Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage

[TDAS04]

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.

[Sol]

Per SCOTUSblog- Kennedy seems doesn't seem like he wants to have universal SSM or leave Prop. 8 as is. I suspect they uphold the 9th circuit court ruling or reject it out of standing (The latter seems to be what Roberts wants to do.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No/Yes

[Brittain33]

I voted the same option as the majority.

I'm really divided. Right now, the split-the-baby option feels best. Allow SSM in California, allow federal recognition (a no-brainer), but leave the state DOMAs be, because Alabama and Idaho aren't ready for it, and the gays there can be patient or move far from their families.

What kills me is that 20 years from now such a decision is going to be seen as slightly embarrassing and watered down, and SSM will be nationwide. And that progress never feels appropriate until it happens - we saw that with the initial SSM decision in Massachusetts. So why not rule with what we know to be right, even though society isn't there, knowing we're getting there?

I still fall back to the first position, and the court is more conservative than me, even. But it's an interesting thought experiment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If they narrow the ruling to CA by arguing once you give a right you cannot take it away, then it could imply bans on SSM in other states are constitutional. But more likely it will still leave that central question hanging and they will eventually have to deal with it again. So I think they will make a ruling either upholding Prop 8 or ruling all such bans are unconstitutional. I think that is why they took it up in the first place. Why take it on if they were just going to fudge it up.

While not of primary interest to most in this case, there is the standing issue which I think is of significant interest to the court, especially since the court directed the plaintiff to focus on that first.

[7,052,770]

F*** waiting 20 years. Mississippi didn't integrate public schools until 20 years after Brown anyway. Should Brown have waited until Mississippi was ready?

Anything less than Option 5 is a modern Plessy and a permanent stain on the nation's history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Having heard the questioning today, I now think in the Prop 8 case, they'll rule the plaintiffs lack standing or have such a muddled split decision that the effect is the same, leaving the previous ruling to stand without committing the Court to rule on the merits of the case, thus affecting only California.  I also think it slightly more likely than before that they will decline to overturn DOMA, but it is still possible they will and the questioning tomorrow can still significantly affect my opinion of their probable opinion.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[King]

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. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm really hoping for DOMA to be struck down. That law could be a huge thorn in the side of gay couples even in States where marriage equality is recognized, and probably won't be repealed before a decade or so (House GOPers are a stubborn bunch). Striking it down would be helpful, on top of making sense constitutionally in a "States Rights" perspective.

The SCOTUS obviously won't legalize it everywhere, attacking Civil Unions makes no sense juridically and would be counterproductive, and only striking down Prop 8 would be utterly useless and could even cause a backlash.

So, again, I'm really hoping for Option 2.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[angus]

No/No.

Who knows?  That's just my prediction based on listening to the news.  It seems that Roberts and Kennedy wonder whether they court should have accepted the case in the first place.  If that attitude prevails, then case gets dismissed and same-sex marriage stays legal in California and no precedents are set for other cases.  Therefore, No/No seems to be the safer bet.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Don't know where else to put this so:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/316949436779606017

[The Mikado]

My guess: in Perry SCOTUS punts on Prop 8, either on standing or that it was improvidently granted.    Either way, Walker's decision stands and gay marriage is legal in California.

In Windsor, SCOTUS strikes down Article 3 of DOMA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm really hoping for DOMA to be struck down. That law could be a huge thorn in the side of gay couples even in States where marriage equality is recognized, and probably won't be repealed before a decade or so (House GOPers are a stubborn bunch). Striking it down would be helpful, on top of making sense constitutionally in a "States Rights" perspective.

The SCOTUS obviously won't legalize it everywhere, attacking Civil Unions makes no sense juridically and would be counterproductive, and only striking down Prop 8 would be utterly useless and could even cause a backlash.

So, again, I'm really hoping for Option 2.

As I've said before, I see no way the court strikes down DOMA without finding that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution.  Striking it down on the grounds that only States can define marriage opens up way, way too many questions concerning the boundaries of Federal/State power in a wide variety of areas.  It would effectively invalidate McCulloch v. Maryland.

[Brittain33]

As I've said before, I see no way the court strikes down DOMA without finding that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution.  Striking it down on the grounds that only States can define marriage opens up way, way too many questions concerning the boundaries of Federal/State power in a wide variety of areas.  It would effectively invalidate McCulloch v. Maryland.

I don't think that's true.

[hawkeye59]

I'm really hoping for DOMA to be struck down. That law could be a huge thorn in the side of gay couples even in States where marriage equality is recognized, and probably won't be repealed before a decade or so (House GOPers are a stubborn bunch). Striking it down would be helpful, on top of making sense constitutionally in a "States Rights" perspective.

The SCOTUS obviously won't legalize it everywhere, attacking Civil Unions makes no sense juridically and would be counterproductive, and only striking down Prop 8 would be utterly useless and could even cause a backlash.

So, again, I'm really hoping for Option 2.

As I've said before, I see no way the court strikes down DOMA without finding that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution.  Striking it down on the grounds that only States can define marriage opens up way, way too many questions concerning the boundaries of Federal/State power in a wide variety of areas.  It would effectively invalidate McCulloch v. Maryland.

Well, with what Kennedy+the liberals said today, it seems like it's going to be overturned

[Likely Voter]

it is now looking like the SCOTUS is going to end up making decisions about SSM without even addressing the issue of LGBT rights at all.

Prop 8 decision will be sent back down on standing so the only precedent set there is that if a state isn't willing to defend its own law then no one else can either.

And DOMA is going to be struck down (or partially) based on states rights.

While it helps LGBT couples in CA and the 10 states that have SSM, it will do nothing for the ones in the rest of the country. I guess the issue wont get decided until Obama or Hillary replace one of the GOP justices

[Brittain33]

Prop 8 decision will be sent back down on standing so the only precedent set there is that if a state isn't willing to defend its own law then no one else can either.

That is a fricking ridiculous and dangerous precedent to set. And I say that as someone who want same-sex marriage legalized and isn't a fan of direct democracy.

[TDAS04]

Prop 8 decision will be sent back down on standing so the only precedent set there is that if a state isn't willing to defend its own law then no one else can either.

That is a fricking ridiculous and dangerous precedent to set. And I say that as someone who want same-sex marriage legalized and isn't a fan of direct democracy.

If Californians feel that strongly, they can vote out their governor and attorney general and replace them with people who will defend it.

[Mr. Morden]

While it helps LGBT couples in CA and the 10 states that have SSM, it will do nothing for the ones in the rest of the country.

Wouldn't it allow same sex couples who were married in one of those 10 states or a foreign country to be married for federal purposes, regardless of where they live now, even while the state they live in might not recognize their marriage?  Not sure what all the consequences of that would be.  Though, for example, since immigration is controlled by the federal government, I would think that it would allow the same sex spouse of an American citizen to immigrate as easily as an opposite sex spouse of an American citizen.  And this would work regardless of whether the American citizen in question lived in one of those 10 states.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Prop 8 decision will be sent back down on standing so the only precedent set there is that if a state isn't willing to defend its own law then no one else can either.

That is a fricking ridiculous and dangerous precedent to set. And I say that as someone who want same-sex marriage legalized and isn't a fan of direct democracy.

Yeah, that would basically give State officials an effective veto power on any proposition they don't like - thus completely defeating the point of the proposition system.

[The Mikado]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Likely Voter]

While it helps LGBT couples in CA and the 10 states that have SSM, it will do nothing for the ones in the rest of the country.

Wouldn't it allow same sex couples who were married in one of those 10 states or a foreign country to be married for federal purposes, regardless of where they live now, even while the state they live in might not recognize their marriage?  Not sure what all the consequences of that would be.  Though, for example, since immigration is controlled by the federal government, I would think that it would allow the same sex spouse of an American citizen to immigrate as easily as an opposite sex spouse of an American citizen.  And this would work regardless of whether the American citizen in question lived in one of those 10 states.

Certainly anyone legally married would have federal benefits, but if they live or move to a non SSM state they would not have any state benefits, couldn't jointly file taxes and anything else the state allows.

My point was that gays living outside the 10 states were hoping that the Supreme court was going to rule on the core issue of equal protection under the constitution. Not only would that have opened up SSM nationwide, but it would also likely have a precedent regarding other issues like housing and work discrimination against LGBT Americans, which is still legal in many states.

It just seems that with all this talk about gay rights, the court is actually going to end up ruling on what are essentially technicalities and ignore the whole issue of gay rights. That is if the court tea leaf readers are right. Maybe Roberts wants the court to be on the right side of history and wants to avoid having to deal with this again (which is inevitable) and he will surprise like he did with Obamacare, although I doubt it.

Prop 8 decision will be sent back down on standing so the only precedent set there is that if a state isn't willing to defend its own law then no one else can either.

That is a fricking ridiculous and dangerous precedent to set. And I say that as someone who want same-sex marriage legalized and isn't a fan of direct democracy.

Yeah, that would basically give State officials an effective veto power on any proposition they don't like - thus completely defeating the point of the proposition system.

well we dont have the ruling yet but if they use standing as their justification for getting rid of Prop 8, it may not be as broad as 'if the state wont defend it' but may be something more along the lines of how the petitioner to the court must show injury. Certainly in this case the Prop 8 people have not been able to demonstrate how in any way they are injured by the ruling to overturn Prop 8.

We will see in June, but regardless the court doesn't seem interested in getting to the core issue over whether or not CA (or any state) has the right to deny SSM