• 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!

Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The news that the anti-gay bigots have been dreading:

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April

The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.

The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.

The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.
 
1/13/2015 Version 24

37 States with Equal Rights and 9 Stayed/Appealed/Pending

37 States with Equal Rights

1.) Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
2.) Connecticut - November 12, 2008
3.) Iowa - April 27, 2009
4.) Vermont - September 1, 2009
5.)New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
6.) New York - July 24, 2011
7.) Washington - December 6, 2012
8.) Maine - December 29, 2012
9.) Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
10.) California - June 28, 2013
11.) Delaware - July 1, 2013
12.) Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
13.) Minnesota - August 1, 2013
14.) New Jersey - October 21, 2013
15.) Hawaii - December 2, 2013
16.) New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
17.) Oregon May 19, 2014
18.) Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
19.) Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
20.) Utah Oct. 6, 2014
21.) Oklahoma Oct. 6, 2014
22.) Virginia Oct. 6, 2014
23.) Wisconsin Oct 6, 2014
24.) Indiana Oct 6, 2014
25.) Colorado Oct 7, 2014
26.) Nevada Oct. 9, 2014
27.) West Virginia Oct. 9, 2014
28.) North Carolina Oct. 10, 2014
29.) Idaho Oct. 15, 2014
30.) Alaska Oct. 17, 2014
31.) Arizona Oct 17, 2014
32.) Wyoming Oct. 21, 2014
33.) Missouri Nov 5, 2014 (partial)
34.) Kansas Nov. 12, 2014 (partial)
35.) Montana Nov. 19, 2014
36.) South Carolina Nov. 20, 2014
37.) Florida Jan 6, 2015


9 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
*Arkansas - May 5, 2014 state court (Stayed), Nov 25 state supreme court (Stayed)
*Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated) (6th going to SCOTUS)
* Louisiana – Sept 22, 2014 (appealed to the 5th)
*Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed) (6th going to SCOTUS)
*South Dakota - Jan 12, 2015 ruled on by federal district judge, stayed
*Mississippi – Nov 25, 2014 (stayed)
*Ohio - April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected. (6th going to SCOTUS)
*Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming) (6th going to SCOTUS)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)


4 States Working Towards Equal Rights

4 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama (federal lawsuit)
Georgia (federal lawsuit)
Nebraska (Lawsuit and amendment)
North Dakota (Amendment)


thats 50 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights (puetro rico pending)
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
4th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
5th - pending (jan)
6th - ruled against equal rights going to SCOTUS
7th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
8th - ruled against it in 2006, talks of more cases from each state
9th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
10th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
11th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights



State Attorney Generals no longer defending the bans due to their unconstitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada(has equal rights now)
Oregon (has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Virginia (has equal rights now)

ALL STATES ARE NOW FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks
[/QUOTE]
 
Your graphics are a perfect example of why the Supreme Court is now ready to take it up. Just like Scalia said....the writing is on the wall. The SCOTUS just wanted to wait until more of the country was on board.
 
Possible June wedding! I'm so excited.
 
This is all good news, I hope the decision favors equality.
 
Your graphics are a perfect example of why the Supreme Court is now ready to take it up. Just like Scalia said....the writing is on the wall. The SCOTUS just wanted to wait until more of the country was on board.

the writing IS on the wall

I was thinking they were gonna punt or delay until after the 5th and 11th decisions but no with this verbiage it seem like they are just doing it.

while this shouldn't even be a question and isnt to any normal person im so grateful and thankful to witness this in my lifetime. There was a time just a little over 5 years ago i didnt think i would get to see america right this wrong but that all changed and was firmly cemented with the fall of DOMA!
 
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state.

The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.
 
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog



The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.


I'm not sure how that would work since we have cars, a couple can drive from Ohio to Pennsylvania, get Civilly Married in PA, then drive back home and Ohio has to recognize the Civil Marriage. But yet if they are in Ohio, Ohio doesn't have to issue them a Civil Marriage license that they will recognize from another state?

They would clearly be setting up a case of unequal treatment under the law for a different-sex couple not to have to go out of state yet to get the same treatment by the government a same-sex couple must travel and return.


>>>>
 
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog



The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.

I don't see that happening. The SCOTUS is not going to want to muddy the water. The Supreme Court is not going to want to create a situation where people are driving across state laws to get married in one state to have it recognized in their own.
As Scallia pointed out, the court is just waiting for it to be more accepted across the nation, their intentions are clear....the writing is on the wall.
 
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog



The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.

I agree it would be a victory but that would be some shady stuff . . .
also i cant remember the break down cause its hard enough just to keep track but cases have already gone for both of those and won. Many started that way. While of course since they are the top dog of the land they dont "have" to pay attention to that precedence but it does make it harder.

not to mention logically in 2014 that would be pretty pointless and continue the unequal treatment. pretty easy to take a trip too one of the many states get married come back and have to be given all the benefits.

you are right its POSSIBLE but splitting the two decisions doesnt make sense

if the do that it will be totally transparent they gave into bigotry and fear of bigots and will be very said IMO


BUT im still taking bets from anybody that wants to that equal rights for gays will be national by COB 2016
 
I'm not sure how that would work since we have cars, a couple can drive from Ohio to Pennsylvania, get Civilly Married in PA, then drive back home and Ohio has to recognize the Civil Marriage. But yet if they are in Ohio, Ohio doesn't have to issue them a Civil Marriage license that they will recognize from another state?

They would clearly be setting up a case of unequal treatment under the law for a different-sex couple not to have to go out of state yet to get the same treatment by the government a same-sex couple must travel and return.


>>>>

Think of it like another license, the drivers license. You can absolutely go to another state and if you meet their requirements get a drivers license that all states will recognize. Then just go back. This is already in place and widely accepted. For SSM it would be largely the same. The states decide who they will marry and under what conditions, but once you meet those conditions and get your marriage license, the other states are required to honor that contract. The potential is there, and yes it would cause some real problems especially at first, but it is entirely possible. I would not say it is the most likely outcome, but it could very well happen.
 
Think of it like another license, the drivers license. You can absolutely go to another state and if you meet their requirements get a drivers license that all states will recognize. Then just go back. This is already in place and widely accepted. For SSM it would be largely the same. The states decide who they will marry and under what conditions, but once you meet those conditions and get your marriage license, the other states are required to honor that contract. The potential is there, and yes it would cause some real problems especially at first, but it is entirely possible. I would not say it is the most likely outcome, but it could very well happen.
Not exactly. If you move to another state you are required to surrender your license and get a new one. They only recognize it for a small window of time, afterwards you are breaking the law. There is zero chance the Supreme Court takes the route you are raising. It is exactly what they want to avoid.
 
Not exactly. If you move to another state you are required to surrender your license and get a new one. They only recognize it for a small window of time, afterwards you are breaking the law. There is zero chance the Supreme Court takes the route you are raising. It is exactly what they want to avoid.

Sorta. Such requirements are due to the ID aspect, not the driving aspect.
 
Sorta. Such requirements are due to the ID aspect, not the driving aspect.
Actually its both. Its why they also require you to re-register your vehicle too and give new plates (although a big part is simply getting the money as well).
 
Think of it like another license, the drivers license. You can absolutely go to another state and if you meet their requirements get a drivers license that all states will recognize. Then just go back. This is already in place and widely accepted. For SSM it would be largely the same. The states decide who they will marry and under what conditions, but once you meet those conditions and get your marriage license, the other states are required to honor that contract. The potential is there, and yes it would cause some real problems especially at first, but it is entirely possible. I would not say it is the most likely outcome, but it could very well happen.


The Drivers License isn't a good example. States will recognize Driver's Licenses from out of state for visitors.

However if you change your residence you can't keep the old states Drivers License permanently. Let's say I'm from New York and move to Virginia. Under Virginia law I have 60 days to report to a DMV and get my Virginia license.


>>>>
 
Sorta. Such requirements are due to the ID aspect, not the driving aspect.


The requirements are due to the residency aspect not the ID aspect. Your ID dosen't change in such cases, the residency does.


>>>>
 
The legions of conservatives absolutely flabbergasted that SCOTUS didn't accept their absurd defense of discrimination are going to be amazing to watch.

"Finally, the outrageous rulings of activist judges around the nation--that nullified the will of millions of citizens who voted to preserve traditional marriage--will come under Supreme Court scrutiny. We could be on the cusp of a huge comeback for true marriage! I remain confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the states’ rights to define marriage. Even as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, he did so because it infringed upon the states’ authority over marriage. He relied on the states’ 'essential authority to define the marital relation' and our nation’s 'history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.' As a key swing vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy’s viewpoint could very well determine the outcome here. Now it's time to pull out all the stops for this final battle for marriage in the legal system. Will you help? Please help us fight this battle with your tax-deductible and confidential contribution of any size." - Protect Marriage head Andy Pugno,

Give us money guys please so we can totally win this not-at-all hopeless case that our organization isn't actually involved in defending.
 
Why such a problem with SSM when opposition to it is for the most based upon bigotry and or religion.
Why on earth would SCOTUS decide to decide only when it is palatable to a substantial number of citizens.
That argument goes to the politicization of the Court.
Not law, but politics.
 
Why such a problem with SSM when opposition to it is for the most based upon bigotry and or religion.
Why on earth would SCOTUS decide to decide only when it is palatable to a substantial number of citizens.
That argument goes to the politicization of the Court.
Not law, but politics.

They accepted the case now because they have a circuit split which needs to be resolved.
 
They accepted the case now because they have a circuit split which needs to be resolved.

It appears time and again that the SCOTUS splits along political lines. When splits should be along legal interpretation of the case. Am I off the mark here?
 
It appears time and again that the SCOTUS splits along political lines. When splits should be along legal interpretation of the case. Am I off the mark here?

Ideology does influence decisions, yes, but short of building a sentient robot judge there's not a way around that.
Historically, the Supreme Court has often been hesitant to jump too far out ahead of public opinion.

In this case, we don't know which justices voted to grant certiori. It could have been unanimous, not politically-driven.
 
Ideology does influence decisions, yes, but short of building a sentient robot judge there's not a way around that.
Historically, the Supreme Court has often been hesitant to jump too far out ahead of public opinion.

In this case, we don't know which justices voted to grant certiori. It could have been unanimous, not politically-driven.
Up here we have Conservative Judges voting against conservative agenda's.
Same with Liberal judges.
The law is the guiding force. Not political leanings or personal beliefs.
 
Up here we have Conservative Judges voting against conservative agenda's.
Same with Liberal judges.
The law is the guiding force. Not political leanings or personal beliefs.

Correct. But personal bias is never completely eliminated.

See: Antonin Scalia
 
Correct. But personal bias is never completely eliminated.

See: Antonin Scalia

Yes I am somewhat familiar with him.
 
Back
Top Bottom