• 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
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.

I don't know what they will do. Roberts opinion in the AHCA was nothing anyone predicted. Kennedy is a catholic from California-that's an interesting mix for a vote on gay rights
 
I don't know what they will do. Roberts opinion in the AHCA was nothing anyone predicted. Kennedy is a catholic from California-that's an interesting mix for a vote on gay rights

He's also a Supreme Court justice and will make the proper and obvious constitutional decision.
 
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?



It gives everyone in the USA the same rights.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself."
~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
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.

Not only that, there is generally a social stigma against being publicly racist. (Not everywhere but mostly)

That is what time and progress brings...fortunately. And it will happen for the LGBT community as well.

How much do you want to bet that there are bakeries and venues that will not do weddings for interracial couples? But they just dont speak out that that is why the service was denied.
 
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.

Exactly. Women had few to no rights and were considered property for thousands of years too.
 
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.

How is the definition of marriage any different? It remains the exact same 'institution'. The 'definition' of marriage isnt just about the individuals, it's about what they are committing to...and that isnt changing at all.

This is more concise:

Marriage stays the same.

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?
 
1.)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.
2.) 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.
3.) 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.

1.) nothing to kid, reality and history supports me, i dont know what a bircher is lol
2.) never claimed it "would go away" in fact I made note how examples of bigotry in the past still excist but they dont matter and people dont really care
also religion will never fade (in regards to views as respectable and non respectable) anytime soon like racism and bigotry
3.) correct but the reality is equal rights is winning and the bigots can hang on and cry as much as they want they are losing and exposing themselves
 
How is the definition of marriage any different? It remains the exact same 'institution'. The 'definition' of marriage isnt just about the individuals, it's about what they are committing to...and that isnt changing at all.

This is more concise:

Justice Kennedy seems to think that SSM would change the "definition" of "marriage" as it as been understood for millennia.....

'...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,'" ...."

It was clear that Kennedy, at least, was somewhat uncomfortable about the narrow definition that Bursch was insisting on giving to marriage....."

Justice Kennedy, although he made it very clear, at the outset of her argument, that he was genuinely fretting about a sweeping decision that constitutionalized same-sex marriage. Colorfully, he said he could not count the number of zeroes there were in a millennia, noting that that was how long opposite-sex marriage had been the only accepted version.....

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/argument-analysis-justice-kennedy-hesitant-but-leaning/


It looks like Kennedy is saying that the term "marriage" would need to be "redefined" to include same sex couples in order for SSM to be constitutional and he seems reluctant for the court to do that.

The court didn't have to "redefine" the "definition" of "marriage" in Love v Virginia because it was still between one man and one woman.
 
Last edited:
J

The court didn't have to "redefine" the "definition" of "marriage" in Love v Virginia because it was still between one man and one woman.

In those states, marriage was defined as between people of the same race.

When polygamy was legal, the definition included more than 2 people.
 
In those states, marriage was defined as between people of the same race.

When polygamy was legal, the definition included more than 2 people.


So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.
 
So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.

No one said his definition is right. It was a widely held definition by western society for decades. (Not centuries because we did have polygamy). The point is, the definition has been changed in the past and can be again.
 
So you're saying that Justice Kennedy is wrong? Because he says the definition of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. Even polygamy and inter-racial marriages were still between opposite sexes. So either he is wrong or he is using a different definition than you.

But the definition still changed. As it did when women were no longer legally subservient to men. That was always the tradition, that was always the definition, for thousands of years!

Who gives a crap what people in the dark ages thought about marriage?
 
Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. However, that is pretty irrelevant to the issues before the court. That sodomy laws are unconstitutional does not make orientation a factor is determining a protected class at this time. It is possible that orientation could put some one in a protected class, however currently that is not the case and would probably be done without reference to sodomy laws. Probably a more likely outcome is the court would rule as some of the lower courts have that SSM bans are a form of gender discrimination(ie men can do something women cannot, marry women, and women can do something men cannot, marry women) which would place it under heightened(intermediate) scrutiny. Also possible is that the courts will rule that since marraige is a fundamental right, it would fall under strict scrutiny. Level of review is going to be one of the biggest issues the court has to determine, and will probably take up a significant amount of the hour and a half the court has set aside to review SSM bans(the other hour is looking at the question of whether states have to recognize those married in other states).

I don't think these discussions about which level of scrutiny should or will apply really matter now because the Respondent's arguments just don't survive even rational basis review. The notion that the State preserves marriage by refusing to allow entry into marriage isn't rational (Question I). The notion that the State preserves marriage by dissolving marriages isn't rational (Question II).
 
But the definition still changed. As it did when women were no longer legally subservient to men. That was always the tradition, that was always the definition, for thousands of years!

Who gives a crap what people in the dark ages thought about marriage?

Apparently, the SCOTUS does.
 
No one said his definition is right. It was a widely held definition by western society for decades. (Not centuries because we did have polygamy). The point is, the definition has been changed in the past and can be again.
I understand your point but you don't seem to understand mine, which is....Justice Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote so his definition of marriage is probably all that really matters.
 
I understand your point but you don't seem to understand mine, which is....Justice Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote so his definition of marriage is probably all that really matters.

And yet he has already acknowleged that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective; that the social aspect...of personal liberty and equality (what I read from his opinion) are now more relevant and not unConstitutional.
 
And yet he has already acknowleged that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective; that the social aspect...of personal liberty and equality (what I read from his opinion) are now more relevant and not unConstitutional.

Then you've read more than me. Do you have a link?
 
Then you've read more than me. Do you have a link?

I meant, what I 'read into' his opinion.

So, it was my perception of it.
 
I meant, what I 'read into' his opinion.

So, it was my perception of it.
And yet he has already acknowleged that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective; that the social aspect...of personal liberty and equality (what I read from his opinion) are now more relevant and not unConstitutional.
Okay, then where did Justice Kennedy "acknowledge that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective?" Because what you read into it and what he said seem to be two different things.
 
I honestly don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say legalized across the nation.
 
Okay, then where did Justice Kennedy "acknowledge that his is no longer valid in a historical perspective?" Because what you read into it and what he said seem to be two different things.

WHere he discussed the historical perspective...'tradition,' etc.
 
WHere he discussed the historical perspective...'tradition,' etc.

Since you're basing your opinion on it, how about posting his direct quote?
 
Since you're basing your opinion on it, how about posting his direct quote?

I didnt look anything up, it was here in the thread.
 
uh huh :roll:

I guess neither of us is going back thru 15 pages but others have discussed the same point, his reference to tradition.

Oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom