Page 1 of 2

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:41 pm
by ...
Interesting article by Maggie McNeill today:

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012 ... rted-seas/

She's a sex worker rights activist, so there's some of that in there, but she makes a good point about the logical consequences of same sex marriage and the fact that the public may not yet be ready for those consequences (like polygamy).

I personally think it's anyone's individual prerogative to have a moral issue with homosexuality, if that's the way they see it (or, more usually, the way they've been indoctrinated to see it). I disagree that a person's moral preference should hold priority over another person's liberty. So, I'm for same sex marriage.

Incidentally, same sex marriage will soon be legal in the UK too. There's a consultation underway at the moment, and many people seem to believe it's about whether same sex marriage should be legal. It isn't about that, as specifically stated in the consultation document. It's about how and where and when to introduce same sex marriage. Not that that's stopped the frothy-mouthed holy men spewing shite all over the place, of course.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:02 pm
by Glaucon
I think it will likely be a favorable outcome for same-sex mariage. The Supreme Court decided to pick the issue up (they get to pick and choose, for some odd reason). And this comes at a time that Republicans feel they are losing the middle ground with their anti gay marriage stance, because public opinion is swinging, moving towards acceptance. Most republicans won't answer questions about gay marriage at the moment. They know their position is no longer that of the majority.

So... why did they pick it up? I think the Supreme Court felt it was time to add a little to their legacy of enabling equal treatment. I assume they voted to pick it up, which likely means Roberts or the other slightly moderate judge probably voted with the liberals... which, I suspect, spells a pro-gay mariage ruling.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:55 am
by Olaf
I hope it is a favourable outcome, just so this silly issue might be put to rest sooner.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:54 am
by Glaucon
Well, marriage has been an socio-economical institution throughout history. It largely stopped having that function with the rise of individualism, emancipation and with divorce becoming an acceptible way to end a marriage.

I used to be of the opinion that gay people should not wed. After all, what is the point (provided that they are given the same rights as married people when they form a couple, enter a contract or whatever)? Let the straight folks have their marriages - whoever symbolic and irrational they have become, I used to think. But I failed to properly appreciate the symbolic value marriage had for many gay people. It is important to them, so... let them get married.

And sure, it may be important to other people that same-sex couples should NOT get married, but that is a preference about what other people do, which doesn't directly impact the person with that preference. And, being a liberal (as in... someone who believes in freedom in so far as it doesn't limit the freedom/lives of others), I think that such preferences (like jealousy, the desire to see others be hurt, the desire to punish those that don't bow down to your God, etc.) have no weight and should be ignored.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:08 pm
by Mynerva
Olaf wrote:I hope it is a favourable outcome, just so this silly issue might be put to rest sooner.



Yes, me too. It looks like in Germany the constitutional court will look at it too - and I hope they will finally make it all equal. I also do not see plural marriage as such a danger. If consenting adults want to marry more then one person - and are willing to split the legal benefits - they can be my guest.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:35 am
by Mynerva
Kaitlin wrote:I'd like to see it resolved but what does "get it done" mean. If I look at the aftermath of the civil rights movement I'm not encouraged that legalizing same sex marriage will be a resolution of the issue. Making something the law of the land doesn't change hearts and minds and many of those hearts and minds are hardened to the possibility and homophobic. I can see their rights being frustrated in countless ways.



No, it is not the resolution of the issue. But it is a step in the right direction.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:41 am
by Apple
Glaucon wrote:I think it will likely be a favorable outcome for same-sex mariage. The Supreme Court decided to pick the issue up (they get to pick and choose, for some odd reason). And this comes at a time that Republicans feel they are losing the middle ground with their anti gay marriage stance, because public opinion is swinging, moving towards acceptance. Most republicans won't answer questions about gay marriage at the moment. They know their position is no longer that of the majority.

So... why did they pick it up? I think the Supreme Court felt it was time to add a little to their legacy of enabling equal treatment. I assume they voted to pick it up, which likely means Roberts or the other slightly moderate judge probably voted with the liberals... which, I suspect, spells a pro-gay mariage ruling.


I'd say probably, but not necessarily. The Supreme Court gets to "choose" which cases to grant cert to because it would be physically impossible for nine people to properly consider and resolve the thousands of cases that get appealed up. So they are inclined to grant cert to major circuit splits, or important matters of law that need resolution, which usually involve a lot of money, affect a lot of people, or implicate fundamental constitutional rights. That being said, the Supreme Court as a matter of practicality cannot just deny cert for certain issues, like the legality of the ACA last summer, or who won the election in Bush v. Gore. It provides resolution, but also gives the Supreme Court a symbolic way of flexing its muscle.

These cases sort of fall into this last category, given that the validity of a major federal law is on the table. Moreover, there is a circuit split on the issue, fundamental principles are at stake, and every gay person is arguably affected by DOMA's operation. They had to resolve this.

Whether or not that implies that the Supreme Court will uphold or strike down DOMA (nothing is compelling it to make the call on gay marriage in general, btw) is a wash. You are correct in that Supreme Court judges care about their legacy and that perhaps the social and political climate in this country has tipped towards acceptance of gay marriage (though that's certainly arguable, one electoral defeat of Republicans notwithstanding) and the justices are affected by these things. But they can just as easily go the other way.

When Brown v. Board of Education came down, it was imperative for the justices that it be a unanimous opinion in order to avoid Southern backlash. That case (which broadly rebuffed all racial segregation, not just school segregation) might not have happened as it did had Chief Justice Vinson not conveniently died.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:28 pm
by Glaucon
Warning: broken up post. :hiding:

Apple wrote:I'd say probably, but not necessarily.


You are right. I am just giving it my best guess.

The Supreme Court gets to "choose" which cases to grant cert to because it would be physically impossible for nine people to properly consider and resolve the thousands of cases that get appealed up. So they are inclined to grant cert to major circuit splits, or important matters of law that need resolution, which usually involve a lot of money, affect a lot of people, or implicate fundamental constitutional rights.


I know. But it seems that there is a great deal of abritrariness about what cases the Supreme Court gets to pick up. Other systems with 'supreme courts' in other countries (whatever they are called there) usually have a more clearly defined (but very complicated/legalistic) way of letting appeals go through or not. This less transparent US system gives the Supreme Court more political power, allows for a greater degree of 'political activism' (not always in a bad way, as I see it).

That being said, the Supreme Court as a matter of practicality cannot just deny cert for certain issues, like the legality of the ACA last summer, or who won the election in Bush v. Gore. It provides resolution, but also gives the Supreme Court a symbolic way of flexing its muscle.

These cases sort of fall into this last category, given that the validity of a major federal law is on the table. Moreover, there is a circuit split on the issue, fundamental principles are at stake, and every gay person is arguably affected by DOMA's operation. They had to resolve this.


I wasn't aware of that. Learned something. :)

Whether or not that implies that the Supreme Court will uphold or strike down DOMA (nothing is compelling it to make the call on gay marriage in general, btw) is a wash. You are correct in that Supreme Court judges care about their legacy and that perhaps the social and political climate in this country has tipped towards acceptance of gay marriage (though that's certainly arguable, one electoral defeat of Republicans notwithstanding) and the justices are affected by these things. But they can just as easily go the other way.

When Brown v. Board of Education came down, it was imperative for the justices that it be a unanimous opinion in order to avoid Southern backlash. That case (which broadly rebuffed all racial segregation, not just school segregation) might not have happened as it did had Chief Justice Vinson not conveniently died.


You may be right. On 'paper', you'd expect a win for the bigots, given that there are 5 republicans/conservative judges vs. 4 more liberal ones. But my guess is that it will still go the other way. Many republicans seem to 'sense' the change on the wind, seem to feel that their position against gay marriage is not longer the electoral 'sure winner' it once was in most of the US and may become a 'sure loser' instead. And since judges are people too, and since a few of less nutty ones of the conservative five appear to me to be the sort that 'keep their ear to the pulse of society' in general, I just think they will be inclined to move towards a positive ruling for gay marriage (whatever the legal arguments are... I tend to think that with complicated matters, the personal preferences/politics of a judge will generally direct the 'technical arguments' they might be using to underpin their decisions).

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:40 pm
by Glaucon
I think that shift is happening right now, as part of the whole WTF? WE LOST?-post election soul searching thing and the resulting realisation that they need to consider the demographic realities, the realisation that makes Rubio look like the obvious 2016 GOP candidate.

Re: Supreme Court Picks up Same Sex Marriage - Likely Outcom

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:55 pm
by Glaucon
I read two articles both noting an unusual trend: normally, they can always get Republican politicians to comment on gay marriage, come out and make statements about it ("It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!" bla bla etc.). But according to these articles, right now republicans are dodging these questions, declining to answer questions from reporters about it. As if there is an internal debate going on.