CA Gay Marrige Ban Headed to SCOTUS

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/california-gay-marraige-case-headed-to-us-supreme-court.html

[The Mikado]

TBH, I think there's a non-trivial chance SCOTUS just punts this one. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

TBH, I think there's a non-trivial chance SCOTUS just punts this one.  

I definitely don't expect much good to come from this.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

TBH, I think there's a non-trivial chance SCOTUS just punts this one.  

I definitely don't expect much good to come from this.

*hangs head* They've got a good chance to redeem themselves (in my eyes, at least). Also, it's the right thing to do.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

TBH, I think there's a non-trivial chance SCOTUS just punts this one.  

I definitely don't expect much good to come from this.

I believe it's about 50/50.

[morgieb]

Supreme Court is too political to allow SSM.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Supreme Court is too political to allow SSM.

That's exactly why they will allow it. Just like with Cuomo- giving liberals same sex marriage will revive their enthusiasm for the court, counter the general perception among the public that SC is a rightwing organ, without actually costing the corporatist/federalist/objectivist axis anything they care about. And it will put the SSM issue to rest, just when it was starting to work in the left's favour come election time.

It was the same with Roe. v Wade. Contra common misperception, that court marked th start of  rgithward drift... but because of the Roe verdict it was percieved as radically liberal.

[Purch]

They should rule in favor of SSM

But they shouldn't give a crap about how people view the court.

[The Mikado]

Again, I fully expect them to punt the issue and not hear the case.  Hearing it is a no-win situation for the Court.

If they do hear it, I expect them to follow on the narrow ruling of the 9th Circuit Court and overturn Prop 8 in a way that doesn't affect other states' laws.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ok, Mikado, I agree, but don't you think there will come a day when they have to deal with this head on? 

[Torie]

Kennedy will vote to overturn I think. The reasoning that a mere moniker with the exact same basket of rights (well at the state level, but not the federal level, which raises another issue that I will get to in a second) involves some sort of fundamental liberty right/equal protection, I don't think is something that Kennedy will buy, although he is unpredictable. I place the odds at 2 to 1 that Prop 8 will end up being reanimated. Otherwise, all civil union states where there are the same basket of rights and duties, will be converted into marriages. In addition, suddenly the federal benefits associated with marriages will suddenly be triggered, such as social security survivor rights, and filing joint federal tax returns and so forth.

[Brittain33]

In addition, suddenly the federal benefits associated with marriages will suddenly be triggered, such as social security survivor rights, and filing joint federal tax returns and so forth.

How would that result from the Prop 8 case? I don't get those federal benefits with a MA marriage license.

[Torie]

In addition, suddenly the federal benefits associated with marriages will suddenly be triggered, such as social security survivor rights, and filing joint federal tax returns and so forth.

How would that result from the Prop 8 case? I don't get those federal benefits with a MA marriage license.

OK. I made a false assumption. I guess the feds define marriage as involving two genders, rather than bootstrap off of state law.  So it is a denial of something fundamental not to call a civil union marriage vis a vis state law, but OK for the Feds to define marriage for purposes of federal law to deny gay couples federal benefits (with far more at stake arguably than the mere moniker thing - at least for a lot of folks). This dog just isn't going to hunt I think, unless Kennedy is going to go after the Feds too. None of it makes any sense.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

It's nice to know that with all of the real problems we have in this country, let alone in the world, that people have their priorities right. Invented rights for invented minorities clearly trump poverty, debt, international conflict, ect.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's nice to know that with all of the real problems we have in this country, let alone in the world, that people have their priorities right. Invented rights for invented minorities clearly trump poverty, debt, international conflict, ect.

Gay people actually do exist regardless of whether or not you care to know any.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

In addition, suddenly the federal benefits associated with marriages will suddenly be triggered, such as social security survivor rights, and filing joint federal tax returns and so forth.

How would that result from the Prop 8 case? I don't get those federal benefits with a MA marriage license.

OK. I made a false assumption. I guess the feds define marriage as involving two genders, rather than bootstrap off of state law.  So it is a denial of something fundamental not to call a civil union marriage vis a vis state law, but OK for the Feds to define marriage for purposes of federal law to deny gay couples federal benefits (with far more at stake arguably than the mere moniker thing - at least for a lot of folks). This dog just isn't going to hunt I think, unless Kennedy is going to go after the Feds too. None of it makes any sense.

We're not talking about DOMA here. That's a different case. This one deals solely with marriage.

It's nice to know that with all of the real problems we have in this country, let alone in the world, that people have their priorities right. Invented rights for invented minorities clearly trump poverty, debt, international conflict, ect.

It's nice to know that gay people were invented out of thin air and are making it impossible for anyone to do anything else.

[Zioneer]

It's nice to know that with all of the real problems we have in this country, let alone in the world, that people have their priorities right. Invented rights for invented minorities clearly trump poverty, debt, international conflict, ect.

"Invented minorities"? Seriously? Gay people have existed for a very long time, you know.

[Purch]

Random question. Can the Supreme court try the senate for not releasing a budget in 3 years?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Random question. Can the Supreme court try the senate for not releasing a budget in 3 years?

I'm pretty sure they can't, since Congress is the final arbiter of its own rules (including for what constitutes 'passing' something).

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Who is denying that people with same sex attraction exist? I'm certainly not. I'm stating that I don't have to recognize a 'minority' or 'community' of people with that specific attraction. There's lots of people with attractions out of the norm, everyone suddenly needs their own class, and then suddenly have 'rights' specific to their fetish/whatever.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Who is denying that people with same sex attraction exist? I'm certainly not. I'm stating that I don't have to recognize a 'minority' or 'community' of people with that specific attraction. There's lots of people with attractions out of the norm, everyone suddenly needs their own class, and then suddenly have 'rights' specific to their fetish/whatever.

Why not? Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to have a gay, sadomasochistical, furry orgy in the privacy of one of their homes?

I have a feeling my S score is rather higher than it should be...

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Who is denying that people with same sex attraction exist? I'm certainly not. I'm stating that I don't have to recognize a 'minority' or 'community' of people with that specific attraction. There's lots of people with attractions out of the norm, everyone suddenly needs their own class, and then suddenly have 'rights' specific to their fetish/whatever.

Why not? Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to have a gay, sadomasochistical, furry orgy in the privacy of one of their homes?

I have a feeling my S score is rather higher than it should be...

Of course they should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it's between consensual adults. I'm talking about changing the law (legalizing gay marriage, ect) to appease people with a certain attraction.

[Brittain33]

It's nice to know that with all of the real problems we have in this country, let alone in the world, that people have their priorities right. Invented rights for invented minorities clearly trump poverty, debt, international conflict, ect.

I didn't invent the more than $10,000 in excess taxes I've paid to the feds on my partner's health care which would have been tax free if he were a woman.

[Brittain33]

OK. I made a false assumption. I guess the feds define marriage as involving two genders, rather than bootstrap off of state law.  

That's the meat of the appeals coming out of Massachusetts which I had a debate with someone about last week. It's a section of DOMA that broke with the precedent of the feds simply bootstrapping off state laws to introduce a restriction where state marriages with same-sex partners wouldn't be recognized for federal benefits. That part's going to get bounced pretty easily, I think, unless Anthony Kennedy's feeling odd.

[Brittain33]

Who is denying that people with same sex attraction exist? I'm certainly not. I'm stating that I don't have to recognize a 'minority' or 'community' of people with that specific attraction. There's lots of people with attractions out of the norm, everyone suddenly needs their own class, and then suddenly have 'rights' specific to their fetish/whatever.

I remember this argument from the 1990s. Usually an address from webtv. Most of the country has moved on by now to more relevant angles since they've met actual gays and stop discussing us as weird abstractions.