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 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 178

Thread: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

  1. #151
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,839

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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.....

    Argument analysis: Justice Kennedy, hesitant but leaning : SCOTUSblog


    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.
    Yes it did. It was between "one man and one woman of the same race" and tons of cultures have had similar restrictions. That's redefining it.

    In any case, he's dead wrong. Holland has had SSM for going on 15 years. This is nothing new and it's not even new in the US

  2. #152
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,839

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Everything kennedy said later on indicates to me he will vote for it, and even roberts may, using the 'gender discrimination' line.

    Of course if they don't vote in favor, that will just drag on this charade of state by state minority rights by majority consent. Either way, the bigots will soon be infuriated even more than usual

  3. #153
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,839

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I'm going with "States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states". I hope I am wrong, but I just dont see it happening now. But please say I am wrong.
    none of the judges seemed interested in that 'compromise'. It would continue to validate the position by states that treat gays as 2nd class, while effectively rendering those bans irrelevant. Similar to how one county clerk in florida closed shop to marriage licenses just forced those couples to drive an hour to the next county, gay couples would just cross state lines to get hitched and then come back. Alabama would lose the revenue from the marriage but would have to honor the marriage just the same....come to think of it, that is kind of tempting

  4. #154
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Everything kennedy said later on indicates to me he will vote for it, and even roberts may, using the 'gender discrimination' line.

    Of course if they don't vote in favor, that will just drag on this charade of state by state minority rights by majority consent. Either way, the bigots will soon be infuriated even more than usual
    If they don't rule to strike down all same sex marriage bans, then they are opening it up to a future of huge numbers of still more court cases on this matter. They refused earlier appeals, allowing many, many more states to open up same sex marriage due to their Circuit Court decisions. This leaves probably millions of currently legally married same sex couples with the question of whether their marriages are really legally valid if the SCOTUS declares that states have a right to restrict marriage based on sex, to have same sex marriage bans in place. However, ruling to strike down these laws solves these issues. Same sex couples wouldn't need to continue to challenge the laws and those against same sex marriage have no legal standing to challenge same sex couples who get married or not having the bans in place.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #155
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    uh huh
    Oh for God's sake, it's right here in your own post. RogueNuke just reposted it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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.....

    Argument analysis: Justice Kennedy, hesitant but leaning : SCOTUSblog


    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.
    "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.

  6. #156
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Oh for God's sake, it's right here in your own post. RogueNuke just reposted it:

    It's in my post because it supports my argument....not yours or rogenukes. Doh!

  7. #157
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Yes it did. It was between "one man and one woman of the same race" and tons of cultures have had similar restrictions. That's redefining it.

    In any case, he's dead wrong. Holland has had SSM for going on 15 years. This is nothing new and it's not even new in the US
    If marriage was defined as "only between a man and a woman" then it wouldn't matter what race they are as long they are opposite sexes.

    I don't know about other countries but SSM is still relatively new in the US.
    Last edited by Moot; 05-03-15 at 02:56 PM.

  8. #158
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,839

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If marriage was defined as "only between a man and a woman" then it wouldn't matter what race they are as long they are opposite sexes.

    I don't know about other countries but SSM is still relatively new in the US.
    There were same sex marriages in the continental US long before european invaders ever stepped foot here.

    The definition for most of this country's post revolution history was "between a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE."

    For most of human history, there's been various combinations of polygamy and grown men marrying little girls against their will.

    One man, one woman is itself new but so what about any of that? Things change as we (or some of us) move on from the ignorant dark ages. My rights are not beholden to the customs of goat herders or slave holders from ancient times, or even what my grandparents believed. Their time is over

  9. #159
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    There were same sex marriages in the continental US long before european invaders ever stepped foot here.

    The definition for most of this country's post revolution history was "between a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE."

    For most of human history, there's been various combinations of polygamy and grown men marrying little girls against their will.

    One man, one woman is itself new but so what about any of that? Things change as we (or some of us) move on from the ignorant dark ages. My rights are not beholden to the customs of goat herders or slave holders from ancient times, or even what my grandparents believed. Their time is over
    There was no mention of race in the definition of a traditional marriage which was the standard for most western marriages "for millennia" which seems to be the definition that Justice Kennedy was using. No doubt he'll take your personal feelings on the matter into consideration when he writes the courts opinion. lol


    Marriage - Definition of Marriage by Webster's Online Dictionary

  10. #160
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It's in my post because it supports my argument....not yours or rogenukes. Doh!
    Seems to support mine also, which I outlined pages ago.
    "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.

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 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
  •