Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 12:35 PM
Rainbow Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
With the US Supreme Court hearing the case against califonia's prop 8 today and DOMA tomorrow this seems like a good time to discuss weither or not a sweeping decision would be a good or bad thing in the long run.


Right now there seems to be 3 ways the court can rule based on case file and precident 1 choose the narrowest of rulings saying that prop 8 violated citizens rights in california by remoiving rights already given but it only applies here. 2 widening the ruling to the 19 states that have civil unions striking those down and replacing them with full marriage rights (this seems the most likly ruling at present) or Go full out Marriage is a universal civil right (there is plenty of precident here 19 previose cases in fact have stated this) and grant marriage rights from coast to coast all in one ruling. The chance of the justices upholding prop 8 and DOMA is very slim due to all the precident the other way.


Now what I am wondering is if the court were to go 50 out of 50 full Marriage rights would that reignite what seems to be a dying opposition. The polls have public support for equal rights at an all time high of almost 6/10 58%. Recently several states have had voters actualy uphold legislation recognising gay marriage begining of course with my home state of Maryland (ok by a few hours but still go us) This issue is also less partisan and more generational. Those <30 have closer to a 90% approval regardless of political affiliation. If the court does not act unilaterally the end game for equal marriage rights will probably happen but not for decades in some places (the deep south for instance). That being the projection would the court forcing equality across the board actualy cause the anti-equality movement to get a boost a'la Roe v Wade.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-03-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
If I offered a choice right now, would you take your option 2 or 3 ? 3 is obviously better to my mind anyway, because you don't know if the backlash you fear will actually take place and it'd remove all the horseshit in one fell swoop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-03-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
(26-03-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  If I offered a choice right now, would you take your option 2 or 3 ? 3 is obviously better to my mind anyway, because you don't know if the backlash you fear will actually take place and it'd remove all the horseshit in one fell swoop.

If it was me I'd go route 3 because thats what would be a true constitutional ruling. I dont think this court however is willing to do a broad brush aproach. In my experince living in a state that went the legislative route and then had a full refferendum approved by the people the oposition has melted away into the night tail between their legs. However there is a long history of public backlash to activism from the bench.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-03-2013, 02:56 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
This morning our local NPR station played a tape of the entire SCOTUS session on Prop 8, which they broadcast only a couple of hours after its conclusion. Listening to the questions and responses from the justices, I got the distinct feeling that the Court was simply not ready to make a sweeping 50-state ruling about same-sex marriage--i.e., your Option 3. If I had to bet, I'd say it's very likely we're going to get gay marriage back in California; it's up in the air whether Option 2 (require marriage equality only in those states that already grant civil-union status to same sex couples) will be adopted; and it's very unlikely the Supremes will come down on the side of marriage equality in all 50 states (Option 3).

I'm more hopeful about DOMA. Striking that monstrosity down would not mean imposing marriage equality on the entire country; it would simply take off the books the statute that says the Federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages as marriages. The probable result would be that the Feds would treat all marriages allowed by the states as real marriages under federal law, which would be a welcome change for a lot of us. (Right now my husband and I file our income taxes as a married couple in California but as two single individuals for the Feds. It's a mess.)

Although I've thought a lot about gay marriage, I realize I haven't given enough thought to the possible consequences of a sweeping SCOTUS decision on the side of equality, à la Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade--in particular, the backlash effect and a re-energizing of the religious right. Discussions like the one in this thread and also in this article by a Georgetown law professor in today's NY Times are making me rethink my position. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for . . .

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
26-03-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
(26-03-2013 02:56 PM)cufflink Wrote:  This morning our local NPR station played a tape of the entire SCOTUS session on Prop 8, which they broadcast only a couple of hours after its conclusion. Listening to the questions and responses from the justices, I got the distinct feeling that the Court was simply not ready to make a sweeping 50-state ruling about same-sex marriage--i.e., your Option 3. If I had to bet, I'd say it's very likely we're going to get gay marriage back in California; it's up in the air whether Option 2 (require marriage equality only in those states that already grant civil-union status to same sex couples) will be adopted; and it's very unlikely the Supremes will come down on the side of marriage equality in all 50 states (Option 3).

I'm more hopeful about DOMA. Striking that monstrosity down would not mean imposing marriage equality on the entire country; it would simply take off the books the statute that says the Federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages as marriages. The probable result would be that the Feds would treat all marriages allowed by the states as real marriages under federal law, which would be a welcome change for a lot of us. (Right now my husband and I file our income taxes as a married couple in California but as two single individuals for the Feds. It's a mess.)

