• 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!

Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,891
Reaction score
19,296
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Supreme Court mum on reviewing same-sex marriage - CNN.com



Bunch of limp-wristed, panty-waist, scaredy-cats. :doh


Theoretically the court could have already rejected the current writ's, but that is unlikely, with the results being released tomorrow or next week. As I said unlikely as that means the stays in place would be automatically rejected.


More likely the court is simply delaying a decision based on further review needed for the current applications or they are waiting to see how the 6th Circuit rules on it's case (which could occur at any time). If the 6th rules to uphold the ban, there is no split in the Circuit courts.



>>>>
 
Theoretically the court could have already rejected the current writ's, but that is unlikely, with the results being released tomorrow or next week. As I said unlikely as that means the stays in place would be automatically rejected.


More likely the court is simply delaying a decision based on further review needed for the current applications or they are waiting to see how the 6th Circuit rules on it's case (which could occur at any time). If the 6th rules to uphold the ban, there is no split in the Circuit courts.



>>>>

It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

So just do it.
 
Please tell me I'm not the only one who thought this was going to be about some judge's elderly mother expressing her opinion on the subject? :confused:
 
SSM, like the 2A or abortion rights, either is or is not allowed to be decided at the state level. I fear that the result will be based upon another hidden or implied "constitutional" right rather than any language actually in the US constitution.

I personally favor the expansion of marriage but also see it totally as a state gov't matter, while I see the 2A as a "right of the people" that a state may not violate (abridge or deny) and abortion falls somewhere in between (so long as not gov't funded).

In order to establish any "protected class" should require specific constitutional action just as it did to give women the vote or to disallow racial/gender discrimination. The idea that "equal protection" (amendment passed in 1868) means that marriage must be wide open (equal to the least restrictive state law) yet carrying a handgun can require state permission is loony.
 
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

So just do it.


Theoretically there is a path for the SCOTUS not to rule on it and for it still be settled.

If the 6th (and 5th) Circuits rule to uphold the idea that bans on Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple are unconstitutional, then there is no "split" in the courts. The SCOTUS could then reject the writ's from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. The 9th is already expected to rule in favor of Marriage Equality since they already ruled that way in the past (although that decision was voided in Hollingsworth v. Perry). Upon their rejection the stays currently in place are voided and SSCM starts in those States.



>>>>
 
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

So just do it.

ITA. All this dicking around with this issue serves no good purpose.

Make it legal FFS. It's nobody's business who other people want to marry.
 
ITA. All this dicking around with this issue serves no good purpose.

Make it legal FFS. It's nobody's business who other people want to marry.

Make it legal from the perspective of the state, federal, insurance, and health side of things.

As far as I'm concerned, churches should be able to make their own rules and marry who they want as well as NOT marry who they don't want to marry.

To the best of my knowledge a Catholic Church could legally refuse to perform my marriage since I'm not a member of the Catholic Church.

I say allow the churches to practice what they preach, for or against.

But all others must comply.
 
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

So just do it.

I think that's why they're actually not reviewing it. By not reviewing it, lower court decisions stand and the majority of those are starting to favor gay marriage.
 
I think that's why they're actually not reviewing it. By not reviewing it, lower court decisions stand and the majority of those are starting to favor gay marriage.


Lower court rulings don't become operative until they have formally rejected the writ, that didn't happen.


>>>>
 
SSM, like the 2A or abortion rights, either is or is not allowed to be decided at the state level. I fear that the result will be based upon another hidden or implied "constitutional" right rather than any language actually in the US constitution.

I personally favor the expansion of marriage but also see it totally as a state gov't matter, while I see the 2A as a "right of the people" that a state may not violate (abridge or deny) and abortion falls somewhere in between (so long as not gov't funded).

In order to establish any "protected class" should require specific constitutional action just as it did to give women the vote or to disallow racial/gender discrimination. The idea that "equal protection" (amendment passed in 1868) means that marriage must be wide open (equal to the least restrictive state law) yet carrying a handgun can require state permission is loony.

Who said anything about "wide open?" Gender is a protected classification like you just said, and same sex marriage bans are clearly an issue of gender.

legal same sex marriage doesn't make marriage "wide open." Maybe you only say that because you personally disapprove of homosexuals being married.
 
I hope the justices deny marriage but allow civil unions with full benefits.
 
I hope the justices deny marriage but allow civil unions with full benefits.
That would be a good start, but ideally the justices would rule that it's Unconstitutional for the Federal government to have any involvement in marriage in the first place, and make everything including heterosexual marriages "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, exactly what article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to define and regulate marriage?
 
I hope the justices deny marriage but allow civil unions with full benefits.

So you'll allow "them" to get married, but "they" can't use the word "marriage".

Equal, but not the same.

Nice.
 
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.
 
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.

Of course it is, we have full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. A person married in one state must be treated as married in all states. Therefore it's a federal thing.
 
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.

So if one state decided that mixed race marriages were not "true marriages", you'd be fine with that since it's up to each state?
 
So if one state decided that mixed race marriages were not "true marriages", you'd be fine with that since it's up to each state?


Alabama did that, they passed a State Constitutional amendment to ban mixed race marriages.



>>>>
 
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.

No, the right thing to do is enforce the equal protection clause regarding this unconstitutional distinction of gender.
 
No, the right thing to do is enforce the equal protection clause regarding this unconstitutional distinction of gender.
THIS!!! It's like people haven't actually read the Constitution.
 
THIS!!! It's like people haven't actually read the Constitution.

Why is the government involved in the marriage debate in the first place?
 
Why is the government involved in the marriage debate in the first place?

Because recognizing legal next of kin is important to modern society.
 
Because recognizing legal next of kin is important to modern society.

It can just as easily be done with a private legal document. Governments sanction marriage because of the belief there is a benefit to doing so, but when it becomes something forced upon society, it loses a bit of its luster...
 
It can just as easily be done with a private legal document. Governments sanction marriage because of the belief there is a benefit to doing so, but when it becomes something forced upon society, it loses a bit of its luster...

Taxes.

I'm not sure if you are arguing for the complete abolition of government-recognized marriage, but if so then fine by me but that is a long ways away if ever from happening. If not, then please explain.
 
Back
Top Bottom