LGBT News live blog for Prop 8/DOMA court cases

Y'all best not be hoping Prop 8 is ruled to legalize in the entire nation. You'll get your hopes let down. The oral arguments really didn't sound like they're going that way. They seemed very reticent to extend the issue past state's rights.



I highly doubt them going against the District Court though. So, status quo...

 

It's my feeling that they are going to dismiss the Prop 8 case on standing grounds, and then are going to rule DOMA unconstitutional on "states rights" grounds.

I honestly think they'll do this just as a delay tactic. If things head this way, we're looking at a Loving vs. Virginia situation where some states recognize same sex marriage and some do not. This will mean that another case will have to work its way through the courts which could take awhile, thus allowing the country as a whole to get more accustomed to the idea of same sex marriage before the SCOTUS does the inevitable.

I absolutely do not expect them to legalize same sex marriage nationwide.

 

Will they take another case now that they've thrown Prop 8 on a technicality, though? (This assuming the speculation is correct).

They were weary of even taking the Prop 8 one, I wonder if they'll even elect to take up another unless we get some changes in seats on the court? (Say, 10-15 more years).



But yeah, I get ya. The question then becomes: What comes first - all states legalize per state laws, or a case reaches the court and they decide to give a broad ruling of legalization?

(Barring some sort of Nazi-esque right-wing government take over, anyways, that would appear to be the question).

 

I just hope things change before I die. It'd be nice to see equality while I'm still alive, though I'm not so sure. The US seems so fucked up in regards to sex and human sexuality. Blah! Though I suppose it could be worse, I could be in Saudi Arabia, or someplace like that.

 

I don't think it's a question of "if" but "when" all states recognize same sex marriage. As shocking as it sounds, by 2016 - if trends continue - even my home state will have support above 50%. This is important because it means the country is moving toward a critical mass - meaning that by 2020 only six states would not have support for gay marriage over 50%.

This means if the Supreme Court punts the decision, and then legalizes it nationally three to five years from now then the majority of the country is going to be standing behind that decision.

It should be kept in mind that the original plan by marriage advocates on our side was that they wanted to wait until more states legalized same sex marriage and support had grown. They were afraid without a strong plurality of public support that the conservative Supreme Court would make a ruling that would damage the cause.

So, even if they punt on Prop 8 we're simply falling back to the original plan - a state by state battle. What's more the Prop 8 case has done wonders toward increasing knowledge about gay marriage and public relations on the issue. It's one of the reasons we have such a broad base of support in such a short amount of time - increased visibility and debate on the issue, and the ability to publicly dismantle the pathetic and ridiculous arguments of our enemies.

And no matter what happens California is going to move to overturn Prop 8 if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down. The support to get rid of it is there now - keep in mind it passed only by a slim majority. So marriage WILL become legal in California again sooner rather than later - as well as many other states.

If DOMA falls then every state where marriage is legal they will now have federal benefits and recognition. This is HUGE.

With DOMA out of the way, if I hop on over to DC and get married then return to my home state where my marriage wouldn't be recognized... that's exactly the same situation that the Lovings found themselves in with interracial marriage. They got married in DC (where it was legal) and returned to Virginia.

So, we could end up having a case that is practically identical to Loving vs. Virginia working its way through the courts. Thus, if it landed back in the Supreme Court's lap, the decision should practically be made for them unless they want to upset precedent and screw with the Loving decision.

It also buys them time - which is what they want - so the issue will be less controversial when it lands back in their lap. So, yes - I think at that point they will legalize same sex marriage nationwide, assuming they don't do it tomorrow - which I HIGHLY doubt they will.

Here is some good analysis of the gay marriage support data by Nate Silver over at his FiveThirthyEight Blog.

 

Obligatory Onion piece stating the obvious fact that we're just waiting for this now.

(Also I'm pretty disappointed in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Carry on.)

 

I'm fully aware of all the legal implications, I just question whether a court which has the ability to pick and choose cases (correct? or am I somehow mistaken there?) will in a period of 3-5 years be any more likely to take up a case similar to Prop 8.


Well, I suppose it could be argued that it addresses a different issue - interstate law; but I can hear your typical conservative-minded judge once again grumbling about how they don't want to take the case and rule on what is logically inevitable - full equality nationwide - but rather say as they seem to be pointing toward now: this doesn't have standing on the Supreme circuit, so we're going to drop it on a technicality and leave it be.


So until you get rid of your reluctant Scalia's and whatnot...I wonder if they'd take something like Loving v. Virginia. I think we may sooner have the Deep South legalizing on a state level than another case being heard and decided upon by the court (which is where I also agree with you - barring a very radical change in the current state of politics, all the states are going to eventually legalize it...perhaps even a fair majority within the next decade).



Here's to hoping I'm wrong, though, and they will rule on a Loving v. Virginia, and co.-type case. *raises glass* :lol:

 

Yes, you're correct. The Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases it takes. To determine which cases they take out of the thousands that are sent up to them requires four justices to agree to hear it. That happened in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, so there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen again in the future.

Yes, that would be the case. It addresses an entirely different issue, and it's pretty much as close as you get to a slam dunk, IMO.

The SCOTUS doesn't want to rule whether or not gay people have the right to get married. (That would make it legal in all states.) However, if a challenge like I outlined previously came up through the courts, they wouldn't have to make such a ruling. They wouldn't have to say, "Virginia must recognize gay marriage." They would have to say, "Virginia must recognize a marriage performed in Washington D.C."

...which would in effect legalize gay marriage in all the states.

They wouldn't be determining if gay marriage should be legalized - it would already be legal. It would just be a matter of other states not recognizing the laws of other states.

This is just my take of course, other people might feel differently. However, no matter what rulings we receive tomorrow the fight for equal rights and civil protections against discrimination continues. I just wish the marriage issue was solved, so that we could focus our attention elsewhere - like ENDA.

 

I don't know how good I feel about this...look what's occurring with voter rights because of our beloved SCOTUS

Two Hours After The Supreme Court Gutted The Voting Rights Act, Texas AG Suppresses Minority Voters | ThinkProgress

Foxface

 

...and so it begins.

I expect this to play out all over the place in the coming months and years. Republicans are working their ass off to suppress minorities who don't want to vote for bigots. Just like how they're purposefully screwing with early voting and purposefully under staffing polling places in minority communities that vote heavily democratic.

It's all disgusting.

There really needs to be a public backlash against gerrymandering in general - it's one of the primary reasons so many whack jobs get into elected office.

 

One problem with this development, is that it gives Republicans a better and better chance at stacking election results, gerrymandering districts, and preventing change from happening, even if the majority wants it.

I also worry about the make up of SCOTUS: Unless we get at least one more liberal judge, the future could be very bleak for decades.

I'm tense. Maybe I'll see marriage equality in my lifetime, though I'm skeptical, especially with Republicans poised to make gains in the next election, in which they can continue to stack the deck.

 

I'm frankly just more skeptical, it seems, of the court chairs being at all non-partisan in their decision-making. I've heard Scalia say, for instance, (I can dig up the quote if you really want me to) that it would make no logical sense at all to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples on claim that procreation is a necessary backbone for marriage, since we do after all allow old, long-past-fertile straight couples to marry without a worry.


Yet, of course, Scalia has a political agenda. He doesn't like gay people (or anyone that disagrees with him, for that matter), and, despite his noting conclusive logic that ought to necessarily require marriage equality nationwide, he and his fellow conservatives and swing-voters are going to hide behind a claim that Prop 8 has no standing on the Supreme Court level.

If I recall, there was a lot of bickering over Prop 8 and DOMA even being taken up this time around - so taking into account what I'd claim to be an overly partisan nature on this issue, I would not be at all shocked if they refused to take up cases involving marriage equality in the future. Since they know the only logical conclusion is full equality everywhere, and the conservative chairs just can't abide that.





That said, again, if you're right and something like Loving v. Virginia gets there, and they for decide to go ahead and rule, then the jig is up! They haven't a choice but to uphold the pro-equality standpoint, logically.








-------------------------------
In the other rulings, I heard today that the progressive response to the Voting Rights ruling was to fight it legally at every turn. Raise hell, in other words. Can't blame 'em.

 

since when has Scalia ever been beholdened to his own statements, or to logic and reasoning itself?

 

Well that's precisely the point - he doesn't feel beholden to the logical conclusions he tends to come to in the preliminary, because he ignores them in favor of his own personal preferences. And he's just the cliched example; he's not alone in those chairs.

 

I hope when I wake up at 10 a.m. my time...it's good news.

 

God, c'mon, here the prayers! You know we're people too! But we've had this conversation a bunch of times eh?

 

Ahhhhhhh I can't handle this! I haven't been this nervous/anxious/excited/petrified in such a long time!!!

*pulls hair out*

There's no way I'm missing the live coverage tomorrow. Waking up at 7am is SO worth it.

 

Of course I will be working, and we'll be receiving calls about the ruiling from crazy people.

Can't wait. :rolle:

 

I debate back and forth between sleeping late so I don't have to wait for the news to drop and waking up early so I know as soon as possible.

 

I'm just going into high school so I don't know too much about the constitution besides what we learned this year about We The People...
my question is: Why does government have say in marriage to begin with?