HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » LGBT Civil Rights and Activism (Group) » What if gay marriage make...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:11 PM

What if gay marriage makes it to the Supreme Court? Please Vote

One day one of the state constitutions which have made homosexuals 2nd class citizens will (I think) make it to the supreme court.
How would the current justices vote?
Please vote and leave comments if you like.
9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Gay Marriage IS Constitutional
8 (89%)
Gay Marriage IS NOT Constitutional
0 (0%)
Send back to the state because it is a state matter
1 (11%)
Send back to lower court for verification/clarification
0 (0%)
Supreme Court will never touch such a hot potato
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

8 replies, 1380 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 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if gay marriage makes it to the Supreme Court? Please Vote (Original post)
SoutherDem May 2012 OP
FirstLight May 2012 #1
Vincardog May 2012 #2
Skinner May 2012 #3
SoutherDem May 2012 #6
get the red out May 2012 #4
Scuba May 2012 #5
ShadowLiberal May 2012 #7
Warren DeMontague May 2012 #8

Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:13 PM

1. oops...

i voted what "I" would vote... and there should be no question of ANY marriage being constitutional or not IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:15 PM

2. All men (and women) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:15 PM

3. Your poll is confusing.

If/when this happens, SCOTUS will decide whether it is constitutional to prohibit gay marriage. They will not be deciding whether it is constitutional to allow gay marriage.

Also, it is unclear whether you are asking DUers what they think SCOTUS will do, or if you are asking DUers for their personal opinion on how SCOTUS should decide it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #3)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:35 PM

6. I have clarified.

I have a question

You said;
If/when this happens, SCOTUS will decide whether it is constitutional to prohibit gay marriage. They will not be deciding whether it is constitutional to allow gay marriage.


My first thought was isn't it the same, but what if instead of a homosexual challenging say the new NC law so that SCOTUS is deciding if it is legal to prohibit, a heterosexual challenges a law in a state where it is legal, would that decide if gay marriage is constitutional? If not how?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:15 PM

4. Depends on if the President is re-elected

And if we get a Democratic majority in the House and 60+ Democrats in the Senate, THEN if any supreme court justices retire (or Scalia keeps adding to his grease gut) President Obama can replace them with rational, civilized justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:19 PM

5. They would split 5-4, with a narrow majority banning gay marriage...

.... while surfing rentboy.com.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:16 PM

7. Either punt (by keeping things the same) or legalize

I don't see how even a bunch of activist conservative judges can possibly justify a ruling banning gay marriage when there's lots of pastors willing to marry them, and even states with gay marriage legalized don't force anyone to marry them who doesn't want to (unless they're a state worker who has to rubber stamp all marriage licenses that meet the state's rules).

Even a 'this is up to the churches to decide as part of the 1st amendment freedom of religion' ruling won't really work, since there's lots of 'open and affirming' churches that strongly support gay marriage, and such a decision would just create far more problems that conservatives also find abhorrent (like legalizing polygamy if even one church decides it's consistent with their faith).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Original post)

Sat May 19, 2012, 01:46 AM

8. Sadly, there's a diff. between what I think the court SHOULD do and what the current Chickenshit

majority probably WOULD do.

They've already made it perfectly clear that the only consistent "principle" they're following is that they were jammed on there (this is the majority, again) mostly by GOP presidents at the behest of their farthest right knuckle-dragging constituencies. For instance, the idea that they're going to invalidate the HC law on it depending on too expansive an interpretation of the Commerce Clause? Brilliant. Yeah. That weak commerce clause that they JUST USED to justify the Feds busting cancer grannies for smoking pot they grew themselves, in their own homes. An activity that has Jack Diddly Shit less than Nothing to do with "interstate commerce".

Of course, the favorite tack of this court is to deny "standing" to anyone who wants to present a case, thereby negating even the need to deal with the actual issues at hand. Merely being someone who breathes the air or drinks the water doesn't give you the "standing" to be a party to an environmental case, Merely being someone who is a citizen abused by law enforcement doesn't give you the "standing" to challenge the police, etc.

Of course, corporations (sorry, "people") with enough BIG$$$ BUCK$$$$ have the "standing" to bring pretty much whatever they want to the court. Of course.

So THIS COURT? I dunno. They'd probably weasel out of it. I wouldn't expect any groundbreaking dedication of equality or rights a la Roe v. Wade, Griswold, or the more famous Warren Court decisions from these guys. No way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread