View Poll Results: How will SCOTUS rule?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states

    2 3.33%
  • States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states

    8 13.33%
  • States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states

    1 1.67%
  • States cannot ban SSM and have to recognize them from other states

    45 75.00%
  • No ruling, lack of standing

    1 1.67%
  • Something else

    3 5.00%
Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 178

Thread: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

  1. #131
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    But I don't think the court wants to redefine "marriage", either ...but it is something they might eventually have to do. Anyway, I haven't listened to the whole audio tape yet but I have heard Kennedy speak more favorably about gay marriage as well.
    How is the definition of marriage any different? It remains the exact same 'institution'. The 'definition' of marriage isnt just about the individuals, it's about what they are committing to...and that isnt changing at all.

    This is more concise:

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Marriage stays the same.

    So then the question should be, what exactly does functionally change by allowing same sex couples to enter into marriages? What difference does it truly make when it comes to marriage?
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #132
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,563

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    1.)Don't kid yourself...everyone thought the Birchers were a thing of the past, too. But now they're baaaaack....and lots of people are taking them seriously.
    2.) Nah, the issue of SSM will never go away anymore than religion will....and I don't see that happening in any of our lifetimes.
    3.) But then there's a lot I thought I'd never see that has come to be. Like, I never thought I'd see gay rights achieve so much so fast...but here we are. So....we'll see.
    1.) nothing to kid, reality and history supports me, i dont know what a bircher is lol
    2.) never claimed it "would go away" in fact I made note how examples of bigotry in the past still excist but they dont matter and people dont really care
    also religion will never fade (in regards to views as respectable and non respectable) anytime soon like racism and bigotry
    3.) correct but the reality is equal rights is winning and the bigots can hang on and cry as much as they want they are losing and exposing themselves
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #133
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,529

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    How is the definition of marriage any different? It remains the exact same 'institution'. The 'definition' of marriage isnt just about the individuals, it's about what they are committing to...and that isnt changing at all.

    This is more concise:
    Justice Kennedy seems to think that SSM would change the "definition" of "marriage" as it as been understood for millennia.....

    '...Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for "millennia-plus time," according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom. "It's very difficult for the court to say 'We know better,'" ...."

    It was clear that Kennedy, at least, was somewhat uncomfortable about the narrow definition that Bursch was insisting on giving to marriage....."

    Justice Kennedy, although he made it very clear, at the outset of her argument, that he was genuinely fretting about a sweeping decision that constitutionalized same-sex marriage. Colorfully, he said he could not count the number of zeroes there were in a millennia, noting that that was how long opposite-sex marriage had been the only accepted version.....

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/ar...t-but-leaning/


    It looks like Kennedy is saying that the term "marriage" would need to be "redefined" to include same sex couples in order for SSM to be constitutional and he seems reluctant for the court to do that.

    The court didn't have to "redefine" the "definition" of "marriage" in Love v Virginia because it was still between one man and one woman.
    Last edited by Moot; 04-30-15 at 02:11 PM.

  4. #134
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    J

    The court didn't have to "redefine" the "definition" of "marriage" in Love v Virginia because it was still between one man and one woman.
    In those states, marriage was defined as between people of the same race.

    When polygamy was legal, the definition included more than 2 people.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #135
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,529

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    In those states, marriage was defined as between people of the same race.

    When polygamy was legal, the definition included more than 2 people.

    So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.

  6. #136
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.
    No one said his definition is right. It was a widely held definition by western society for decades. (Not centuries because we did have polygamy). The point is, the definition has been changed in the past and can be again.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #137
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,987

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.
    But the definition still changed. As it did when women were no longer legally subservient to men. That was always the tradition, that was always the definition, for thousands of years!

    Who gives a crap what people in the dark ages thought about marriage?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  8. #138
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,193

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. However, that is pretty irrelevant to the issues before the court. That sodomy laws are unconstitutional does not make orientation a factor is determining a protected class at this time. It is possible that orientation could put some one in a protected class, however currently that is not the case and would probably be done without reference to sodomy laws. Probably a more likely outcome is the court would rule as some of the lower courts have that SSM bans are a form of gender discrimination(ie men can do something women cannot, marry women, and women can do something men cannot, marry women) which would place it under heightened(intermediate) scrutiny. Also possible is that the courts will rule that since marraige is a fundamental right, it would fall under strict scrutiny. Level of review is going to be one of the biggest issues the court has to determine, and will probably take up a significant amount of the hour and a half the court has set aside to review SSM bans(the other hour is looking at the question of whether states have to recognize those married in other states).
    I don't think these discussions about which level of scrutiny should or will apply really matter now because the Respondent's arguments just don't survive even rational basis review. The notion that the State preserves marriage by refusing to allow entry into marriage isn't rational (Question I). The notion that the State preserves marriage by dissolving marriages isn't rational (Question II).

  9. #139
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,529

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    But the definition still changed. As it did when women were no longer legally subservient to men. That was always the tradition, that was always the definition, for thousands of years!

    Who gives a crap what people in the dark ages thought about marriage?
    Apparently, the SCOTUS does.

  10. #140
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,529

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No one said his definition is right. It was a widely held definition by western society for decades. (Not centuries because we did have polygamy). The point is, the definition has been changed in the past and can be again.
    I understand your point but you don't seem to understand mine, which is....Justice Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote so his definition of marriage is probably all that really matters.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •