HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Breaking: US Supreme Cour...

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:27 PM

Breaking: US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

Source: NBC News

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

At the very least, the court will look at this question: When states choose to permit the marriages of same-sex couples, can the federal government refuse to recognize their validity? But by also taking up the California case, the court could get to the more fundamental question of whether the states must permit marriages by gay people in the first place.

The California case involves a challenge to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by 52 percent of voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 couples were legally married earlier that year.

A federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court upheld that ruling, though on narrower grounds that apply only to California. Now that the Supreme Court is wading into the battle, the justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law. Or they could limit their ruling to apply only to the ban in California.

Nine states and the District of Columbia have moved to permit same-sex marriage or soon will -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington.

The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. A provision of the law specifies that, for federal purposes, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Read more: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/07/15756101-us-supreme-court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage-issue?lite

44 replies, 6131 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Breaking: US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue (Original post)
trailmonkee Dec 2012 OP
Politicub Dec 2012 #1
Berlin Expat Dec 2012 #18
Ter Dec 2012 #21
Berlin Expat Dec 2012 #29
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #39
blueclown Dec 2012 #2
Politicub Dec 2012 #3
blueclown Dec 2012 #7
Politicub Dec 2012 #8
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #43
onehandle Dec 2012 #4
malthaussen Dec 2012 #35
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #40
iandhr Dec 2012 #5
frazzled Dec 2012 #19
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #6
Politicub Dec 2012 #10
closeupready Dec 2012 #13
Politicub Dec 2012 #15
JimDandy Dec 2012 #25
yardwork Dec 2012 #26
JimDandy Dec 2012 #31
JudyM Dec 2012 #37
obama2terms Dec 2012 #36
dballance Dec 2012 #9
Politicub Dec 2012 #11
meegbear Dec 2012 #12
yardwork Dec 2012 #27
SoapBox Dec 2012 #14
Mr.Turnip Dec 2012 #16
yardwork Dec 2012 #28
Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #17
Sivafae Dec 2012 #20
elbloggoZY27 Dec 2012 #22
lunatica Dec 2012 #24
Politicub Dec 2012 #30
lunatica Dec 2012 #23
truckfarmer Dec 2012 #32
Heather MC Dec 2012 #33
fascisthunter Dec 2012 #34
ripcord Dec 2012 #38
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #41
davidpdx Dec 2012 #42
MediaMan Dec 2012 #44

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:30 PM

1. Here we go. I'm shaking.

And crying at the same time. There's a lot of uncertainty about which way the justices will go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

18. I'm optimistic, because

Justice Kennedy is essentially a libertarian in outlook.

If it's 5-4, I can reasonably imagine he'd side with the more liberal Justices. Don't forget, he also authored the decision in Lawrence vs. Texas so there's reason to be optimistic.

However, I will say that if the Supreme Court strikes down every state's law banning gay marriage, you can most assuredly count on wingnut heads exploding across the land, from sea to shining sea, with the force of the Tsar Bomba nuclear test. I'd respectfully suggest that you might want to make sure you're not anywhere near wingnut-populated areas. Could be dangerous.

As for me, though I'm overseas, I certainly would be delighted if ALL the anti-SSM laws were struck down, as many of my LGBT friends back in the States could get married if they so choose. And of course, MOAR WINGNUT TEARZ !!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlin Expat (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:20 PM

21. If he's a libertarian, he might take the "states rights" position

 

Many libertarians are pro-choice, for example, yet oppose Roe vs. Wade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:26 PM

29. That's a very good point

and like you said, many libertarians, while opposed to Roe v. Wade, are pro-choice.

It's a tough call. I hope that it ends up like Lawrence v. Texas, a 6-3 decision. I'd even be happy with 5-4 in support of SSM.

I guess we'll all have to wait until June 2013 to find out, in any event. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:16 AM

39. I'm nervous too

I hope the move isn't too premature. Our society has moved greatly in favor of supporting gay marriage and I hope that the supreme court favors the right direction in its decision.

