• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

How will SCOTUS rule?

  • States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states

    Votes: 2 3.3%

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

    Votes: 8 13.3%

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

    Votes: 1 1.7%

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

    Votes: 45 75.0%

  • No ruling, lack of standing

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Something else

    Votes: 3 5.0%
  • Total voters
    60
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
chromium said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moot said:
uh huh :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake, it's right here in your own post. RogueNuke just reposted it:

Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Oh for God's sake, it's right here in your own post. RogueNuke just reposted it:
Click to expand...


It's in my post because it supports my argument....not yours or rogenukes. Doh!
 
chromium said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
chromium said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
Moot said:
It's in my post because it supports my argument....not yours or rogenukes. Doh!
Click to expand...

Seems to support mine also, which I outlined pages ago.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Question 1: ssm is a state issue, court rules 6-3 against federal civil right to marry

Qusetion 2: any legal marriage must be recognized by other states, court rules 7-2
 
johndylan1 said:
Question 1: ssm is a state issue, court rules 6-3 against federal civil right to marry

Qusetion 2: any legal marriage must be recognized by other states, court rules 7-2
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the courts decided that marriage wasnt a 'state issue' in Loving vs Virginia.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is kind of conservative so I think they will rule that states can ban gay marriage. I don't see how the constitution keeps states from enacting discrimination. But I am glad they can't or else Civil Rights would not have happened.
 
Lursa said:
I'm pretty sure the courts decided that marriage wasnt a 'state issue' in Loving vs Virginia.
Click to expand...

Kennedy will be with the States on the first question. On the second Scallia, Roberts and Kennedy will vote with the feds.
 
Lursa said:
Seems to support mine also, which I outlined pages ago.
Click to expand...

No. Justice Kennedy clearly he said "marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for millennia plus time" and "it would be difficult for the court to say, "we know better".".....


...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,'" ...."​

And you clearly said the opposite....

Lursa said:
And yet he has already acknowleged that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective; that the social aspect...of personal liberty and equality (what I read from his opinion) are now more relevant and not unConstitutional.
Click to expand...


So if you have anything else to add just make sure it has a link to a credible source, otherwise I'm done with our discussion.
 
Moot said:
No. Justice Kennedy clearly he said "marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for millennia plus time" and "it would be difficult for the court to say, "we know better".".....


...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,'" ...."​

And you clearly said the opposite....




So if you have anything else to add just make sure it has a link to a credible source, otherwise I'm done with our discussion.
Click to expand...

I said "that's how I read it."


If you dont like it, fine. I lost interest pages ago.
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

And so is marriage where women legally have as much power in their marriages as men do.

Married Women's Property Laws:Law Library of Congress

Many things we change in our laws are new until they happen. This is a stupid reason to oppose any change.

And same sex marriage has been around in this country for over 10. My children have been around fewer years than same sex marriage has been in this country and they are both in school.
 
Moot said:
No. Justice Kennedy clearly he said "marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for millennia plus time" and "it would be difficult for the court to say, "we know better".".....


...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,'" ...."​

And you clearly said the opposite....

So if you have anything else to add just make sure it has a link to a credible source, otherwise I'm done with our discussion.
Click to expand...

Except it is the Court's job to make those difficult decisions on the basis of the Constitution rather than tradition and fear of changing things.
 
roguenuke said:
And so is marriage where women legally have as much power in their marriages as men do.

Married Women's Property Laws:Law Library of Congress

Many things we change in our laws are new until they happen. This is a stupid reason to oppose any change.

And same sex marriage has been around in this country for over 10. My children have been around fewer years than same sex marriage has been in this country and they are both in school.
Click to expand...

Ten years? Yikes, that's almost as long as I've been a DP member. Seems like yesterday. lol Ten years isn't very long in the scheme of things. It took over 70 years for women to get the vote.
 
roguenuke said:
Except it is the Court's job to make those difficult decisions on the basis of the Constitution rather than tradition and fear of changing things.
Click to expand...


Tradition and fear of change is the basis of the defenses argument. Which makes sense since the defense are Christian conservatives. Over half the Supreme court justices are Christian conservatives, too.
 
Moot said:
Ten years? Yikes, that's almost as long as I've been a DP member. Seems like yesterday. lol Ten years isn't very long in the scheme of things. It took over 70 years for women to get the vote.
Click to expand...

And it took 30 years from the time that homosexuals were officially no longer considered having a mental illness to get to marry the person they wanted to marry in just one state. Heck, it was really that long for them to no longer have to fear going to jail in any state just for their consensual relationships.

Plus, things change faster now, thanks to faster ways to communicate and get stuff out. When women got the right to vote, we didn't have internet. Hell, we didn't even have TV and barely had phones (didn't for much of the time the fight was going on). Of course it is going to take longer. That doesn't mean that we should make same sex couples wait 70 years just because circumstances of the past made the time when the fight for some rights is seen as starting til the rights were finally won so long.
 
Moot said:
Tradition and fear of change is the basis of the defenses argument. Which makes sense since the defense are Christian conservatives. Over half the Supreme court justices are Christian conservatives, too.
Click to expand...

So what if that is the basis for the defense's argument? That is a still a very poor argument and means nothing for the Constitution.

And as for the SCOTUS Justices, well they really should not allow their Christian bias influence their decisions. They are SCOTUS Justices, not politicians.
 
States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states. Looks like I'm the only one who said that.
 
tres borrachos said:
States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states. Looks like I'm the only one who said that.
Click to expand...

Because it wouldn't make any sense. Why would the be allowed to do this? There is no precedent for such a ruling and a marriage is a marriage, whether it is done in one state or another, especially if the states are recognizing opposite sex marriages from other states.
 
roguenuke said:
Because it wouldn't make any sense. Why would the be allowed to do this? There is no precedent for such a ruling and a marriage is a marriage, whether it is done in one state or another, especially if the states are recognizing opposite sex marriages from other states.
Click to expand...

Because it's crystal ball time on an anonymous message board and I get to choose whatever answer I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom