• 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!

Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

How will SCOTUS rule?

  • States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states

    Votes: 8 13.3%

  • States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • States cannot ban SSM and have to recognize them from other states

    Votes: 45 75.0%

  • No ruling, lack of standing

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Something else

    Votes: 3 5.0%
  • Total voters
    60
d0gbreath said:
What if the civil unions were in fact legally identical to marriage?
Click to expand...

Even if we ignore that 'separate but equal' has been ruled unConstitutional, why on Earth would anyone want 'bigger' govt and more bureaucracy by creating yet another classification to be administered? More paperwork, more cost, more agencies of oversite, more time invested by IRS and other federal agencies that administer taxes, benefits, etc?

Kinda the opposite of what conservatives claim to want and it also seems that it's mostly conservatives objecting to SSM.
 
Last edited:
d0gbreath said:
What if the civil unions were in fact legally identical to marriage?
Click to expand...

Two issues with that.

1: so far no civil union has actually been identical to marriage.
2: if it is identical to marriage, then it is marriage. Calling it something else is not going to change that.
 
Redress said:
Two issues with that.

1: so far no civil union has actually been identical to marriage.
2: if it is identical to marriage, then it is marriage. Calling it something else is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
Click to expand...


All people go to the government and get a Civil Union.

Religious people go to a religious organization and get a Religious Marriage. But be aware there are a lot of religoius organizations (and the number is growing) that will already religiously marry people of the same-sex so they still get to use the word "marriage" since they are married in a Church (Synagogue, Temple, etc.).




OK. That's fine.


>>>>
 
d0gbreath said:
SCOTUS will vote in accordance with option #4.

They will however, use the verbiage 'Civil Union' in order to placate the bigots.
Click to expand...

that will never happen since that cant be done simply by saying "civil unions" . . that would be completely moronic, a waste of time and cause all types of problems . . . .
what would replace civil unions?
also the bigots dont need placated to just like we didnt placate to them with minority and woman's rights.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
Click to expand...

A bad one. Creating artificial divides just to appease a few nuts is not ever a good solution.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
Click to expand...

was it good or bad when blacks had to use thier own water fountains etc? bad of course

bad because it undermines peoples rights, is a waste of time and money, would be totally changing the system how it is and simply can't be done in reality.
the opposition no matter who they are dont matter to equal rights, thier support isnt needed nor does it matter
 
cpwill said:
SCOTUSBLOG is suggesting that Option #1 is shot.


From their LiveBlog:



Which would be Option #2, which I think is the best actual option here.
Click to expand...

I don't see what constitutional basis there would be for requiring a state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Article IV, sec. 1 of the Constitution says that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But that requirement is subject to a condition. The second sentence of this clause says that "the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

That is exactly what Congress did in section two of the Defense of Marriage Act:

‘‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’’

The Supreme Court certainly has no authority to write the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause out of the Constitution.
 
matchlight said:
I don't see what constitutional basis there would be for requiring a state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Article IV, sec. 1 of the Constitution says that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But that requirement is subject to a condition. The second sentence of this clause says that "the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

That is exactly what Congress did in section two of the Defense of Marriage Act:

‘‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’’

The Supreme Court certainly has no authority to write the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause out of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That portion of DOMA was overthrown in Windsor.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If civil union is made equal to marriage in everything but name, and the distiction is something the religious opposition to SSM can tolerate if not support, would that be a good outcome or a bad one?
Click to expand...

If you wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union, why do you think anyone else would be?
 
Redress said:
To an extent, yes, though the lawyer's answer to Alito's question was very good and still relevant. Essentially she pointed out that it raises a number of very different questions that could result in a very different answer.
Click to expand...

uh.... I find her answer pretty weak:

...JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

MS. BONAUTO: I believe so, Your Honor.

JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the reason?

MS. BONAUTO: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the latency question for a moment, if I may. Because

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I didn't understand your answer.

MS. BONAUTO: Well, that's what I mean,that is I mean, the State

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there's no these are people,men andwomen, it's not it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers.

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the ground under under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

MS. BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental

JUSTICE ALITO: But well, I don't knowwhat kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no why is that a greater break?

MS. BONAUTO: The question is one of again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that....
Click to expand...

That's an awful answer. It basically boils down to A) Marriage is fundamentally about two people (well you can't make that argument if you are stating that you shouldn't deny individuals free exercise based on what a public fundamental definition of marriage is) and B) there might be problems involving custody or people who don't want to be married to their spouse (there are such problems already with traditional marriage).

For the option where you have consenting, willing, educated adults, she has no answer other than to say "Well, it's just not the same". Which is a repetition of the anti-SSM argument.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
If you wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union, why do you think anyone else would be?
Click to expand...

Is this a hypothetical or are you assuming my opinion regarding level of satisfaction with a civil union?
 
cpwill said:
uh.... I find her answer pretty weak:



That's an awful answer. It basically boils down to A) Marriage is fundamentally about two people (well you can't make that argument if you are stating that you shouldn't deny individuals free exercise based on what a public fundamental definition of marriage is) and B) there might be problems involving custody or people who don't want to be married to their spouse (there are such problems already with traditional marriage).

For the option where you have consenting, willing, educated adults, she has no answer other than to say "Well, it's just not the same". Which is a repetition of the anti-SSM argument.
Click to expand...

You are looking at specifics instead of the point. The point she was trying to make was that the issues involved are different, which can lead to a different outcome.
 
Redress said:
You are looking at specifics instead of the point. The point she was trying to make was that the issues involved are different, which can lead to a different outcome.
Click to expand...

If the point she was trying to make was that the issues involved were different, she failed miserably, as the issues she brought up were, in fact, not. She tried to divert from the question to avoid answering it - it was a bad response.
 
My Ronco crystal ball is broken, but I'd say they're going to slither out of any decision and not say much of anything. My second guess would be that it'll be left up to states, and let some states crawl on the floor to do the lowly thing and not honor ssm's.
 
Redress said:
So the oral arguments are tomorrow before the Supreme Court on the subject of same sex marriage. The court is looking at two primary questions, whether states can refuse to recognize same sex marriages from other states, and whether states can ban same sex marriage. Good reading on the issues at hand, pretty balanced to my mind: Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions : SCOTUSblog. So how do you think the court will end up ruling?

1: States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states
2: States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states
3: States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states
4: States cannot ban SSM and have to recognize them from other states
5: No ruling, lack of standing
6: Something else

Please be patient while I add poll options.
Click to expand...

Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.
 
joG said:
Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.
Click to expand...


Ahhh - Same-sex Civil Marriage doesn't do anything for "tossing free religous practice" of anyone. You may be confusing the Same-sex Civil Marriage issue with Public Accommodation laws which are a different matter all together.


Did you know that Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon), Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado), and Elane Photography (New Mexico) were all cases from States that did not have SSCM at the time?


Finally, since you are concerned about government and religious practices, can we assume that you support same-sex couples that have been married by a religious organization as being equally recognized by the government and that their religious practices should not be "tossed" by the government?



>>>>
 
Hatuey said:
That's an excellent point. In the end, we all know ssm being recognize is inevitable. It's becoming more obvious that a group's beliefs on the matter are largely irrelevant to whether it should be legal. I'd hate to be on the side that was holding up signs with hateful messages. I mean, in the end, historians won't see a difference between this:

....

The issue now is for the people opposed to SSM to decide how they want to be viewed. Will they continue down this path and remain the proverbial bad guys in the history of equality? Or will they simply acknowledge that gay people having their marriage sanctioned and recognized by the state changes nothing in their personal lives?
Click to expand...


No matter what the court decides, those opposed to SSM have vowed to never give up their fight against it. Like legal abortion, SSM will always be a wedge issue.
 
I think the court will rule a state's right to not recognize SSM from other states as unconstitutional.
 
joG said:
Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.
Click to expand...

How did you come up with that bizarre notion? And how does it affect the possible outcomes of the case SCOTUS heard today?
 
joG said:
Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.
Click to expand...
Neither the women's rights movement, nor the Civil Rights movement preserved the sincere "free religious practices" of being able to act exclusionary/discriminatory towards a group of people.

Actually the only "free religious practice" that I can seem to recall being preserved are alcohol's blue laws.
 
At a bare minimum I think they'll rule states will be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. I think they'll go all the way and require all states to perform them though.
 
Moot said:
No matter what the court decides, those opposed to SSM have vowed to never give up their fight against it. Like legal abortion, SSM will always be a wedge issue.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. The number of those in younger generations who support same sex marriage are so much higher than those in older generations, just like interracial marriage, not abortion.

Americans Misjudge U.S. Abortion Views

These numbers are nothing like support for same sex marriage however, which shows an obvious generational divide leaning heavily in support of same sex marriage in younger generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom