Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was thinking. Not much would be really gained if only Prop. 8 was struck down, since it would be super cake to repeal it (via another Proposition) next year.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was thinking. Not much would be really gained if only Prop. 8 was struck down, since it would be super cake to repeal it (via another Proposition) next year.

It would most likely pass, yes.  It would be costly in a large state such as yours, though.  Oregon and Colorado are the best targets in 2014.

California would be a lot easier than Colorado. California and Oregon are no-brainers for 2014. If all SCOTUS is going to do is strike down Prop. 8 and not give gay marriage to any other state, or throw out DOMA< they shouldn't bother.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

SCOTUS will definitely deliver at least Option 4 IMO.  Hopefully, they realize though, that Option 4 means that they'll just have to decide this case again in two years when every other state with a same sex marriage ban gets challenged on the grounds that California set precedence and it moves back up the chain.  

Yeah, it would be especially useless since California should easily repeal it next year. If every Democrat supported it, they could even skip the signature process with a 2/3rds vote of the state legislature. Not that getting a million and whatever signatures to have gay marriage would be that hard.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ballot referenda shouldn't exist in the first place, tbh.  That said, the reason the Prop 8 defendant intervenors are running into standing problems is that they cannot show how they'd be affected at all by the result of the case, one way or the other.  In a referendum that had more tangible effects on all sides like, say, a tax increase, the standing problems would be nonexistent.

Warrantless FISA spying certainly could affect one negatively, and this Supreme court rejected standing tehre.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.

That's because only the provision dealing with federal recognition is up for debate in this case. The Supreme Court isn't allowed to rule on the other DOMA provision, on recognition by other states. It's only the federal part that's up for debate in this ruling.

The Supreme Court can make surprisingly broad rulings like Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific although that was actually due to a activist right-wing court reporter legislating from the court reporting.