How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

Quag said:

No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.

Click to expand...

They are.

Lakryte said:

For those who send 0-5 years, do you believe in the next 5 years the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage in all of the states and overturn their constitutional bans on it? Because changing state constitutions will take more than 5 years, especially in the deep south.

Click to expand...

Yeah think those who said 0-5 were pegging it on a supreme court decision. No chance all 50 states legalize it individually in 5 years.

cabse5 said:

You say christians don't have the 'copyright' of marriage. Does that one plurality of state judges who decreed marriage for all have a 'copyright' of discrimination? If yes, why? If no, why?

Click to expand...

No, they don't. The supreme court does. Did you not notice all of the discussions about the supreme court taking up DOMA and Prop 8 a few months ago? Did you not read the OP of this thread that discussed that. I don't know which state judges you're talking about, but they certainly have the authority to make that decision for their state. You're attempting to equate a movement with no legal authority to judges who are specifically given the authority to make these kinds of decisions under the constitution. That's a false equivalency. Also the use of the word "decree" attempts to add an element of arbitrariness to the proceedings of the court and suggest illegitimacy. This is, again, incorrect. Judges are the ones tasked by the constitution to make these sorts of decisions. They do not do so arbitrarily. Though if they do, they find their decision overturned on appeal. The supreme court will be the ones to determine the constitutional protections in this country for same sex marriage.

I don't know what you're getting at with "copyright of discrimination". Is this some kind of whiny argument that not allowing Christians unilateral control over the system of marriage is discriminating against them? I hope not. That would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what discrimination actually is.

Lakryte said:

For those who send 0-5 years, do you believe in the next 5 years the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage in all of the states and overturn their constitutional bans on it? Because changing state constitutions will take more than 5 years, especially in the deep south.

Click to expand...

This is why I would say it's either 0 or 10-20. Either the supreme court has already done it with their decision, or it will be left to states to sort out. Of course, it's entirely possible for legal protection to happen in stages, first striking down DOMA and Prop 8, but not a general protection. This would allow a SS couple in any state to go to a state that permits it and marry, and rely on the full faith and credit clause to protect them when they get home. A jury rigged system like that would only last for a little while before it is simply protected wholesale.

I believe it will happen in stages. I don't think that the SCOTUS will strike down all state same sex marriage bans with the Prop 8 case, but I do believe there will be a lot more cases coming up to them from other states, with different circumstances (the best will be those in the 5 states where first cousins can get legally married only if they cannot procreate because that provision in their marriage laws will completely destroy their trying to say that same sex marriage bans are about the ability to procreate). I do believe that it is likely that in the next decade we will see a SCOTUS case that finally takes down the state bans as unconstitutional.

What if a state supreme court deemes that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional? What happens then? Is the precedent gone? Is there no discrimination if gay marriage isn't allowed?

Of course, the union of a same sex couple will receive all the same rights and responsiblitlies as in marriage through state legislation already created or through state legislaton that can easily be created.

cabse5 said:

What if a state supreme court deemes that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional? What happens then? Is the precedent gone? Is there no discrimination if gay marriage isn't allowed?

Of course, the union of a same sex couple will receive all the same rights and responsiblitlies as in marriage through state legislation already created or through state legislaton that can easily be created.

Click to expand...

On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

This should be good.

roguenuke said:

On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

This should be good.

Click to expand...

yeah i cant wait to hear read this either

roguenuke said:

On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

This should be good.

Click to expand...

On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? That original decision of marriage for everyone is way out of the box, especially when judges use precedents in their decision making. Which precedents were were being violated?

If one group of judges can go way out of the box to make decisions, why can't another group of judges go way out of the box to make a 'reversal' decision? Ya know, for example, prohibition was repealed. I believe in the prohibition reversal, public opinion did as much as anything to cause the reversal. There isn't a plurality of americans who believe in marriage for everyone, yet.

cabse5 said:

On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? That original decision of marriage for everyone is why out of the box, especially when judges use precedents in their decision making. Which precedents were were being violated?

If one group of judges can go why out of the box to make decisions, why can't another group of judges go way out of the box to make a 'reversal' decision? Ya know, for example, prohibition was repealed.

Click to expand...

Prohibition was not repealed by judges.

winston53660 said:

Prohibition was not repealed by judges.

Click to expand...

A reversal was made. That's my point. I know your point: to nitpick. I used prohibition as an example of a reversal of law.

cabse5 said:

A reversal was made. That's my point. I know your point: to nitpick. I used prohibition as an example of a reversal of law.

Click to expand...

You compared apples and Oranges.

Can the marriage for everyone law in some states be repealed? The answer is yes. No apples to oranges. Continue to nitpick.

roguenuke said:

On what grounds, under what Constitutional basis could they possibly rule that allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

This should be good.

Click to expand...

this assumes that the Justices don't have an agenda and always rule on the basis of the constitution ...

windowdressing said:

this assumes that the Justices don't have an agenda and always rule on the basis of the constitution ...

Click to expand...

Exactly. a bane on judges with agendas..

cabse5 said:

On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? .

Click to expand...

Rational basis review

Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to the lowest of three levels of scrutiny applied by courts when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. "Rational basis review" simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason offered as its justification. Rational basis review is the lowest, default level of scrutiny that a court applies when engaging in judicial review in the United States. The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Rational basis review does not usually apply in situations where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.

Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

Ruling [edit]
In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."
The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with Goodrich V. dep't of health. Give (same sex) unions all the rights and responsibilties of civil marriage. I also agree with the Supreme Court of Hawaii's decision in 1993 that said much the same as above.

Allowing marriage for everyone is much different (and is what gay marriage advocates advocate) than Hawaii's SSC ruling in 1993, or Goodrich v. dep't of health ruling.

cabse5 said:

I agree with Goodrich V. dep't of health. Give unions all the rights and responsibilties of civil marriage.

Click to expand...

All marriages recognized by the State are civil marriages irregardless if a preist, rabbi or witch doctor performs the ceremony.

winston53660 said:

All marriages recognized by the State are civil marriages irregardless if a preist, rabbi or witch doctor performs the ceremony.

Click to expand...

According to whom? The state of Iowa, or Massachusetts or ... Need to clarify that. And what was the precedent they chose, the reason those courts concluded thus?

cabse5 said:

According to whom?

Click to expand...

The State and The US Constitution, Establishment clause.

So basically one plurality of state judges can define, let's say, discrimination and the whole of the US is forced to follow suit? Not very fair. What if that plurality of judges has an ideology other than the state's constitution?

cabse5 said:

So basically one plurality of state judges can define, let's say, discrimination and the whole of the US is forced to follow suit? Not very fair.

Click to expand...

Uhhhmmm no The Massachusetts decision only affected Massachusetts.

I can not believe I'm about to ask this....

Have you ever taken a civics class?

I'm using, with my last post, discrimination (which many gay marriage advocates use to obfuscate the gay marriage issue). They say SSM couples are being discriminated against, and that conclusively and constitutionally demands gay marriage be allowed.

I'm not sure what's inside your head. Why don't you explain? Prove gay marriage is constitutional.

cabse5 said:

I'm using, with my last post, discrimination (which many gay marriage advocates use to obfuscate the gay marriage issue). The say SSM couples are being discriminated against, and that conclusively and constitutionally demands gay marriage be allowed.

I'm not sure what's inside your head. Why don't you explain? Prove gay marriage is constitutional.

Click to expand...

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

cabse5 said:

On what grounds did the original plurality of state supreme court judges deem that prohibiting marriage to everyone is unconstitutional? That original decision of marriage for everyone is way out of the box, especially when judges use precedents in their decision making. Which precedents were were being violated?

If one group of judges can go way out of the box to make decisions, why can't another group of judges go way out of the box to make a 'reversal' decision? Ya know, for example, prohibition was repealed. I believe in the prohibition reversal, public opinion did as much as anything to cause the reversal. There isn't a plurality of americans who believe in marriage for everyone, yet.

Click to expand...

On the same grounds that have been used by many judges in the past for other issues, including segregation and interracial marriage, to name a few, people being treated differently based on arbitrary traits and the difference in treatment by the law cannot be shown to actually further a state interest. That violates our 14th Amendment.

But your contention was that the SCOTUS would find same sex marriage unconstitutional. In order for that to occur, same sex marriage would have to violate a Constitutional Clause. You would need to show what actual Constitutional Clause is violated by same sex marriage being legal. Even the judges' rulings finding marriage could not be restricted to opposite sex only couples is not unconstitutional.

nm.....