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 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 178

Thread: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

  1. #61
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
    If you wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union, why do you think anyone else would be?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #62
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,609

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    To an extent, yes, though the lawyer's answer to Alito's question was very good and still relevant. Essentially she pointed out that it raises a number of very different questions that could result in a very different answer.
    uh.... I find her answer pretty weak:

    ...JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

    MS. BONAUTO: I believe so, Your Honor.

    JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the reason?

    MS. BONAUTO: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the latency question for a moment, if I may. Because

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I didn't understand your answer.

    MS. BONAUTO: Well, that's what I mean,that is I mean, the State

    JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there's no these are people,men andwomen, it's not it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers.

    (Laughter.)

    JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the ground under under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

    MS. BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental

    JUSTICE ALITO: But well, I don't knowwhat kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no why is that a greater break?

    MS. BONAUTO: The question is one of again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that....
    That's an awful answer. It basically boils down to A) Marriage is fundamentally about two people (well you can't make that argument if you are stating that you shouldn't deny individuals free exercise based on what a public fundamental definition of marriage is) and B) there might be problems involving custody or people who don't want to be married to their spouse (there are such problems already with traditional marriage).

    For the option where you have consenting, willing, educated adults, she has no answer other than to say "Well, it's just not the same". Which is a repetition of the anti-SSM argument.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-28-15 at 03:22 PM.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  3. #63
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    If you wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union, why do you think anyone else would be?
    Is this a hypothetical or are you assuming my opinion regarding level of satisfaction with a civil union?

  4. #64
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    92,919
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    uh.... I find her answer pretty weak:



    That's an awful answer. It basically boils down to A) Marriage is fundamentally about two people (well you can't make that argument if you are stating that you shouldn't deny individuals free exercise based on what a public fundamental definition of marriage is) and B) there might be problems involving custody or people who don't want to be married to their spouse (there are such problems already with traditional marriage).

    For the option where you have consenting, willing, educated adults, she has no answer other than to say "Well, it's just not the same". Which is a repetition of the anti-SSM argument.
    You are looking at specifics instead of the point. The point she was trying to make was that the issues involved are different, which can lead to a different outcome.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #65
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,609

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You are looking at specifics instead of the point. The point she was trying to make was that the issues involved are different, which can lead to a different outcome.
    If the point she was trying to make was that the issues involved were different, she failed miserably, as the issues she brought up were, in fact, not. She tried to divert from the question to avoid answering it - it was a bad response.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That portion of DOMA was overthrown in Windsor.
    No, I think you'll find it was the third section of the act the Court held unconstitutional.

  7. #67
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    My Ronco crystal ball is broken, but I'd say they're going to slither out of any decision and not say much of anything. My second guess would be that it'll be left up to states, and let some states crawl on the floor to do the lowly thing and not honor ssm's.

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,902

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So the oral arguments are tomorrow before the Supreme Court on the subject of same sex marriage. The court is looking at two primary questions, whether states can refuse to recognize same sex marriages from other states, and whether states can ban same sex marriage. Good reading on the issues at hand, pretty balanced to my mind: Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions : SCOTUSblog. So how do you think the court will end up ruling?

    1: States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states
    2: States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states
    3: States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states
    4: States cannot ban SSM and have to recognize them from other states
    5: No ruling, lack of standing
    6: Something else

    Please be patient while I add poll options.
    Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.

  9. #69
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.

    Ahhh - Same-sex Civil Marriage doesn't do anything for "tossing free religous practice" of anyone. You may be confusing the Same-sex Civil Marriage issue with Public Accommodation laws which are a different matter all together.


    Did you know that Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon), Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado), and Elane Photography (New Mexico) were all cases from States that did not have SSCM at the time?


    Finally, since you are concerned about government and religious practices, can we assume that you support same-sex couples that have been married by a religious organization as being equally recognized by the government and that their religious practices should not be "tossed" by the government?



    >>>>

  10. #70
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,283

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That's an excellent point. In the end, we all know ssm being recognize is inevitable. It's becoming more obvious that a group's beliefs on the matter are largely irrelevant to whether it should be legal. I'd hate to be on the side that was holding up signs with hateful messages. I mean, in the end, historians won't see a difference between this:

    ....

    The issue now is for the people opposed to SSM to decide how they want to be viewed. Will they continue down this path and remain the proverbial bad guys in the history of equality? Or will they simply acknowledge that gay people having their marriage sanctioned and recognized by the state changes nothing in their personal lives?

    No matter what the court decides, those opposed to SSM have vowed to never give up their fight against it. Like legal abortion, SSM will always be a wedge issue.

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •