Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Will Supreme Court uphold gay marriage?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:41:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:13:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Opinions?

Having not read the briefs, nor heard the arguments, I am thinking:

The prop 8 issue will not be ruled upon, as it is a state issue and the state decides marriage law.

DOMA will be overruled, but only because it is too narrowly worded. DOMA, I think, would be allowed if it were to simply say that no marriage must be honored by another state (e.g. age of consent or too closely related). However, as it is written, DOMA only rejects same-sex interstate marriages.

I think the issue of DOMA regarding federal benefits would be upheld, as a law could reverse it, and it would fall under the tax and spend clause. After all, benefits are different for single people, are they not?
My work here is, finally, done.
lannan13
Posts: 23,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:59:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They probably will.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:32:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find it hard to believe they won't. The question, though, is how they'll do it. They could reject Prop. 8 on various grounds, and DOMA on various grounds, some of which would have the net effect of making gay marriage legal everywhere, and some of which would have the effect of starting this whole process over again with a slightly different bigoted wording in hopes it'll slide through.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:22:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Give the right to decide gay marriage to the states. That's what I'm rooting for.

States rights for the win.

See, I'm wholly not in favor of this.

Should miscegenation laws have been left up to the states?

And marriage becomes almost invariably an interstate thing at some point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:22:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Give the right to decide gay marriage to the states. That's what I'm rooting for.

States rights for the win.

This is likely.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:53:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think they'll find it unconstitutional on states' rights grounds.

However, I do hope we have federal legalization of gay marriage soon. I know it's a states' rights issue, but honestly, I feel that individual freedoms are a bit more important than a state's ability to restrict freedom. I think I found a poll saying that 2/3 of Americans (from both sides of the debate) support a federal solution to this debate. If you ask me, I'll get that poll later.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:53:38 AM, drhead wrote:
I think they'll find it unconstitutional on states' rights grounds.

However, I do hope we have federal legalization of gay marriage soon. I know it's a states' rights issue, but honestly, I feel that individual freedoms are a bit more important than a state's ability to restrict freedom. I think I found a poll saying that 2/3 of Americans (from both sides of the debate) support a federal solution to this debate. If you ask me, I'll get that poll later.

Should there also be a federal solution as to whether first cousins can marry, or 17 vs. 15 year olds can?

The feds do need to address the issue for impacts of spousal priveledge in federal courts, Social Security benefits, and army pensions. To simply say it is a state issue is false, as these things are not state issues. However, I don't see the harm in simply saying that, in those states that SSM is allowed, so are these benefits.
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:46:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/28/2013 7:53:38 AM, drhead wrote:
I think they'll find it unconstitutional on states' rights grounds.

However, I do hope we have federal legalization of gay marriage soon. I know it's a states' rights issue, but honestly, I feel that individual freedoms are a bit more important than a state's ability to restrict freedom. I think I found a poll saying that 2/3 of Americans (from both sides of the debate) support a federal solution to this debate. If you ask me, I'll get that poll later.

Should there also be a federal solution as to whether first cousins can marry, or 17 vs. 15 year olds can?

The feds do need to address the issue for impacts of spousal priveledge in federal courts, Social Security benefits, and army pensions. To simply say it is a state issue is false, as these things are not state issues. However, I don't see the harm in simply saying that, in those states that SSM is allowed, so are these benefits.

This creates a problem, though. Both the federal government and the state governments provide benefits to married couples. Having each having their own opinions means that same-sex couples (or any monogamous union whose circumstances are subject to any level of controversy, for that matter) would only get benefits from whichever parties 'approve' of their marital circumstances. However, since marriage is a state issue, states have the power to cut off federal benefits from same-sex couples, even if the federal government is willing to provide those benefits. The only solution is a universal one. I propose the following solution:
- Change 'marriage', in a legal context, to 'monogamous union' so the fundies will shut up. The term 'marriage' can be used interchangeably (formal legal contexts excluded), or churches can use it to mean what they mean.
- Define monogamous union as "A union of two persons, either consenting adults or minors with permission from their respective parents or legal guardians". No more, no less. This also pre-emptively defends against fallacious 'moral breakdown' scenarios. There is no way it could be misconstrued for polygamy or marrying an animal or whatever fearmongering these people use nowadays.
- Allow any two consenting adults (or minors, with parental permission) seeking a monogamous union to get one, regardless of state boundaries.
- Any benefits directly related to children will be awarded to these unions when they have a child, as well as to single parents.
- Any current marriages will become monogamous unions.

This solution would work since we are actually satisfying everyone (except people who just want to dictate how people live their lives, but screw those guys). We aren't redefining marriage, we are scrapping legal recognition of marriage and replacing it with a policy that doesn't discriminate. We are also fixing the problem of discrimination against single parents by not assuming that a marriage is the only context in which children are raised. Nobody leaves this deal unhappy. Even the people who think marriage is one man and one woman - with the state out of marriage altogether, they can have marriage defined as whatever they want, since the state isn't in marriage anymore, it is only concerned with monogamous unions.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:57:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It'll be quite an mental acrobatic feat to see the conservatives argue that California specifically allows gays to adopt, artificially inseminate, and/or raise children but can exclude gays from marrying because the institution of marriage is based on procreation and that may be harmed in some unforseeable manner.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
It'll be quite an mental acrobatic feat* to see the conservatives argue that California specifically allows gays to adopt, artificially inseminate, and/or raise children but can exclude gays from marrying because the institution of marriage is based on procreation and that may be harmed in some unforseeable manner.

*Indeed.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:57:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
It'll be quite an mental acrobatic feat to see the conservatives argue that California specifically allows gays to adopt, artificially inseminate, and/or raise children but can exclude gays from marrying because the institution of marriage is based on procreation and that may be harmed in some unforseeable manner.

Lucky for them they're all gold medalists in it.
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 7:34:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 1:32:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I find it hard to believe they won't. The question, though, is how they'll do it. They could reject Prop. 8 on various grounds, and DOMA on various grounds, some of which would have the net effect of making gay marriage legal everywhere, and some of which would have the effect of starting this whole process over again with a slightly different bigoted wording in hopes it'll slide through.

What makes you think they won't? (other than wistful thinking on your part)
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 7:38:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:41:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:22:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Give the right to decide gay marriage to the states. That's what I'm rooting for.

States rights for the win.

See, I'm wholly not in favor of this.

Should miscegenation laws have been left up to the states?

And marriage becomes almost invariably an interstate thing at some point.

Well you first have to explain why there is even a comparison that can be made in the first place
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:48:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Striking down DOMA puts the marriage issue back with states. The lower court ruling on Prop 8 was based on the California constitution, not the Federal constitution. So if the Supremes refuse to rule on Prop 8 on grounds of standing, the lower court is upheld as a matter of state law. The net effect of the two rulings, if they go as speculated, would be to kick the marriage issue back to the states.

I'm guessing that is what will happen, but anything is possible.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:09:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Im not sure what will happen with prop 8 but there is clear grounds that DOMA isnt constitutional and that is likely going to get overturned. Thats just what Im guessing will happen.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 7:38:21 PM, kenballer wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:41:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:22:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Give the right to decide gay marriage to the states. That's what I'm rooting for.

States rights for the win.

See, I'm wholly not in favor of this.

Should miscegenation laws have been left up to the states?

And marriage becomes almost invariably an interstate thing at some point.




Well you first have to explain why there is even a comparison that can be made in the first place

What comparison?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Its very simple

Assuming that the prop 8 defenders have standing, prop 8 WILL be upheld by at least 6-7 judges (five conservatives, Elena kagan, Sonia or Breyer). However, If some of the liberals like Ginsburg decide to not legislate from the bench but interpret the law and stay within the rules of law, expect another unanimous decision from the U.S. supreme court rejecting same sex marriage like they did in baker v. Nelson.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:49:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:57:21 PM, kenballer wrote:
Its very simple

Assuming that the prop 8 defenders have standing, prop 8 WILL be upheld by at least 6-7 judges (five conservatives, Elena kagan, Sonia or Breyer). However, If some of the liberals like Ginsburg decide to not legislate from the bench but interpret the law and stay within the rules of law, expect another unanimous decision from the U.S. supreme court rejecting same sex marriage like they did in baker v. Nelson.

