• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

It's a simple matter of equal rights. I don't see how it cannot be a 9-0 decision, unless certain justices let their personal and religious convictions interfere with their judicial objectivity.
 
Deuce said:
It's gay week at SCOTUS!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case - CBS News

Today they are hearing arguments on Prop 8 in CA, which would ban SSM. Prop 8 was overturned but the appeal is waiting for a decision by SCOTUS. There's quite a bit of speculation that SCOTUS will wuss out on this one, ruling that prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to bring this case before SCOTUS. (The state of California refused to defend the amendment in court, so anti-SSM folks took up its defense) The effect of this would be the previous ruling stands, prop 8 is overturned and SSM is legal in CA. While disappointing for pro-SSM folks, it's not all bad, CA moves back to freedom on a permanent basis and an interesting precedent regarding standing of straight people in SSM cases is set.

Virtually nobody hearing the court discussion thinks prop 8 will be upheld. Tweeters indicate that SCOTUS seems much more wary of setting a broad precedent on the subject. P
Cowards. This isn't going away!

Tomorrow they take arguments on a constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. I think SCOTUS has fewer punt options there, as it's a federal law with challenges in multiple districts.
Click to expand...

Most of the talking head think the SCOTUS will punt on this. Of course we will not know that until June. Punting means the 9th circuit court verdict will stand and California will become the 10th state to have legal gay marriages. It will probably set off lawsuits in the other 40 states who do not reconize SSM.
 
I believe the courts will punt as well.

They may also offer a decision in a way that paves the way for 'the people' to sort it out for themselves through legislation.

Something the court failed to do with regard to the abortion issue.
 
Perotista said:
Most of the talking head think the SCOTUS will punt on this. Of course we will not know that until June. Punting means the 9th circuit court verdict will stand and California will become the 10th state to have legal gay marriages. It will probably set off lawsuits in the other 40 states who do not reconize SSM.
Click to expand...

We don't know of course, but they could very well punt with a twist. They could invalidate the ruling of the 9th and fail to rule on the larger matter.
 
calamity said:
It's a simple matter of equal rights. I don't see how it cannot be a 9-0 decision, unless certain justices let their personal and religious convictions interfere with their judicial objectivity.
Click to expand...

"Equality" is impossible.

I'm 5'5 maybe I should sue the guy down the street who is 6'5.

Maybe I should sue progressives because they don't think like I think? that wouldn't be equal....

No one will ever find "equality" - that **** will never happen..

Besides, "equality" is nothing more than an interchangeable word for "same" and the majority of those who cry about equality embrace difference (only in certain situations - I'm an evil redneck to them).
 
clownboy said:
We don't know of course, but they could very well punt with a twist. They could invalidate the ruling of the 9th and fail to rule on the larger matter.
Click to expand...

All sorts of things are possible and one never knows with the SCOTUS. But probability I think rests with what I said. But that still leaves all sorts of other possibilities.
 
Wiseone said:
Prop 8 passed with barely over 50% of the vote, which is not uncommon, but it is not 70% of the vote. That's just a simple fact. Now onto my opinion, the courts should overturn prop 8 as the majority has no right to take away rights from the minority. Do you think when the SCOTUS declared segregation unconstitutional that they cared about what the majority of people wanted in the segregated South? Hell no, and good thing they didn't either. Rights are not something you should be able to take away with a simple majority.
Click to expand...

What "rights" of a minority were taken away by Prop 8 ?
 
Deuce said:
By no stretch of imagination is 52% "overwhelming" and since when is it ok for us to vote to take away rights?
Click to expand...

What "rights" were taken away in CA by Prop 8 ?
 
Mr.Nick said:
"Equality" is impossible.

I'm 5'5 maybe I should sue the guy down the street who is 6'5.

Maybe I should sue progressives because they don't think like I think? that wouldn't be equal....

No one will ever find "equality" - that **** will never happen..

Besides, "equality" is nothing more than an interchangeable word for "same" and the majority of those who cry about equality embrace difference (only in certain situations - I'm an evil redneck to them).
Click to expand...
I'm referring to equal rights and protection under the law. Sorry I wasn't exact.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Do you want to continue to play the "exceptions" nonsense?

Oh this law doesn't apply because of ____________ and because.

or

This idea should be legal because it makes me happy...

Yeah well I'm sure Charles Manson's minions made him happy by murdering people..... Maybe I should sue to make murder legal?

Prop 8 was a democratic measure (not only that but a ballot proposition) that violated ZERO laws or freedoms.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to entertain this absurd red herring about murder. You talk about "playing" and then throw out that card? Really man?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah so if the majority in the state want slavery, we should allow that too because we don't want to overturn the will of the majority right?
Click to expand...

Lousy strawman. We have a clear Amendment outlawing slavery.

Deuce said:
SSM was legal in CA. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. You can claim it's not a right, but in CA it was before prop 8s passing.
Click to expand...

Where was it a "right" in CA ? If you listened to the arguments today, I heard no Justice argue such. What I did hear was that they felt that the process in CA by which the Prop 8 was passed was a Constitutional process enabling the public to bypass the Legislature.

Deuce said:
If you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, how did it pass in the first place?
Click to expand...

Although they are not ignorant ot the Constitution, Legislatures do not determine Constitutionality of Laws before they pass them.

Deuce said:
If the amendment conflicts with the existing constitution, that must be resolved.

It was challenged under the states due process clause and ruled unconstitutional because the state has no compelling interest to justify the ban. It was also determined that the proposition violated the equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link ? Thanks.
 
clownboy said:
We don't know of course, but they could very well punt with a twist. They could invalidate the ruling of the 9th and fail to rule on the larger matter.
Click to expand...

Invalidate the ruling of the 9th on what basis? I don't think the "lack of standing" issue works at the circuit court because of how the appeal went. I mean it's theoretically possible, SCOTUS can kind of do whatever the hell they want, but I don't see a path for them to justify that.
 
Deuce said:
It's more complicated than that. States can't arbitrarily make discriminations on the basis of gender, they need to show a reason.
Click to expand...

I believe that the argument for marriage benefit to the state as being one man, one woman, has been made many times over. It was recognized many times in arguments today before SCOTUS, that being that the state has a vested interest in regulating, and promoting, procreation.

Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
 
Deuce said:
Invalidate the ruling of the 9th on what basis? I don't think the "lack of standing" issue works at the circuit court because of how the appeal went. I mean it's theoretically possible, SCOTUS can kind of do whatever the hell they want, but I don't see a path for them to justify that.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. But then you see this as a civil rights issue and I don't. They could rule that the 9th overstepped in overruling the state's constitution when it hasn't been established that this is a civil rights issue. And then rule lack of standing delaying their need to rule if it is a civil rights issue.

Really, SCOTUS justification is whatever they say it is.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
What "rights" of a minority were taken away by Prop 8 ?
Click to expand...

The right to marry someone of their choosing obviously, the right to have the person they've identified as the love of their life receive the same benefits that anyone else would. You may not think of it as a right but when say for example a gay Soldier is killed or wounded in combat, the spousal benefits that would normally go to the spouse of a straight Soldier are not given to a gay one, likewise if they have children they are not given the same benefits either. Even if that Soldier is not killed in combat his spouse is still denied medical care from the military, on post housing, and all the other benefits hetro couples would enjoy. This is because the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and being Federal Law it applies to the US military, so even if this Soldier was legally married in his state to someone of the same sex the military does not recognize it.

Some people, I don't know if this includes you, however view this as acceptable because if God forbid a male Soldier sees his husband in hospital or even on his deathbed then some how that will undermine the meaning of my marriage or the already trashed institution of it.

Is that equal protection under the law? Is it equal protection that a man who in every aspect of his life treats another man as his spouse be denied the same rights and privileges as a man who treats a woman as his spouse?

What possible reason is there to not allow this, what do we as a society or as individuals gain from denying it? What benefit is there? Is it just because it makes some people uncomfortable because its against their personal values? Is that reason enough to deny someone all these privileges enjoyed by hetero couples? And what if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone was trying to take away something important to you because it was against their values? Would you still feel the same since they were in the majority?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry there is no "equality" under law...
Click to expand...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Yes there is.
 
Deuce said:
I'm not even going to entertain this absurd red herring about murder. You talk about "playing" and then throw out that card? Really man?
Click to expand...

Of course you don't want to - you just want to make exceptions to laws or design laws that don't exist... : "well that is a different situation." Really?
 
Mr.Nick said:
No there is not...

Individuals are NOT equal.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, and neither did you for that matter. You said "there is no equality under the law" and now you're changing your argument because you got your foot in your mouth. But its quite clear that the 14th amendment gives people equal protection under the law.

Tell me again about how the stars define our time zones here on Earth.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I believe that the argument for marriage benefit to the state as being one man, one woman, has been made many times over. It was recognized many times in arguments today before SCOTUS, that being that the state has a vested interest in regulating, and promoting, procreation.
Click to expand...

Banning same-sex marriage does not promote procreation. This fails the test of intermediate scrutiny.

Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
Click to expand...

It does stigmatize the civil union folks, and the benefits are never truly equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_marriage
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I believe that the argument for marriage benefit to the state as being one man, one woman, has been made many times over. It was recognized many times in arguments today before SCOTUS, that being that the state has a vested interest in regulating, and promoting, procreation.

Also today, if you listened, the litigants admitted that CA already had laws such that same-sex civil unions had every benefit as a married couple. Except calling it a "marriage", and that the basis of their argument was that this "stigmatized" the civil union folks.
Click to expand...

And as was also said before the court, what about the elderly, infertile, or those in childless marriages? Why are these allowed if the argument against gay marriages is that they do not produce children, when these types of marriages do not either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom