Originally Posted By TeaPartyWave What a fantastic week for America. First America stops the socialist hoards in their tracks and now a Federal court finally gets a gay marriage ruling correct. This is a states rights issue, not a Federal issue. The will of the states must be respected cause you know what...nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the " right " to gay marriage. CINCINNATI – A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld anti-gay marriage laws in four states, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting up the prospect of Supreme Court review. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard arguments on gay marriage bans or restrictions in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee on Aug. 6 split 2-1, with Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton writing the majority opinion. The ruling creates a divide among federal appeals courts, increasing the likelihood the Supreme Court will now take up the issue. The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage.
Originally Posted By Fauxmandy Maybe if you godless libs bothered to read your bible you'd know what it says about gay marriage! (i havent ever read the bible. i have no idea what it says. its really long) At least the real America stopped Shariah law in it's tracks. (my self hatred over being bisexual is crushing. i can't even look in the mirror sometimes)
Originally Posted By BeausHerpes <nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the " right " to gay marriage> hey nowhere do we find the right to u picking up homeless ladies and nailing them behind a dumpster but we dont tell you not to do it even when u end up w/ me!! nowhere do we say u cant drink yourself till you piss yourself and thats not in the constituton and u do that all the time. see its all about freedom!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oops. South Dakota just became the latest state to have its ban on equality declared unconstitutional. The decision has been stayed pending appeal to the 8th Circuit, but... South Dakota (!?!) This of course follows Florida becoming the 36th state with full marriage equality. Significant here also was a Florida A.G. who tried everything she could to stop this (including some very underhanded "advice" to the Florida county clerks who issue licenses), but who had both the appellate court and SCOTUS deny her request for extending the stay. Florida marked the first time (I believe) marriage equality moved forward in a state opposing it BEFORE the relevant appellate court (the 11th in this case) formally weighed in. Instead, they simply refused to extend the stay - which amounts to a tacit "Give it up. If we take this up, you're gonna lose." She then appealed to SCOTUS to extend the stay, and got the same response. With Florida on board, more than 70% of Americans now live in a marriage equality state. There is also an appeal that has reached the 5th Circuit (TX, LA, MS) - generally considered one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country. And even here, it looks like equality has a good chance of winning: www.msnbc.com/msnbc/5th-circuit-looks-poised-strike-down-same-sex-marriage-bans "The three-hour hearing at times turned comical as two of the judges grew increasingly skeptical of the state attorneys’ arguments — which were based on everything from federalism, to a 42-year-old precedent, to a government interest in channeling procreation." (snip) - and check out what Reagan-appointed justice Higginbotham has to say: "Higginbotham, however, was far less sympathetic to the states’ arguments than expected. At times, it was difficult to hear what the 77-year-old judge was saying because he so frequently leaned back in his chair away from the microphone and rubbed his face, as though watching some kind of entertaining show or, perhaps, getting tired of it. When he did speak up, it was usually to poke holes in the states’ arguments. For example, when Jonathan F. Mitchell, the attorney pleading the case for Texas, told the court that the state’s marriage law served to encourage new offspring and reduce unplanned pregnancies, Higginbotham asked if he was implying that extending marriage to same-sex couples would somehow reduce the number of offspring or increase the incidence of out-of-wedlock births. “We’re not arguing that,” Mitchell said. “Of course you are!” said Higginbotham." The only real suspense left here is if SCOTUS takes up the appeal against the 6th Circuit's decision (the only circuit to rule against equality at this point) in this term, or later. The 6th Circuit going the other way certainly increased the likelihood of them taking it up in 2015, but it's not a sure thing. We could know as early as Friday. Nationwide equality has become so inevitable that all the smart political operatives are saying that the Republicans - especially the potential presidential candidates - are dearly hoping that SCOTUS does indeed take it up in 2015 and just gets it over with, taking it off the table as an issue (except for the predictable carping about "activist judges.") If it's decided by the time their debates start (summer or Fall of this year), they won't really have to talk about it much, and they'd prefer that. Despite Jeb Bush's recent statement attempting to have it both ways, pretty much any GOP candidate for president has to oppose marriage equality to get through the primaries... and yet that position is toxic in a general election, with an ever-growing majority of Americans in favor of equality. So they're hoping they can get away with talking about it as little as possible. But if SCOTUS doesn't take it up this term and decide by this summer, they may be forced to deal with it - and Bush's attempted middle ground only makes that more likely than if they all had identical positions to begin with.
Originally Posted By doombuggy "nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the " right " to gay marriage." nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the " right " to marriage.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ Both true. But I do seem to vaguely remember reading something about equal protection.
Originally Posted By FaMulan I heard today that the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding same sex marriage bans in April with a decision to be handed down in June.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's really all down to Kennedy. He's definitely gay-friendly (he's written the three most important gay rights decisions of the past couple of decades), but he's also a big states rights guy, who tends to give states pretty wide leeway in writing their own laws. I THINK he'll do the right thing, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. I think he'll reason that states can write their own laws with wide discretion as long as they don't violate the Constitution, and ultimately I think he'll have to say that denying gay citizens the right to marry violates the 14th amendment. I think the justices knew what they were doing when they denied a hearing for the cases in the 4th, 7th, and 10th districts this past October; they knew very well that that meant that marriage equality would then be in effect in 30 states. And when the 9th circuit decision came down and they refused to take that up as well, they knew that would bring it to 35. Florida just came on board, so that's 36 states with equality and 14 against. When Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967, 34 states allowed interracial marriage and 16 did not. And less than 50% of Americans approved. Now you've got slightly more states allowing same sex marriage, and well over 50% of Americans approving. I think this is the situation they wanted to create when they made their October decision to not take up the cases. But I also think they'd have been just as happy to let it happen without a SCOTUS decision at all. The 6th Circuit ruling the other way created the split, and made the situation untenable. As with interracial marriage in 1967, they can't duck it any more. So I think Kennedy will do the right thing. If he doesn't, it will be a mess. You'll have the continuing situation where couples can get married in one state, and then move to another and suddenly they're "not married" any more, and all the real-world consequences that has. Plus, some of the states that have recently had to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century (like Kansas) but now have married same-sex couples would inevitably try to reverse that if SCOTUS says there's no constitutional problem with a state not allowing it (remember, the circuit courts said there WAS a constitutional problem with it, but SCOTUS would overrule them if they say there isn't.) So what happens to all those now-married couples? Suddenly not married? They can stay married but no new same sex couples can (as in CA post-Prop 8?) That just invites more lawsuits. Saying that all 50 states have to allow all their citizens to get married is not only the right thing, it's also "cleaner." In 1967 SCOTUS finally said that the current patchwork was untenable and states that had an objection to interracial couples were just going to have to get over it. I wish I could be more certain of it, but my guess is that they do the same thing here. If Kennedy makes it clear to the others he's going to do the right thing, I think it could even be a 6-3 decision, with Roberts joining. He's conscious of legacy and may not want to be seen as being on the wrong side of history.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan it really is sad that our society still thinks it has a right to say who can marry and who can not. This is not a gov't issue, this is not a state issue, this is a people issue. Honestly I think if people put as much energy and money into opposing gay marriage did it for another reason say ummm.... I don't know, doing something about homelessness, hunger, war, etc, this world would be a much better place.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I was about to think the WE was RIP. Especially without a topic on the SotU address. Great to see some folks back after the LP "remodeling". <<So I think Kennedy will do the right thing. If he doesn't, it will be a mess.>> Yes it would, indeed. But even given the worst case scenario, the atmosphere toward gay marriage has shifted dramatically since 2008. Even the Koch Brothers are in favor of gay marriage. So even if Justice Kennedy rules in favor of state's rights (of which I doubt, considering to inherent issues you alluded to), I doubt the American populace will be far behind in approving gay marriage statewide in most of the "advanced" states. Besides, the homosexual community outperforms the average American economically. So if they have to leave Kansas or Mississippi for NY or CA, we'd happily embrace you.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "Even the Koch Brothers are in favor of gay marriage." What do the Koontz sisters think?
