• 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?


  • Total voters
    60
You don't have to take marriage out of the government portfolio. That's a false either/or dichotomy. No one is forced to enter into a same-sex civil marriage against their will.


We can have government recognize the rights of same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage and allow private businesses to make their own decisions as to which customers to serve or not - whether it be race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or any other criteria.


>>>>

The problem is not gays being forced, but forcing third parties to act against their conscience.
 
Well, no. If the court imposes a top-down national solution, then this will remain a problem for some time. If the court leaves it to the States and to the public debate, then it will simply go there, like our other national debates.

I highly doubt the issue will die out if left to the states....especially now that it's already legal in 36 states.
 
But nobody will care what those against equal rights thinks. They lost, are losing and if they want to continue to fight let them,. They will only HELP equal rights while making themselves look like the complete jackasses they are.


there are people right now that still think women are lessers, that minorities are lessers, that neither should have equal rights, . . nobody takes those morons seriously. Those views are simply seen for the indefensible, illogical, hateful bigotry they are.

Don't kid yourself...everyone thought the Birchers were a thing of the past, too. But now they're baaaaack....and lots of people are taking them seriously. Nah, the issue of SSM will never go away anymore than religion will....and I don't see that happening in any of our lifetimes. But then there's a lot I thought I'd never see that has come to be. Like, I never thought I'd see gay rights achieve so much so fast...but here we are. So....we'll see.
 
The problem is not gays being forced, but forcing third parties to act against their conscience.

That is an issue of Public Accommodation laws, and has nothing to do with Civil Marriage. Civil Marriage is between the spouses and the government. Anytime you are talking about "third parties" (i.e. businesses providing services) you are not talking Civil Marriage law.

You know that there was no Civil Marriage for same-sex couples in the Sweetcakes (Oregon), Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) and Elane Photography (New Mexico) cases right? Those were issues under Public Accommodation laws since there was no Civil Marriage in those States at the time.


>>>>
 
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.
As long as there is religious belief against it, it's never going to go away. The chart below shows how often public opinion can change.....

Roevwade.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion

After the Civil Rights bill passed a lot of people thought racism would end, too.
 
I'm going with "States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states". I hope I am wrong, but I just dont see it happening now. But please say I am wrong.
 
As long as there is religious belief against it, it's never going to go away. The chart below shows how often public opinion can change.....

Roevwade.png


Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the Civil Rights bill passed a lot of people thought racism would end, too.

Oh no. It wont go away. Its going to be there in one form or another. Its going to be there in one way or another. Examples from our past: institutionalized racism and anti abortion policies. There will be some form of discrimination one way or another. Be it institutionalized, direct laws, or just flat out bigotry. Civil rights, equality before society for the same sex community is not going to be won directly by a supreme. Our history proves this, and our present day proves this is well.
 
As long as there is religious belief against it, it's never going to go away. The chart below shows how often public opinion can change.....

Roevwade.png


Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the Civil Rights bill passed a lot of people thought racism would end, too.

So many try to point to Roe v Wade, when it is obvious that same sex marriage support/opposition graphs match interracial marriage acceptance/opposition graphs, not abortion graphs. It is dishonest to pretend that this issue is anything like abortion. It is like interracial marriage. The proof of this is in the group statistics that support/oppose same sex marriage compared to abortion. The groups, young and old, are pretty evenly split when it comes to opposition of abortion, and have been for quite some time (since about the decision was made or before. Support and opposition for same sex marriage is very much obviously more opposed by older generations than younger generations, just as interracial marriage was/is.

So, although it is unlikely that opposition to same sex marriage will ever completely go away, it will get to such a low point that it won't matter and the rare cases where the next generation sees it, it will be treated very much the same way as we treat opposition to interracial marriages now.
 
I think the court is going to throw everyone a curveball
 
I should explain more

the liberal bloc are a given-Kagan, Breyer, Sotamayor and RBG are going to vote for gay marriage on all fronts

we have seen that CJ Roberts wants to be seen as both clever and a wise King Solomon (remember Obama care-he didn't buy the commerce clause nonsense of the left but he split the baby with the tax argument even though the Obama advocates denied it was a tax)

so he will do something like that here

Thomas, Alito and Scalia will probably continue to say its a states rights issue-to the point that a state doesn't have to recognize gay marriage from another state

Kennedy is another question mark
 
Don't kid yourself...everyone thought the Birchers were a thing of the past, too. But now they're baaaaack....and lots of people are taking them seriously. Nah, the issue of SSM will never go away anymore than religion will....and I don't see that happening in any of our lifetimes. But then there's a lot I thought I'd never see that has come to be. Like, I never thought I'd see gay rights achieve so much so fast...but here we are. So....we'll see.

