favor of miscegenation had done so, in large part, in the nineteenth century. Those 17 states which still prohibited it were never going to permit it. Ever. I think the Warren Court acted as it did in Loving because it realized that no amount of debate on the subject was ever going to change people's (largely regional) opinions.

I actually think the gay marriage situation in the USA is in a similar situation, however. It's just a personal belief, but I think that those US states which have not already voted in gay marriage by popular mandate or by legislative fiat (as opposed to having it imposed by the courts) will never permit gay marriage. At least not anytime soon. While there has been great progress in the acceptance of homosexuality in America since Stonewall, that progress has been regional. It has occurred in parts of America that were already sensitive about the problem of bigotry. There is something about prejudice that is self-sustaining. The only way to destroy it is to impose justice from without. The federal courts have been imposing gay marriage on a regional and piecemeal basis for some time now, which is helpful but still regional and piecemeal. And that consistent trend in favor of marriage equality has largely occurred not because Americans are becoming more tolerant, but because of the precedent of Windsor. The federal courts seem to think that the logical conclusion of Windsor would have been to strike down anti-gay marriage laws across America, and that has helped to guide their decisions.

If SCOTUS had simply used the Windsor case to invalidate anti-gay marriage statutes everywhere, we would have exactly the same situation we have now in most of America, only applied universally across the entire nation, not piecemeal. That would have been a more effective and reasonable approach to resolving the problem, IMO. I am not persuaded that the situation has been improved by dragging this out for so long across so many courts.

If the Roberts Court had been in place in 1967, it would have refused to hear Loving, of course. Then it would have refused to hear the next 30 or so anti-miscegenation cases appealed to it. Then, sometime around 1980, it would have accepted a case and ruled 5-4 in favor of miscegenation. The liberal justices and Kennedy would have struck down the anti-miscegenation laws, while Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would have voted to support them. Scalia would have written the dissenting opinion, in which he would have argued the Constitution does not permit mixing of the races, since some of its drafters owned slaves.

 

[JackinSea]

"I think that those US states which have not already voted in gay marriage by popular mandate or by legislative fiat (as opposed to having it imposed by the courts) will never permit gay marriage." I'm going to disagree in a "re-vote" some of those states would be willing to repeal their own mini-DOMAs.

I'm not willing to fault SCOTUS on Windsor, as state license issuing wasn't the specific point in question there. That ruling helped accelerate marriage inevitability.

 

[Alnitak]

I actually think the gay marriage situation in the USA is in a similar situation, however. It's just a personal belief, but I think that those US states which have not already voted in gay marriage by popular mandate or by legislative fiat (as opposed to having it imposed by the courts) will never permit gay marriage. At least not anytime soon.

At least a dozen states with both a DOMA amendment still on the books and initiated amendments have a clear majority in favor of repeal, so it would be relatively straightforward to do that in 2016 if it were really needed.