You literally know nothing about SCOTUS.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:51:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:57:21 PM, kenballer wrote:
Its very simple

Assuming that the prop 8 defenders have standing, prop 8 WILL be upheld by at least 6-7 judges (five conservatives, Elena kagan, Sonia or Breyer). However, If some of the liberals like Ginsburg decide to not legislate from the bench but interpret the law and stay within the rules of law, expect another unanimous decision from the U.S. supreme court rejecting same sex marriage like they did in baker v. Nelson.

Are you drunk?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 2:51:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Supreme Court, like all other political institutions, does not operate in a vacuum. The court looks at public opinion polls and follows closely what laws different states pass.

Here are just some of the ways I suspect the justices look at this issue.

Thomas Roberts is relatively young and has an eye for history. He cares about his legacy and does not want to be viewed as intolerant or the architect of the decision that will stand alongside Dred Scott V. Sanford and Plessy V. Furguson in the pages of history. Moreover, he certainly doesn't want his decision to be overruled a few years later in either the prop 8 or DOMA case. He will vote both to strike down DOMA and, if he doesn't outright vote to uphold gay marriage, will try to punt on the issue.

Allito is also young and probably thinks about the same things. DOMA is a no-vote for sure... No guess as to what he'll do on prop 8. Probably punt.

Scalia is a stubborn old coot who will never budge on gay marriage and is more than happy to see gay people thrown in jail for their sexual activity. In his view, moral opprobrium alone represents sufficient grounds to criminalize any behavior. How about a law criminalizing gluttony or being really ignorant.

Thomas is really weird.... he doesn't talk..... Or, at the very least, he never asks any questions in court. I cannot, therefore, get a good idea of what he's thinking. And I have't read any of his decisions. But there is one thing that stands out. He's an older black man married to a white woman. I doubt this will cause his to have sympathy for the plight or the couples or their attorney's who regularly invoke the Loving case to support their position.

Kennedy will almost certainly strike down DOMA. He wrote the majority opinion in Romer and Lawrence and has widely been sympathetic to gay rights given his libertarian bent. He's the person everyone is watching, which is kind of silly if you ask me. It won't be a 5 - 4 decision in either case. It will probably be 6 - 3 or even 7 - 2. Likewise, he will, most likely, cut down prop 8.

Kagan, Satamoyer, Ginsberg and Breyer (the "liberal" justices) will vote as expected and strike down both DOMA and prop 8.

Moreover, there is one other thing that the conservative justices will think about if they're politically calculating. And, of course, they are. If this issue isn't decided definitively (i.e., the court doesn't find a constitutional right to gay marriage) the issue will begin to fester politically for republicans.

There is a reason Romney almost never mentioned gay marriage in the national election. Because republicans have LOST the argument! Even Limbaugh thinks so. Public opinion is no longer on their side and their views only look more antiquated and intolerant as time roles on.

Gay marriage support goes up about 3-4% points every year. Even with the fairly conservative estimate that support is at 55% nationally right now, that means it will potentially be near 65-69% before the next election. Republicans will have to flip flop or begin to feel the wrath of the electorate in national and state election.

So, getting back to what I was saying earlier, it would be more beneficial for republicans if the debate came to an end now by the issue being constitutionalized. There will be no argument at that point. Letting the issue fester will only hurt them long term. And the five conservative justices don't want to injure their party.

Analysis over.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 9:02:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is a societal issue not a legal issue. It should be something for society to decide (The people through constitutional Amendment). 9 people does not reflect the view of millions. It does not matter what anyone thinks about gay marrige. Only nine get to have an opinion and vote on something that will affect "all of society" along with it's unintended consequences.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 1:50:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 12:49:38 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/29/2013 11:57:21 PM, kenballer wrote:
Its very simple

Assuming that the prop 8 defenders have standing, prop 8 WILL be upheld by at least 6-7 judges (five conservatives, Elena kagan, Sonia or Breyer). However, If some of the liberals like Ginsburg decide to not legislate from the bench but interpret the law and stay within the rules of law, expect another unanimous decision from the U.S. supreme court rejecting same sex marriage like they did in baker v. Nelson.

You literally know nothing about SCOTUS.

What makes you say that? why don't you try me
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 2:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:05:27 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:46:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I think they'll find it unconstitutional on states' rights grounds.

However, I do hope we have federal legalization of gay marriage soon. I know it's a states' rights issue, but honestly, I feel that individual freedoms are a bit more important than a state's ability to restrict freedom. I think I found a poll saying that 2/3 of Americans (from both sides of the debate) support a federal solution to this debate. If you ask me, I'll get that poll later.

Should there also be a federal solution as to whether first cousins can marry, or 17 vs. 15 year olds can?

The feds do need to address the issue for impacts of spousal priveledge in federal courts, Social Security benefits, and army pensions. To simply say it is a state issue is false, as these things are not state issues. However, I don't see the harm in simply saying that, in those states that SSM is allowed, so are these benefits.

This creates a problem, though. Both the federal government and the state governments provide benefits to married couples. Having each having their own opinions means that same-sex couples (or any monogamous union whose circumstances are subject to any level of controversy, for that matter) would only get benefits from whichever parties 'approve' of their marital circumstances.

How is this different that any other benefit offered by the government (welfare, unemployment, tax rates, tax credits)?

However, since marriage is a state issue, states have the power to cut off federal benefits from same-sex couples, even if the federal government is willing to provide those benefits.
Isn't this the way it's supposed to be, though? I have changed my opinion, as I don't see why federal benefits can't apply, simply because state don't recognize SSM. The tax code already does this, in MN, there are certain deductions that I elect federally, that are not recognized by the state (and vice versa). I don't see why federal taxes (payroll), or federal payments (army pensions, VA benefits) should be a matter for any state to decide.

The only solution is a universal one. I propose the following solution:
- Change 'marriage', in a legal context, to 'monogamous union' so the fundies will shut up. The term 'marriage' can be used interchangeably (formal legal contexts excluded), or churches can use it to mean what they mean.
- Define monogamous union as "A union of two persons, either consenting adults or minors with permission from their respective parents or legal guardians". No more, no less. This also pre-emptively defends against fallacious 'moral breakdown' scenarios. There is no way it could be misconstrued for polygamy or marrying an animal or whatever fearmongering these people use nowadays.
It pre-empts nothing, as most of the fearmongering issues are stupid (marry tables?!?). However, the only non-traditional marriages that should be of concern are incestious and polygamous, and you solution does nothing to stop either.

Polygamy =/= commune, as, to my understanding, I am marrying my second wife; however, my wives are not married to each other. It is still only two people entering a union, although a third party is affected.
- Allow any two consenting adults (or minors, with parental permission) seeking a monogamous union to get one, regardless of state boundaries.
- Any benefits directly related to children will be awarded to these unions when they have a child, as well as to single parents.
Doesn't this already occur? What benefit that relates to a child is only available to married couples, and not singles?
- Any current marriages will become monogamous unions.

This solution would work since we are actually satisfying everyone (except people who just want to dictate how people live their lives, but screw those guys). We aren't redefining marriage, we are scrapping legal recognition of marriage and replacing it with a policy that doesn't discriminate. We are also fixing the problem of discrimination against single parents by not assuming that a marriage is the only context in which children are raised. Nobody leaves this deal unhappy. Even the people who think marriage is one man and one woman - with the state out of marriage altogether, they can have marriage defined as whatever they want, since the state isn't in marriage anymore, it is only concerned with monogamous unions.

We agree more than you probably realize, but this solution doesn't fix my concerns. It does, however, shut the fundies up, but if we really don't care about them, then we could still call it marriage.

Here are a few of my concerns: (c/p from another thread)

The weak reasons to overturn a law, especially if it is not applied to ALL unions. "Let's do it because it makes us feel good or benefits us/those we care about" is not a legal argument nor should it be relevant in deciding laws (whatever happened to statesmen who would vote against their best interest?); it is a valid one for private issues, though, like getting stores to purchase insurance that allows domestic partners on their plan.

The further erosion of discrimination as a legal argument, simply because of the effect of the law. (disparate impact =/= discrimination, IMO, contrary to SCOTUS)

If marriages are equal, will churches be required to marry gays? For example, gay Catholics in a Catholic church?

Speaking of churches:
Last summer I was approached by an ACLU advocate at the Gay Pride Festival. One of the things they were working on was allowing gays to adopt from Catholic orphanages in Oklahoma, I think (some southern state). If marriages were equal, would these private, Constitutionally protected orphanages be required to place a child into a "den of sin", in their opinion? After all, do they not choose what is acceptable and not acceptable lifestyles (one being to be married)? Is this not an issue of freedom of religion? (He actually agreed with me on that point)

What about businesses having a moral problem? Whatever happened to "right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"? There was a story about a photographer who refused to photo the ceremony being sued. However, I think the issue was breach of contract, but that isn't how it was played in the public courts of opinion... And, let's not forget Chic-fil-A's initally being denied business licenses in Chicago and another city, simply because of the view of its CEO/founder.

Insurance:
If marriages are equal, will there be separate actuary tables for gay marriages and straight? Gays, I am told, often live a more risky lifestyle than straights (HIV) before settling down, which would mean they are more likely to have health issues. This means that all married insurance policies might raise in cost. Can there be separate tables? Are there separate tables for race? This isn't a should there be, it is a should they be allowed to be issue.
(This issue may just be one of ignorance on my part, I do not know what tables are used by insurance companies for pricing vs. payout vs. other uses. I know there are studies and stats about things, but that doesn't mean insurance compaies factor them in.)

Issues of child custody:
Assume two lesbians go to a sperm bank. Les A has the child. In the event of a divorce, does Les B have any claim to the child, which is not hers in any biological way? If so, does this mean a stepparent can in a straight marriage, assuming the bio-parent is out of the picture?

If gay marriage were simply a snap of the fingers and everything would be the same except their unions being recognized, I would be for it. However, as you are keen on pointing out, things are not that simple.

However, a civil union can have different rules than a marriage can, right???

This is why I support civil unions, a "separate but unequal, yet equal in benefits" approach.
My work here is, finally, done.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I cannot tell a lie, 'tis likely.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:54:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 2:51:58 AM, Freeman wrote:
The Supreme Court, like all other political institutions, does not operate in a vacuum. The court looks at public opinion polls and follows closely what laws different states pass.

Here are just some of the ways I suspect the justices look at this issue.

Thomas Roberts is relatively young and has an eye for history. He cares about his legacy and does not want to be viewed as intolerant or the architect of the decision that will stand alongside Dred Scott V. Sanford and Plessy V. Furguson in the pages of history. Moreover, he certainly doesn't want his decision to be overruled a few years later in either the prop 8 or DOMA case. He will vote both to strike down DOMA and, if he doesn't outright vote to uphold gay marriage, will try to punt on the issue.

Allito is also young and probably thinks about the same things. DOMA is a no-vote for sure... No guess as to what he'll do on prop 8. Probably punt.

Scalia is a stubborn old coot who will never budge on gay marriage and is more than happy to see gay people thrown in jail for their sexual activity. In his view, moral opprobrium alone represents sufficient grounds to criminalize any behavior. How about a law criminalizing gluttony or being really ignorant.


Thomas is really weird.... he doesn't talk..... Or, at the very least, he never asks any questions in court. I cannot, therefore, get a good idea of what he's thinking. And I have't read any of his decisions. But there is one thing that stands out. He's an older black man married to a white woman. I doubt this will cause his to have sympathy for the plight or the couples or their attorney's who regularly invoke the Loving case to support their position.

Kennedy will almost certainly strike down DOMA. He wrote the majority opinion in Romer and Lawrence and has widely been sympathetic to gay rights given his libertarian bent. He's the person everyone is watching, which is kind of silly if you ask me. It won't be a 5 - 4 decision in either case. It will probably be 6 - 3 or even 7 - 2. Likewise, he will, most likely, cut down prop 8.

Kagan, Satamoyer, Ginsberg and Breyer (the "liberal" justices) will vote as expected and strike down both DOMA and prop 8.


Moreover, there is one other thing that the conservative justices will think about if they're politically calculating. And, of course, they are. If this issue isn't decided definitively (i.e., the court doesn't find a constitutional right to gay marriage) the issue will begin to fester politically for republicans.

There is a reason Romney almost never mentioned gay marriage in the national election. Because republicans have LOST the argument! Even Limbaugh thinks so. Public opinion is no longer on their side and their views only look more antiquated and intolerant as time roles on.

Gay marriage support goes up about 3-4% points every year. Even with the fairly conservative estimate that support is at 55% nationally right now, that means it will potentially be near 65-69% before the next election. Republicans will have to flip flop or begin to feel the wrath of the electorate in national and state election.

So, getting back to what I was saying earlier, it would be more beneficial for republicans if the debate came to an end now by the issue being constitutionalized. There will be no argument at that point. Letting the issue fester will only hurt them long term. And the five conservative justices don't want to injure their party.

Analysis over.

One thing I will definitely agree with you on is that it will all come down to the identity of judges as to what and how many judges will support or don't support prop 8

That being your theory is highly presumptuous

IF gay so-called marriage was a case like Dred scott or plessy where there were obvious human rights violation based on the philosophy of those cases, then your assessment of the outcome would probably be correct. However, there is absolutely no reason to think (other than emotional reasons or bias) that the judges would be compelled to overturn prop 8. In fact, we have many more objective reasons as to why they would uphold it. This is why your theory is false.

Since this is the case, here is what actually will happen. The conservatives including Kennedy will without question uphold prop 8 as expected. I am also certain that Elena Kagan will follow suit for two reasons:

First, she is very young but most importantly but inexperienced as a judge. Usually, newcomers in essentially any field or situation are going to be technical in their approach and want to do things by the book rather than steer away from the rules. In other words, emotional bias and public opinion will not play much of a role in her decision.

Second, Elena Kagan said herself as a slip of the tongue during confirmation hearings "there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." HAHA....

The 7th judge to follow is a toss up between Sonia Sotomayor and Breyer. I am starting to lean towards Sonia because of her catholic background since catholics are big on traditional marriage being a source of goodness and progress rather than backward thinking alleged by opponents.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 5:07:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How is this different that any other benefit offered by the government (welfare, unemployment, tax rates, tax credits)?

It isn't. That's what I'm getting at.

Isn't this the way it's supposed to be, though? I have changed my opinion, as I don't see why federal benefits can't apply, simply because state don't recognize SSM. The tax code already does this, in MN, there are certain deductions that I elect federally, that are not recognized by the state (and vice versa). I don't see why federal taxes (payroll), or federal payments (army pensions, VA benefits) should be a matter for any state to decide.

It pre-empts nothing, as most of the fearmongering issues are stupid (marry tables?!?). However, the only non-traditional marriages that should be of concern are incestious and polygamous, and you solution does nothing to stop either.

Polygamy =/= commune, as, to my understanding, I am marrying my second wife; however, my wives are not married to each other. It is still only two people entering a union, although a third party is affected.

It should be limit one per person. However, it would be very difficult to interpret a monogamous union as covering polygamy, due to the word choice. Incestious marriages shouldn't be forbidden, since, as long as they don't have children, there is no threat to the gene pool. Forbid incestious children, not incestious unions.

Doesn't this already occur? What benefit that relates to a child is only available to married couples, and not singles?

That part is mostly just to shut up the people who say that marriages are just for procreation.

We agree more than you probably realize, but this solution doesn't fix my concerns. It does, however, shut the fundies up, but if we really don't care about them, then we could still call it marriage.

Here are a few of my concerns: (c/p from another thread)

The weak reasons to overturn a law, especially if it is not applied to ALL unions. "Let's do it because it makes us feel good or benefits us/those we care about" is not a legal argument nor should it be relevant in deciding laws (whatever happened to statesmen who would vote against their best interest?); it is a valid one for private issues, though, like getting stores to purchase insurance that allows domestic partners on their plan.

It benefits some and harms none, what other reason is needed?

The further erosion of discrimination as a legal argument, simply because of the effect of the law. (disparate impact =/= discrimination, IMO, contrary to SCOTUS)

The problem with this is that it allows laws to be engineered with intent of a disparate impact in mind. Think about poll taxes.

If marriages are equal, will churches be required to marry gays? For example, gay Catholics in a Catholic church?

No, anyone who told you that is just fearmongering. Catholic churches aren't required to marry protestants or atheists, why should they be forced to marry gays?

Speaking of churches:
Last summer I was approached by an ACLU advocate at the Gay Pride Festival. One of the things they were working on was allowing gays to adopt from Catholic orphanages in Oklahoma, I think (some southern state). If marriages were equal, would these private, Constitutionally protected orphanages be required to place a child into a "den of sin", in their opinion? After all, do they not choose what is acceptable and not acceptable lifestyles (one being to be married)? Is this not an issue of freedom of religion? (He actually agreed with me on that point)

If these orphanages are privately run, they don't (and shouldn't) have to provide service to anyone that they don't like.

What about businesses having a moral problem? Whatever happened to "right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"? There was a story about a photographer who refused to photo the ceremony being sued. However, I think the issue was breach of contract, but that isn't how it was played in the public courts of opinion... And, let's not forget Chic-fil-A's initally being denied business licenses in Chicago and another city, simply because of the view of its CEO/founder.

I haven't heard of these cases, but the photographer had every right to refuse service, as I stated previously (unless they already paid, where it would be breach of contract). Denying business licenses based on the views of a CEO shouldn't be done, though.

Insurance:
If marriages are equal, will there be separate actuary tables for gay marriages and straight? Gays, I am told, often live a more risky lifestyle than straights (HIV) before settling down, which would mean they are more likely to have health issues. This means that all married insurance policies might raise in cost. Can there be separate tables? Are there separate tables for race? This isn't a should there be, it is a should they be allowed to be issue.
(This issue may just be one of ignorance on my part, I do not know what tables are used by insurance companies for pricing vs. payout vs. other uses. I know there are studies and stats about things, but that doesn't mean insurance compaies factor them in.)

I would assume it would be, at worst, treated as a pre-existing condition. However, once married, the risk of spread of disease is reduced significantly. However, to be fair, they'd have to take that into account for unmarried heterosexuals as well.

Issues of child custody:
Assume two lesbians go to a sperm bank. Les A has the child. In the event of a divorce, does Les B have any claim to the child, which is not hers in any biological way? If so, does this mean a stepparent can in a straight marriage, assuming the bio-parent is out of the picture?

I would assume that they would have shared custody since they are married. Things like this would happen if there was an infertile male and a fertile female in a heterosexual marriage, so the framework to deal with it would be there.

If gay marriage were simply a snap of the fingers and everything would be the same except their unions being recognized, I would be for it. However, as you are keen on pointing out, things are not that simple.

It'd require a bit of work in a few cases, but it can be done. I don't really support civil unions because of this, since they are essentially the legal equivalent of jury-rigging (in the non-legal sense).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no way it could be misconstrued for polygamy
Misconstrued? Gee, I guess gay marriage proponents really do hate traditional marriage, just not the traditiional marriage the fundies are thinking of. What's wrong with polygamy?

Thomas is really weird.... he doesn't talk..... Or, at the very least, he never asks any questions in court. I cannot, therefore, get a good idea of what he's thinking. And I have't read any of his decisions.
If by "decisions" you mean "minority of one opinions" you're missing out. Although I don't think this sort of issue is gonna be one of the good ones from him.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.