Interracial marriage opposition hasn't gone away either, but is so irrelevant that no one considers it worthy of anything more than scoffing at when someone who is against such things rears their head. There are so few people who legitimately oppose interracial marriages, especially their being legal, that it actually has become a nonissue, despite the rare occasion when someone does something to try to prevent an interracial marriage from happening in some way or from someone having to participate in such an event.

Like this one:

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

And yes this same sort of thing did happen 45 years ago after the Loving decision was made.

https://www.aclu.org/news/nc-interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-1970s-speaks-out-against-sb-2

"Thomas and Carol Ann, who are both legally blind, met in Raleigh and moved to Winston-Salem to work for the Industries for the Blind in the 1970s. Thomas proposed to Carol Ann in 1976, and the two eventually went to their local courthouse to receive a civil marriage ceremony. Instead, they were turned away by two magistrates who said their religious beliefs prohibited them from marrying a black man and a white woman. In 1977, a federal court ordered a magistrate to perform their marriage, and the two magistrates who originally refused were ordered to pay legal fees. The couple now lives in Robbins, North Carolina."
 
Interracial marriage opposition hasn't gone away either, but is so irrelevant that no one considers it worthy of anything more than scoffing at when someone who is against such things rears their head. There are so few people who legitimately oppose interracial marriages, especially their being legal, that it actually has become a nonissue, despite the rare occasion when someone does something to try to prevent an interracial marriage from happening in some way or from someone having to participate in such an event.

Like this one:

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

And yes this same sort of thing did happen 45 years ago after the Loving decision was made.

https://www.aclu.org/news/nc-interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-1970s-speaks-out-against-sb-2

"Thomas and Carol Ann, who are both legally blind, met in Raleigh and moved to Winston-Salem to work for the Industries for the Blind in the 1970s. Thomas proposed to Carol Ann in 1976, and the two eventually went to their local courthouse to receive a civil marriage ceremony. Instead, they were turned away by two magistrates who said their religious beliefs prohibited them from marrying a black man and a white woman. In 1977, a federal court ordered a magistrate to perform their marriage, and the two magistrates who originally refused were ordered to pay legal fees. The couple now lives in Robbins, North Carolina."

Lol, I forgot about that!
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

I, myself, have piles and piles of female friends. I just don't think they should be allowed to vote. I'm not sexist at all.
 
Lol, I forgot about that!

I, myself, have piles and piles of female friends. I just don't think they should be allowed to vote. I'm not sexist at all.

Honestly, I can see this as really being a deeply held belief because I have personally known quite a number of people who felt this was about mixing the races, some of whom were actually black. Now, I've also known some who actually were racist assholes too. The girl in bootcamp I knew who was against interracial relationships actually developed pretty good friendships with the black girls in bootcamp but had issues with me because I was in an interracial relationship. I still view such beliefs, even if not based in actual racism, as ignorant and backward.
 
So many try to point to Roe v Wade, when it is obvious that same sex marriage support/opposition graphs match interracial marriage acceptance/opposition graphs, not abortion graphs. It is dishonest to pretend that this issue is anything like abortion. It is like interracial marriage. The proof of this is in the group statistics that support/oppose same sex marriage compared to abortion. The groups, young and old, are pretty evenly split when it comes to opposition of abortion, and have been for quite some time (since about the decision was made or before. Support and opposition for same sex marriage is very much obviously more opposed by older generations than younger generations, just as interracial marriage was/is.

So, although it is unlikely that opposition to same sex marriage will ever completely go away, it will get to such a low point that it won't matter and the rare cases where the next generation sees it, it will be treated very much the same way as we treat opposition to interracial marriages now.

Inter-racial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage so not sure if that is a valid comparison either. Apparently, the court is wary of changing the definition of marriage as it's been understood for thousands of years....

'...Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for "millennia-plus time," according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom. "It's very difficult for the court to say 'We know better,'" Kennedy said during gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto's presentation of arguments...."
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says definition of marriage has stood for 'millennia' | MLive.com

Inter-racial marriage didn't change that definition of marriage, but SSM would definitely would, don't you agree? It was also a younger generation that was more accepting of abortion and got Roe v Wade passed. But as you know, public opinion has recently changed on that, too.
 
Lol, I forgot about that!

I, myself, have piles and piles of female friends. I just don't think they should be allowed to vote. I'm not sexist at all.

You'd be a masochist if you said that in a room full of women. lol
 
Inter-racial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage so not sure if that is a valid comparison either. Apparently, the court is wary of changing the definition of marriage as it's been understood for thousands of years....

'...Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for "millennia-plus time," according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom. "It's very difficult for the court to say 'We know better,'" Kennedy said during gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto's presentation of arguments...."
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says definition of marriage has stood for 'millennia' | MLive.com

Inter-racial marriage didn't change that definition of marriage, but SSM would definitely would, don't you agree? It was also a younger generation that was more accepting of abortion and got Roe v Wade passed. But as you know, public opinion has recently changed on that, too.

I wish Bonauto would have challenged them more on that line of questioning. It is one thing to simply make the point to express the gravity of the question before the Court, but it is something else to go on about it for an extended period of time. The way it has been understood for thousands of years is irrelevant. That isn't a legal/constitutional argument nor should our Constitution be interpreted through the lens of the values of Ancient Greece.
 
Honestly, I can see this as really being a deeply held belief because I have personally known quite a number of people who felt this was about mixing the races, some of whom were actually black. Now, I've also known some who actually were racist assholes too. The girl in bootcamp I knew who was against interracial relationships actually developed pretty good friendships with the black girls in bootcamp but had issues with me because I was in an interracial relationship. I still view such beliefs, even if not based in actual racism, as ignorant and backward.

It's been suggested that Prop 8 (the bill to ban SSM) wouldn't have passed if it weren't for the black evangelical vote....

"....According to exit polls, 70 percent of African-Americans said they voted yes on Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

The new poll's sample size of black voters was too small to draw many conclusions, but this much seems clear: Proposition 8 received a total of 6.8 million votes, according to the California secretary of state's final tally, and, at most, about 900,000 of those votes came from African-Americans. If black voters had voted the same way as whites—50 percent for same-sex marriage and 50 percent opposed—the net gain for same-sex marriage supporters would have been slightly more than 500,000 votes. Prop 8 passed by a margin of just under 600,000 votes....."


The article said 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8....that's would be about 600,000. Prop 8 passed by a margin just under 600,000.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? It's was the black parents that were against inter-racial marriage...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6QiEqWcYrA


Anyway, the point is, blacks are lot more conservative in their beliefs than a lot of people give them credit for. So maybe we're on the same page here....somehow. :)
 
I wish Bonauto would have challenged them more on that line of questioning. It is one thing to simply make the point to express the gravity of the question before the Court, but it is something else to go on about it for an extended period of time. The way it has been understood for thousands of years is irrelevant. That isn't a legal/constitutional argument nor should our Constitution be interpreted through the lens of the values of Ancient Greece.


But I don't think the court wants to redefine "marriage", either ...but it is something they might eventually have to do. Anyway, I haven't listened to the whole audio tape yet but I have heard Kennedy speak more favorably about gay marriage as well.
 
But I don't think the court wants to redefine "marriage", either ...but it is something they might eventually have to do. Anyway, I haven't listened to the whole audio tape yet but I have heard Kennedy speak more favorably about gay marriage as well.

Kennedy was hung up on that, but my impression is that he was only reflecting on the gravity of the decision they're being asked to make. As opposed to Scalia, who really thinks it should be a deciding factor. Listening to the audio is worth it especially for Question II. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier's argument was masterful.
 
I should explain more

the liberal bloc are a given-Kagan, Breyer, Sotamayor and RBG are going to vote for gay marriage on all fronts

we have seen that CJ Roberts wants to be seen as both clever and a wise King Solomon (remember Obama care-he didn't buy the commerce clause nonsense of the left but he split the baby with the tax argument even though the Obama advocates denied it was a tax)

so he will do something like that here

Thomas, Alito and Scalia will probably continue to say its a states rights issue-to the point that a state doesn't have to recognize gay marriage from another state

Kennedy is another question mark

Which still kinda does not answer the question of what they will do. You are just saying that Roberts and Kennedy are a third faction if I understand.
 
That is an issue of Public Accommodation laws, and has nothing to do with Civil Marriage. Civil Marriage is between the spouses and the government. Anytime you are talking about "third parties" (i.e. businesses providing services) you are not talking Civil Marriage law.

You know that there was no Civil Marriage for same-sex couples in the Sweetcakes (Oregon), Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) and Elane Photography (New Mexico) cases right? Those were issues under Public Accommodation laws since there was no Civil Marriage in those States at the time.


>>>>

-I do not know the way the law would interpret it, but the underlying fact is economic and financial inter-connectivity. And that means that everyone is connected and Civil Marriage is not only between the primary actors as superficially possibly thought. It has consequences via many laws and connected rights for later payments to and from government. The external effects of these payments affect everybody. It goes further, however, as the court rulings have shown.

-I am not sure, what you want to say. That we have more than one problem that need sorting surrounding the changes gay rights are bringing about? Therein you are certainly right. The Public Accommodation laws will need correcting.
 
Inter-racial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage so not sure if that is a valid comparison either. Apparently, the court is wary of changing the definition of marriage as it's been understood for thousands of years....