However, if the supreme court decision is in favor of gay marriage, this could greatly speed things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

2. I look forward to Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas ruling on behalf of the states in the DOMA case.

......in my dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:32 PM

3. It comes down to Kennedy or even Roberts, if he cares about his legacy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:36 PM

7. In the case of DOMA, it should be a 9-0 decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:38 PM

8. I couldn't agree with you more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:47 PM

43. Scalia will certainly be in the dissent.

He HATES the idea of homosexuality.

“Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
“we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage,”

He had all sorts of opinions in Lawrence vs. Texas. None of them helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

4. Finally. Time to end the discussion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:58 PM

35. What, you mean like Roe v Wade was "ended?"

However the Court rules, the "discussion" will continue. The best to be expected is that the law will no longer impede human happiness.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:18 AM

40. very true with you Roe vs Wade statement

It would be a big step in the right direction, but it's sad to think that this would hardly be the end of the struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:35 PM

5. Is this good news for equality?

Given the current composition of the SCOTUS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

19. I think it's excellent news

The Supreme Court has not weighed in on gay marriage, leaving the outcome uncertain, but earlier rulings in favor of gay rights give hope to proponents of marriage equality. The four Democratic-appointed justices are widely expected to strike down DOMA. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a presumable swing vote, has written passionately against laws persecuting gays.

“I think Kennedy’s vote is very secure,” Powe said. “I think there are comfortably five votes to overturn DOMA. … Kennedy has a libertarian streak — he has written the key gay rights opinions and I think he will continue to do so.”

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, told TPM ahead of the announcement that “conservatives are probably afraid they will lose Justice Kennedy.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/supreme-court-doma.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:36 PM

6. This is why California

didn't go through the Referendum process again to get Prop. H8 overturned. The whole idea was to get it to the SC and set a precedent (hopefully, in SUPPORT of marriage equality).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:39 PM

10. I'm hopeful and terrified at the same time

With this case being in the hands of a rightward leaning court. But I have faith in Kennedy, since he has a track record of lgbt fairness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:45 PM

13. Roberts actually does, as well.

I think both will vote to strike down DOMA and also to deny standing on the Prop. 8 case. The only way you could vote otherwise, IMO, is if you were strongly homophobic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:49 PM

15. I kind of feel that way about Roberts, too. Who wants to be the Chief Justice

that goes down in history as a homophobe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:02 PM

25. I think 7 of them will support gay marriage:

The 4 liberals, Kennedy-the swing vote, Scalia-the strict constitutionalist, and Roberts because being fair and compassionate are within him and are a bigger reason than protecting a legacy.

I DO believe in fairness; I DO believe in fairness; I DO believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:14 PM

26. Scalia will not side with gay rights. No way, no how.

He's intensely homophobic as revealed by earlier decisions, and he doesn't mind being inconsistent. Many of his previous decisions conflict logically with one another. He doesn't mind being a hypocrite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:48 PM

31. I didn't know he was homophobic.

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I've watched him speak on many forums/interviews etc on C-Span over the years and while he uses brutish intellect to contort anything to fit his strict constitutionalist paradigm, weirdly this actually makes him internally consistent.

Judges ARE able to set aside their personal biases and vote fairly and gay marriage rights are like low lying fruit as far as constitutionality goes. He doesn't have to reach or contort, so I am still going to hope that this will be one of his few decisions I will end up admiring.

If you are right, though, I will prostrate myself in a thread dedicated to your wisdom and insight.

edited to add this link for the article titled "Same-sex marriage symposium: Justice Scalia’s constitutional case for gay marriage" which shows how Scalia, following his own logic, could use choice #3 to rule in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/09/same-sex-marriage-symposium-justice-scalias-constitutional-case-for-gay-marriage/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:55 PM

37. His opinions have been full of homophobic vitriole, based on the Bible and "morality" rather than

the constitution.

Check out this link for an overview that's far too kind to him:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Antonin_Scalia_Civil_Rights.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:56 PM

36. Yep

Yep I have been reading about him. Most of the time he sides with the lgbt side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:38 PM

9. Like I said in my other post - this really scares me

I'm really not sure which would have been better. Waiting for each of the circuits to rule or having SCOTUS take up the matter. So far it seems the federal courts have pretty consistently ruled DOMA unconstitutional across the country. One of the reasons SCOTUS is compelled to take up a case is if the issue at hand has been ruled on differently in the different circuits. Then SCOTUS can resolve the issue and give a ruling the circuits will have to follow consistently across the country. So what is legal or illegal in CA is similarly so in FL. Citizens don't have to figure out major things too much state by state then.

I really don't see the same-sex marriage issue as different than the anti-miscegenation laws issue in Loving vs. Virginia. DOMA establishes a suspect class of people who have traditionally been discriminated against and prevents them from civil recognition of their unions. My opinion and many other's is DOMA is, in fact, rooted in religious bigotry. This is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

I can't think of any compelling reason the US has to prevent same-sex couples from being married in civil marriages. Marriage in the US is a civil contract. Not a religious matter. Remember the Justice of The Peace or any Judge can marry a couple with no requirement for a church or religious ceremony. The religious church stuff is all just ritual. Seriously, you can get married at a drive-through in Vegas. Just ask Brittany Spears.

And now for the snark:

And on the Brittany Spears note let me point out once again the opposition to same-sex marriage is woefully inadequate arguing same-sex marriage flies in the face of the sanctity of marriage. When Spears can have a 72-hour marriage and Kim Kardashian can have a one month marriage both followed by divorce and the divorce rate is between 40% and 50% of all marriages in the US it seems heterosexuals don't need any help from us homos assailing the sanctity of marriage. They're doing just fine on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

11. I'm pretty scared, too. But the moment is here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

12. The Windsor case wil be interesting ...

<snip>

In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership. Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_v._United_States

Since the AHA was constitutional because of it being a tax, will they use an unfair tax burden as a way of making DOMA unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:14 PM

27. This is the case most likely to result in a far-reaching decision to strike down DOMA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:46 PM

14. Ditto to the scared...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:46 PM

16. My gut tells me that Prop 8 will be struck down but that the ruling will be tailored

basically to that specific situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Turnip (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:15 PM

28. I agree. I also think that there is a good chance that DOMA will be struck down in the other case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:49 PM

17. Wow.

Here it is folks. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:34 PM

20. I believe they must answer this issue for the whole country

There are too many people living in a legal limbo because they have married in one state and moved to another that does not recognized the union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)


Response to elbloggoZY27 (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:31 PM

24. You support DOMA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elbloggoZY27 (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:30 PM

30. Justice delayed is justice denied, my friend.

We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:29 PM

23. If they do their job of upholding the Constitution

Prop 8 should be shot down dead. It is unconstitutional to deny any group of persons their rights. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #23)


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:08 AM

33. They can't rule against this. The Government shouldn't be allowed to

tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. It just doesn't makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:09 AM

34. right wingers' last chance to keep gays from having the same rights

just bigots in a different time... they have consistantly been oppressive throughout time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:30 PM

38. It is going to come down to Kennedy

The good news is that when he was in San Francisco he had a couple of openly gay law clerks who worked for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ripcord (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:26 AM

41. yup, once you realize that gay people are people too I found it harder to hate them

I grew up a homophobe but life experience showed me I was wrong. Gay people are just that - they're people. Working and interacting with people I knew were gay really changed a lot for me.

I was taught by my parents to treat everyone with respect and dignity. I don't know why it took me so long to realize that this also applied to how I treat the LGBT community as well.

Anyways, I'm on board with everyone else here. I hope for another victory as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:55 AM

42. There are going to be a bunch of important cases announced next year

It could top last year's announcements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:39 AM

44. Marriage Equality Supporters Don’t Fear Court Challenge

Among the reactions to the announcement Friday that the Supreme Court would consider a pair of laws related to same-sex marriage, supporters of marriage equality say they believe even the conservative high court will uphold their views. - See more at: http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2012/12/10/marriage-equality-supporters-dont-fear-court-challenge/#sthash.rFO1JEOJ.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread