• 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!

Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?


  • Total voters
    26

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its that time again. About 13 months ago I asked this same question and then 18 months before that.
I asked 13 months ago because the number hit around 11 i think but now its time again because the number is at 19+ with around 10 or so pending/stayed and EVERY SINGLE STATE is fighting for SSM/Equal rights. THere are no states left that don't have court cases and or legislation to achieve SSM.

Will SCOTUS step in a make a national ruling, or will they just say the lower courts are fine and theres nothing to really review, will they fall or be in stay one by one before that? who knows but I know Im changing my answer and poll structure. It was based on every 5 years.
about 13 months ago. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/160180-long-till-same-sex-marriage-nationally-legal-us.html
about 31 months ago http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/116902-same-sex-marriage-long-till-its-legal.html

I think by 2016 SSM/Equal rights will be national. im voting 0-2 years. What do you think in light of all the victories for equal rights?

0-2 years
3-4 years
5-6 years
7-8 years
9-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26+
Never

dont know if this is currently accurate, havent checked recently, please update if not. Thanks
Changes/Updates in RED
7/27/14 Version 16.0

21 States with Equal Rights and 14 Stayed/Appealed/Pending


21 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Oregon May 19, 2014
Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
Colorado July 23, 2014 (partial)
Virgina - July 28th, 2014 (could affect NC, SC, WV)



14 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
Utah – December 20, 2013 (Stayed) June 25th 2014 10th upheld banning is unconstitutional. Ruling stayed.
Oklahoma - (Stayed) (10th ruling could impact this)
Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated)
Virginia - February 14, 2014 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)
Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Ohio - April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Idaho - May 13, 2014 (Stayed)
Wisconsin - June 6, 2014(Stayed)
Indiana - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Kansas - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Wyoming - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Florida - July 17th, 2014





20 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama
Georgia
Kansas (10th ruling could impact this)
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wyoming (10th ruling could impact this)

4 States with Court Cases and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Arizona
Missouri
Nevada



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
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - RULED ON and probably going to SCOTUS :D
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- nothing pending, talks of two cases
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")
10-th - 3 panel judge ruled banning SSM is unconstitutional. Stayed

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

THERE ARE NO STATES LEFT NOT 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
 
If you are talking nationally, I think 5-6 years. Simply because there will be a few states that hold out which will force a SCOTUS ruling that will make SSM legal across the land.
 
If you are talking nationally, I think 5-6 years. Simply because there will be a few states that hold out which will force a SCOTUS ruling that will make SSM legal across the land.

you dont think SCOTUS will rule before then? with the current stays some appeals directly to SCOTUS people in that area think SCOTUS will hear arguments as soon as 2015.


Now they could punt . . .somehow but with the appeals it will make it hard. . . the appeals are pretty direct and if they uphold the federal court rulings that all mention some of these in some form equal rights, the 14th, references to Loving v. Virginia and scrutiny levels a punt will be magic to pull off.

at this point i dont think they can even pass up ruling in some fashion can they? the direct appeals will have to be dealt with in some form . . .

I guess anything is possible but id be shocked at anything longer than 2017
 
you dont think SCOTUS will rule before then? with the current stays some appeals directly to SCOTUS people in that area think SCOTUS will hear arguments as soon as 2015.

I think they will punt for a while longer until more and more cases start making their way up. Eventually they are going to have to take it up. I'd like for it to be sooner, but I don't see it happening.
 
I think they will punt for a while longer until more and more cases start making their way up. Eventually they are going to have to take it up. I'd like for it to be sooner, but I don't see it happening.

hmmm interesting, they will have to work some magic to punt. also since the appeals are coming from federal districts even a couple punts will make it legal for muiltiple states. 2 punts or even one punt if the combined the appeals could make it legal for like 8-12 states, theres not many left. . ..

im starting to think that maybe thats more possible, maybe they will punt but then by default it will be national anyway of very close . . interesting

like you thought i hope not i hope 2016
 
I think they will punt for a while longer until more and more cases start making their way up. Eventually they are going to have to take it up. I'd like for it to be sooner, but I don't see it happening.

I think they can more easily punt this with a case like Utah that would only open up marriage for same sex couples in states where the law allows for first cousins to marry only if they are unable to have children but then the state claims that one of the main reasons they have for denying marriage to same sex couples is because they cannot have children. This is a huge contradiction for them. But it also would allow the SCOTUS to make a very narrow ruling that would not fully open up same sex marriage to everyone, would allow them to deny to hear the other cases coming up, deferring back to the lower court decision, and basically put the entire argument off for another couple of years. Ultimately, such a thing would be cowardly.

Luckily, I don't think this is likely to happen unless the more conservative members of the Court recognize that they could do this and band together for such a decision. Because the more liberal members of the Court are not likely to make such a narrow ruling on this given their past decisions.

I don't think they can punt this very well though because most of the decisions coming up are going to open up marriage to same sex couples in many states already if they deny the hearing and any contradictory ruling would prevent them from even being able to put it off. If just one Circuit Court rules for the states, they will have to hear at least one of these decisions because otherwise they can't just send them back to the lower court ruling without being contradictory and not settling the question.
 
If you are talking nationally, I think 5-6 years. Simply because there will be a few states that hold out which will force a SCOTUS ruling that will make SSM legal across the land.

Err, this is what's been going on the whole time. Utah is appealing directly to SCOTUS. That case will be taken by next summer.
 
As I understand it marriage has always been a state issue (with the exception of certain federal domains like the military) so hopefully its not SCOTUS that will determine this.

I am for gay marriage. I am not for the tactics of the left to achieve this...identity politics.
 
As I understand it marriage has always been a state issue (with the exception of certain federal domains like the military) so hopefully its not SCOTUS that will determine this.

I am for gay marriage. I am not for the tactics of the left to achieve this...identity politics.

Loving v VA, Zablocki v Redhail, and Turner v Safley show that it also falls to the federal government to protect the rights of the people against states trying to restrict them for arbitrary reasons, even when it comes to marriage.
 
Loving v VA, Zablocki v Redhail, and Turner v Safley show that it also falls to the federal government to protect the rights of the people against states trying to restrict them for arbitrary reasons, even when it comes to marriage.

I dont like top down one-size-fits-all dictates.
 
I dont like top down one-size-fits-all dictates.

Too bad. These are meant to protect the individual rights against the majorities of states attempting to restrict their citizens based on nothing more than subjective morally based objections to something. Individual rights should trump state rights.
 
Too bad. These are meant to protect the individual rights against the majorities of states attempting to restrict their citizens based on nothing more than subjective morally based objections to something. Individual rights should trump state rights.

When did gay marriage become a right? Dates, please.
 
1.)As I understand it marriage has always been a state issue (with the exception of certain federal domains like the military) so hopefully its not SCOTUS that will determine this.
2.)I am for gay marriage.
3.) I am not for the tactics of the left to achieve this...identity politics.

1.) then you simply misunderstand, see loving vs Virginia . States have states rights and can control SOME things about marriage but they cant infringe on individual rights. So courts and probably SCOTUS as soon as next year will determine this because the states have overstepped thier powers has the courts have already determined and now its thier job to fix it.
2.)thats good most people are for equal rights
3.) good thing that has nothing to do with it and millions on the right also support equal rights.
 
3-4 years. I think most of the country will embrace marriage equality by 2016, but I think there will be one or two stubborn states that refuse.
 
I'm going to say 9-10 years, only because I know there will be some particularly backwards states, most likely in the south, that will hold off as long as they can. They will lose in the long term but they're not going to go down easily.
 
When did gay marriage become a right? Dates, please.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

you're welcome
 
Since culture is upstream from politics I disagree.

again you agreeing or not doesnt matter to equal rights either lol
again see loving vs Virginia, 80+% of the country was against interracial marriage, doesnt matter because its a rights issue.
 
In the previous poll I said 10-15 years. I now say 0-5 years (3 to 4). I honestly think that the Supreme Court is going to rule soon, and it will rule in favor of marriage equality. I was not anticipating the dramatic wave of court rulings in favor of SSM and all that has occurred since Windsor.
 
Half a decade. Again mostly because of a couple of holdout states.
 
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

you're welcome


These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?
 
These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?
No. They do not all even have to do with marriage (Lawrence v. Texas for example). The cases all have in common what the title of the link says:

"14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right"

In other words, 14 cases were the court affirmed marriage is a fundamental right.
 
Back
Top Bottom