'...Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for "millennia-plus time," according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom. "It's very difficult for the court to say 'We know better,'" Kennedy said during gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto's presentation of arguments...."
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says definition of marriage has stood for 'millennia' | MLive.com

Inter-racial marriage didn't change that definition of marriage, but SSM would definitely would, don't you agree? It was also a younger generation that was more accepting of abortion and got Roe v Wade passed. But as you know, public opinion has recently changed on that, too.

Interracial marriage being legal changed a "definition of marriage" in the same way same sex marriage does, whether it matched your definition doesn't matter. Both removed a restriction on marriage itself. In reality, it didn't change marriage at all. It simply allows more people to enter into marriage.

And no, the younger generation was not more accepting of Roe v Wade in nearly the same way that we see with same sex marriage. There is no age divide when it comes to abortion opposition like we see in marriage opposition/support. The graphs for them look nothing alike.

Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends

One of these things is not like the other two.

interracialmarriagesupport.gifRvW.jpgssmsupport.jpg

Despite denial of this fact, the similarities between interracial marriage support/opposition and same sex marriage support/opposition from these graphs are obvious. There is no similarity between the graph on same sex marriage and abortion.

The only significant difference when it comes to abortion can be seen when you look at those with no religion, then you end up with a large percentage being pro-choice, which is the only thing similar to same sex marriage. However, the numbers are still different there too. And again, the difference in generational support/opposition for legal abortion is small, unlike same sex marriage where it is huge.

And I think Justice Kennedy actually can see that this really isn't true. There have been many places in that millenia plus time that have had a different view on marriage, including it being one man and multiple women, even here in the US. That is discussing a restriction on marriage, not what marriage really is defined as.
 
It's been suggested that Prop 8 (the bill to ban SSM) wouldn't have passed if it weren't for the black evangelical vote....

"....According to exit polls, 70 percent of African-Americans said they voted yes on Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

The new poll's sample size of black voters was too small to draw many conclusions, but this much seems clear: Proposition 8 received a total of 6.8 million votes, according to the California secretary of state's final tally, and, at most, about 900,000 of those votes came from African-Americans. If black voters had voted the same way as whites—50 percent for same-sex marriage and 50 percent opposed—the net gain for same-sex marriage supporters would have been slightly more than 500,000 votes. Prop 8 passed by a margin of just under 600,000 votes....."


The article said 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8....that's would be about 600,000. Prop 8 passed by a margin just under 600,000.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? It's was the black parents that were against inter-racial marriage...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6QiEqWcYrA


Anyway, the point is, blacks are lot more conservative in their beliefs than a lot of people give them credit for. So maybe we're on the same page here....somehow. :)


It doesn't matter which groups don't approve of same sex marriage. That is irrelevant. They are people too.

And there are black people who do not/did not approve of interracial marriages as well.
 
But I don't think the court wants to redefine "marriage", either ...but it is something they might eventually have to do. Anyway, I haven't listened to the whole audio tape yet but I have heard Kennedy speak more favorably about gay marriage as well.

Legally, there is no "redefining" marriage when you simply allow more people, those people of the same sex to enter into marriage. You are just removing a restriction. That is all. Marriage stays the same. People still enter into it for a variety of reasons, the most common being love. People still get all the same rights, privileges, benefits, and even responsibilities as when it is was restricted to just opposite sex couples. People still can get out of it the same way.

So then the question should be, what exactly does functionally change by allowing same sex couples to enter into marriages? What difference does it truly make when it comes to marriage?
 
I highly doubt the issue will die out if left to the states....especially now that it's already legal in 36 states.

It reduces the pressure sharply on both sides. It takes the threat of top-down imposition on the traditional marriage side, while still allowing same-sex couples to get married. Neither side then poses a major threat to the other. Liberal states can issue marriage licenses to gays, conservative states don't have to, gay couples in conservative states who want a license can make a weekend road trip to get it and their home state has to recognize it.

Will it go away? No. But it will be reduced as an issue.

As long as there is religious belief against it, it's never going to go away. The chart below shows how often public opinion can change.....

Roevwade.png


Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would be an excellent example of what I'm talking about - partially because the Court imposed a top-down one-size-fits-not-quite-anyone solution (and the poll question is somewhat misleading), abortion has remained an incredibly divisive and corrosive issue. Had they left it to the States, it would be much less so, because it would be a local/state issue, rather than one in which both sides seek to use the national government to force their beliefs on the other.

After the Civil Rights bill passed a lot of people thought racism would end, too.

And by and large, it has. Oh sure, there is still plenty out there to find if you go looking (the most racist demographic I've run across - and this surprised me - is actually black women), but by and large America is one of the least racist countries on the planet.
 
Back
Top Bottom