Although I've thought a lot about gay marriage, I realize I haven't given enough thought to the possible consequences of a sweeping SCOTUS decision on the side of equality, à la Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade--in particular, the backlash effect and a re-energizing of the religious right. Discussions like the one in this thread and also in this article by a Georgetown law professor in today's NY Times are making me rethink my position. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for . . .

The fervor over this issue has somewhat clouded the arguement. I also firmly belive that DOMA is history as there is no precident for congress to legislate which state sactioned marriages they would recognise. Listening to Kenedy's remarks it sounds like he was freaking out because he had reasoned himself into option 3 being the only legitimate decision he could make without using a procedrual issue to say that the defenders of prop 8 do not have the standing to appeal the decision and the lower courts ruling stands.
It looks more and more likely that the prop 8 case will not be the watershed moment that most liberals were hopping it would be. Now as for you and other californians prop 8 seems like it is going to be overturned, its all in how they do it. This may not be a bad thing in the long term. Give a few more years and I think the swing will be more states recognizing same-sex marriage until it hits the 26 state mark at which point the court will probably hear a case out of a state that bans it and finishes up the flip. As I said above constitutionaly there is no basis for dening 1 group rights all other group have so thats why option 3 is still on the table but grows increasingly less likely.
As a side note that was a very good op-ed you linked.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-03-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
(26-03-2013 03:19 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The fervor over this issue has somewhat clouded the arguement. I also firmly belive that DOMA is history as there is no precident for congress to legislate which state sactioned marriages they would recognise. Listening to Kenedy's remarks it sounds like he was freaking out because he had reasoned himself into option 3 being the only legitimate decision he could make without using a procedrual issue to say that the defenders of prop 8 do not have the standing to appeal the decision and the lower courts ruling stands.
It looks more and more likely that the prop 8 case will not be the watershed moment that most liberals were hopping it would be. Now as for you and other californians prop 8 seems like it is going to be overturned, its all in how they do it. This may not be a bad thing in the long term. Give a few more years and I think the swing will be more states recognizing same-sex marriage until it hits the 26 state mark at which point the court will probably hear a case out of a state that bans it and finishes up the flip. As I said above constitutionaly there is no basis for dening 1 group rights all other group have so thats why option 3 is still on the table but grows increasingly less likely.
As a side note that was a very good op-ed you linked.

Good points.

I find this a difficult issue--not the goal, which is clear (full, universal marriage equality), but how best to get there.

The pragmatist in me is beginning to think that maybe a go-slower approach--evolution as opposed to revolution--will achieve the most secure results in the long-run. Let the states decide. Don't give the yahoos a chance to cry "Activist judges!" and rally their troops. Persuade the people that equality is the right thing. They'll come around eventually. Just look at the demographics: young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage; the old farts of my generation won't be around forever (not sure I like all the consequences of that thought, but anyway . . . ); the younger voices will eventually prevail.

The idealist in me thinks that's a sick joke. Where would we be today if integration had been left to the states to decide on? It's not up to the public to rule on minority rights--that's for the courts. If marriage equality is a basic right, how long before the good folks of the Bible belt would recognize it? Twenty years? Forty years? Never? Better to follow morondog above and "remove all the horseshit in one fell swoop." If they try to come after us, we'll fight back.

One thing today's SCOTUS session made clearer than ever: there are no arguments against marriage equality that stand up to rational scrutiny. Cooper tried to make the point that marriage is fundamentally about reproduction and got shot down over and over again. Beyond that, the only thing he had was, "Let's not rush into this. We don't know what the consequences for society will be, so let the debate continue." Nothing but scare tactics. When the question of interracial marriage was before the Court, someone could just as well have said, "We don't know what the consequences for society will be if people of different races are allowed to marry."

Whether or not they say it out loud, the real reason the anti-equality forces feel as they do is religion. Gay marriage should be banned because God doesn't like it. And at that point, rational discussion ends.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
26-03-2013, 04:33 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
(26-03-2013 04:10 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 03:19 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The fervor over this issue has somewhat clouded the arguement. I also firmly belive that DOMA is history as there is no precident for congress to legislate which state sactioned marriages they would recognise. Listening to Kenedy's remarks it sounds like he was freaking out because he had reasoned himself into option 3 being the only legitimate decision he could make without using a procedrual issue to say that the defenders of prop 8 do not have the standing to appeal the decision and the lower courts ruling stands.
It looks more and more likely that the prop 8 case will not be the watershed moment that most liberals were hopping it would be. Now as for you and other californians prop 8 seems like it is going to be overturned, its all in how they do it. This may not be a bad thing in the long term. Give a few more years and I think the swing will be more states recognizing same-sex marriage until it hits the 26 state mark at which point the court will probably hear a case out of a state that bans it and finishes up the flip. As I said above constitutionaly there is no basis for dening 1 group rights all other group have so thats why option 3 is still on the table but grows increasingly less likely.
As a side note that was a very good op-ed you linked.

Good points.

I find this a difficult issue--not the goal, which is clear (full, universal marriage equality), but how best to get there.

The pragmatist in me is beginning to think that maybe a go-slower approach--evolution as opposed to revolution--will achieve the most secure results in the long-run. Let the states decide. Don't give the yahoos a chance to cry "Activist judges!" and rally their troops. Persuade the people that equality is the right thing. They'll come around eventually. Just look at the demographics: young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage; the old farts of my generation won't be around forever (not sure I like all the consequences of that thought, but anyway . . . ); the younger voices will eventually prevail.

The idealist in me thinks that's a sick joke. Where would we be today if integration had been left to the states to decide on? It's not up to the public to rule on minority rights--that's for the courts. If marriage equality is a basic right, how long before the good folks of the Bible belt would recognize it? Twenty years? Forty years? Never? Better to follow morondog above and "remove all the horseshit in one fell swoop." If they try to come after us, we'll fight back.

One thing today's SCOTUS session made clearer than ever: there are no arguments against marriage equality that stand up to rational scrutiny. Cooper tried to make the point that marriage is fundamentally about reproduction and got shot down over and over again. Beyond that, the only thing he had was, "Let's not rush into this. We don't know what the consequences for society will be, so let the debate continue." Nothing but scare tactics. When the question of interracial marriage was before the Court, someone could just as well have said, "We don't know what the consequences for society will be if people of different races are allowed to marry."

Whether or not they say it out loud, the real reason the anti-equality forces feel as they do is religion. Gay marriage should be banned because God doesn't like it. And at that point, rational discussion ends.
I complety agree, from a stand point of law and precident these bans should end with this case and minority rights should not be up to mob rule. However I think long term it would totaly kill the oposition movement if it were to fall state by state. As for the arguements the lawyer argueing for prop 8 you could tell even he knew this was a no chance in hell of winning situation.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme...res,31812/And here is something a little lighter. If only this truely common sense issue was treated as such.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-03-2013, 07:46 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
I just came across an article that adds a lot of perspective to the discussion. It's on Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog, giving a nuanced, sophisticated statistical analysis of trends in American attitudes towards same-sex marriage, including projections up to 2020. (For anyone not familiar with Nate Silver, he's a young statistician who's gotten major recognition for his uncannily accurate predictions of U.S. election results. A few years ago, Time put him on their list of The World's 100 Most Influential People.)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...-it-means/

Some key results from the article:

Nate Silver Wrote:By 2016 . . . voters in 32 states would be willing to vote in support of same-sex marriage, according to the model. And by 2020, voters in 44 states would do so, assuming that same-sex marriage continues to gain support at roughly its previous rate.

Thus . . . the steady increase in support is soon likely to outweigh all other factors. In fact, even if the Supreme Court decision or some other contingency freezes opinion among current voters, support for same-sex marriage would continue to increase based on generational turnover, probably enough that it would narrowly win a national ballot referendum by 2016. It might require a religious revival among the youngest generation of Americans to reverse the trend. [Emphasis added]

It’s also possible, of course, that the Supreme Court decision could somehow kick-start public support for same-sex marriage, causing it to accelerate faster, or that the recent spate of Democratic and Republican politicians coming out in favor of it could do so. But one no longer needs to make optimistic assumptions to conclude that same-sex marriage supporters will probably soon constitute a national majority. Instead, it’s the steadiness of the trend that makes same-sex marriage virtually unique among all major public policy issues, and which might give its supporters more confidence that the numbers will continue to break their way regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
26-03-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Court decision on gay marriage would be good or bad?
Very thought-provoking article there. However I think it is negleting a sea change among a group that isnt discussed much. Black voters in maryland basicaly flipped positions a few months before the vote. Civil rights leaders from the 50's and 60's are comming out to say that yes civil rights are civil rights. What ultimatly lost the Prop 8 vote in 2008 was a huge surge in the black vote that is still very conservative when it comes to gays and gay rights (belive me I have personal experince and their ducking of basic questions is infurriating). One conversation I had basicaly accused me of being gay because I felt the government shouldn't discriminate against a lot of my firends and many people I know and work with. My response was it didn't make me black because I don't belive in segragation does it?
As much as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson drive me up the wall in 99% of what they say and do. Their comming over to the pro civil rights side of this issue has made a huge diffrence.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: