• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

"In a surprising anti-climax to one of the most important legal battles of the last several decades, the Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear several cases where federal appeals courts held that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same marriage rights as straight couples. The announcement listed these marriage equality cases as part of a lengthy order listing the cases where the Court had denied review. The justices offered no explanation for their decision.

As a practical matter, however, this decision not to hear these cases is an earthquake for gay rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, refused to issue a stay halting its order favoring marriage equality. Although the Supreme Court later stepped in with its own stay order, that order provides that the Supreme Court’s stay will “terminate automatically” if the Supreme Court denies review of the case. Now that the justices have done so, there should be no further legal barriers preventing marriages from beginning in those five states — although it is possible that there may be some delay before marriages may begin due to procedural steps that need to be taken by the judiciary."
The Supreme Court Just Quietly Made Marriage Equality The Law Of The Land In Many States
 
It is my understanding that it was John Roberts who was the pivotal decider in this case. A lot of people have bashed Justice Roberts for many of his Libertarian stances, but unlike a lot of people who claim to be Libertarians, but are only Libertarian where it comes to things they like, John Roberts seems to be the real deal. If gay people want to marry, what business is it of any authoritarian government? When Bush picked Roberts, I was lambasted by many on the left for praising Bush for that pick. And now, Liberals can praise John Roberts too, although I bet I won't see that happen anytime in the next........ well, my lifetime. LOL.
 
Last edited:
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.

Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.

Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.

This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
 
If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.

I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
 
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.


So were you cool with the State of Alabama voting to amend it's constitution to ban interracial civil marriages? I mean the people in that State (and others) had decided how they wanted to handle things.



>>>>
 
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.

Seems you don't understand what happened here. It was the Federal appeals courts which shot down the states' laws on gay marriage. All SCOTUS did was to let those Federal appeals court decisions stand.
 
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.

...

You know what. Sure. We will go with that narrative. The feds are "staying out of it." That is what this decision meant. Works for me.
 
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.

I agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but they are. And as long as they are, this issue will not be settled through avoidance.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....




"Let's just kick this can down the road a piece and go golfing guys."

This sore is beginning to fester while SCOTUS seems intent on running up some serious legal fees for lawyers; this will only result in more and more litigation, more and more division in the country and it's politics. They are, IMO, shirking their duties.
 
Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.

Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.

This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?

Agree with all the points you made! :thumbs: I for one am getting tired of being bored to death on this topic! If you are 6' 8" tall, and you want to marry a midget, go for it! It's your life, and no one else's business! Or, is it just something they keep alive to keep us from focusing on the important things, like the millions of unemployed, or our ever increasing debt load, or our crumbling infrastructure - because if it is, it ain't working! :2mad:
 
Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions". It did not rule that marriage was a state issue.

What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?
 
This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.
 
The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.

They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
 
what? the SCOTUS can't decide every single case in the US. but it can, should, and must rule when an entire protected class of people are being denied a fundamental right in some states.

That isnt exactly correct, sexual orientation is not a protected class. The SCOTUS would have been ruling on whether or not it was a protected class had they taken up the case
 
Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions".
What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?



I can't answer for CT of course, but my thoughts are:

1. Baker was issued in 1972.

2. In 1972 there were no Civil Marriages in any state in the union.

3. It wasn't until 1996 the DOMA was passed (i.e. federal law which impact directly the recognition of Civil Marriages by federal entities and Congress said whether other states had to recognize out of state marriages).

4. In 2004 the first state authorized SSCM (Massachusetts).

5. Now in 2014 there were 19 states recognizing SSCM.​



In 1972 there really wasn't any federal question, in 2014 that condition didn't apply.



>>>>
 
Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.

Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.

This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?



Government's first stepped in for health reasons, then for birthing reasons, age limits then welfare. With the rise of social welfare systems came the need for qualifiers and, of course, morality reasons, such as preventing inter-racial marriages etc. Today, the state defines what is a marriage, and dictates that through both religious and lait marriages partly due to the increase in "common law" marriages, divorces and so forth.
 
Government's first stepped in for health reasons, then for birthing reasons, age limits then welfare. With the rise of social welfare systems came the need for qualifiers and, of course, morality reasons, such as preventing inter-racial marriages etc. Today, the state defines what is a marriage, and dictates that through both religious and lait marriages partly due to the increase in "common law" marriages, divorces and so forth.

They need to step out. Of all of the people in this country who should not have a right to tell any citizen who he/she can or can't marry, it's our politicians.
 
They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
I believe it to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the country. If you're going to do away with government involvement, you may as well do away with the concept entirely, because the contract becomes meaningless.
 
What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?

It means at the time that the federal court had no place in hearing the case. Sodomy was illegal in 45 states in 1971.
 
The thing that SCOTUS needs to rule on is whether a state is bound to recognize legal marriages from another state. At which point, if you move what is the status of your marriage? Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce? Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality.
 
I can't answer for CT of course, but my thoughts are:

1. Baker was issued in 1972.

2. In 1972 there were no Civil Marriages in any state in the union.

3. It wasn't until 1996 the DOMA was passed (i.e. federal law which impact directly the recognition of Civil Marriages by federal entities and Congress said whether other states had to recognize out of state marriages).

4. In 2004 the first state authorized SSCM (Massachusetts).

5. Now in 2014 there were 19 states recognizing SSCM.​



In 1972 there really wasn't any federal question, in 2014 that condition didn't apply.



>>>>

Im not aware of anything that changed in the constitution between 1972 and now that would make difference in gay marriage. If you read the district courts rulings they are based on the 14th amendment and creating a new protected class. So you can cite those other factors but those arent what the judges are saying. What exactly has changed in the 14th amendment from 1972 to now?
 
I believe it to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the country. If you're going to do away with government involvement, you may as well do away with the concept entirely, because the contract becomes meaningless.

The general welfare of this country wouldn't improve or diminish if I married someone else. The general welfare of this country is far greater than who we choose to marry, and it isn't something that our politicians need to be or should be involved in. They have enough to worry about and don't even manage what they're elected to do.

Marriage is a deeply personal issue and nobody's business but the 2 (or more) people who are looking to partner with other/others via a ceremony and a piece of paper.
 
It means at the time that the federal court had no place in hearing the case. Sodomy was illegal in 45 states in 1971.

Just as the federal courts have no place ruling on gay marriage today, the 14th amendment said the same words in 1972 as it does today.
 
That is the job of the court system, not the SCOTUS. This is not an oligarchy.

it's their job to make sure that fundamental rights are not denied in ANY state. the SCOTUS should have heard the case and thrown out the state bans. because they abdicated, now we have a hodgepodge of states in which people are denied a fundamental right.
 
Back
Top Bottom