- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
United States Supreme Court will consider hearing Gay Marriage cases
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:35 pm
quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has scheduled same-sex marriage cases from five states for consideration at its Sept. 29 private conference, indicating no hesitation to dive right into the national debate.
The justices placed cases from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin on the list for their first conference of the 2014 term. They could have delved into some or none, preferring to wait until later in the fall.
By scheduling all for consideration simultaneously, the justices gave equal footing to the Indiana and Wisconsin cases just decided last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The 10th and 4th Circuits previously ruled in the other cases.
The court could agree to hear one or more cases this winter; deny them all, or delay its decision for a while.
In all five states, federal district and appellate judges have agreed that state bans on same-sex marriage should be struck down as unconstitutional. But those decisions are on hold pending the Supreme Court's review.
Additional gay marriage cases could be added to the justices' list soon. A ruling is expected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. And just this week, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in cases stemming from Idaho and Nevada. Cases from Texas and Florida remain at the appellate court level.
The justices ruled 5-4 in June 2013 that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states that allow them. That list since has grown to 19 states and the District of Columbia. The court also refused to overrule a California court's decision striking down that state's ban.
Thirty-one states continue to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying, including all the states with cases pending before the Supreme Court. The justices are widely expected to rule this term on whether such bans are constitutional.
LINK
Now I'm no legal scholar, expert or attorney of any kind but I opine that if gay marriage is going to be decided by SCOTUS, it will hinge on the question of whether or not a gay marriage ban violates the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause and the 14th is an amendment all states have approved of and if SCOTUS rules as such, this would nullify the states rights argument under the 10th amendment. Poliboard lawyers and SCOTUS watchers, am I correct with my reasoning?
5
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:43 pm to Sentrius
Good. Whichever way they decide I just want this stupid issue to be over with
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:44 pm to deltaland
quote:
Good. Whichever way they decide I just want this stupid issue to be over with
There's no way this issue will be "over with" until it's legal in all 50 states. You can't roll back social progression in a democracy or a republic where majority opinion (more or less) carries the day.
And frankly, there's no damn way the USSC would agree to hear this issue unless they know that they'd have the votes to uphold it and extend it to all 50 states. There would be literal riots if they repealed it. Well-dressed riots with
great feng shui, but riots nonetheless.
ETA: would
if Bush's landmark nominee cast the deciding vote for both Obamacare AND gay marriage. Would be the crowning achievement for Bush's historically awful presidency.This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:49 pm to SirWinston
quote:
SirWinston
Slightly off topic but I hope you can respond to this. LINK
Lesson here, don't deal in absolutes unless you're 100% sure.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:58 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The court also refused to overrule a California court's decision striking down that state's ban.
If this statement is referring to the Prop 8 case then that is a blatant lie.
The SCOTUS didn't refuse to overrule the lower court ruling regarding the constitutionality of Prop 8.
The SCOTUS dismissed the case for lack of standing.
That's a big difference!!!
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:01 pm to Sentrius
Was that the right link? If so I fear your question is going over my head.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:03 pm to Sentrius
quote:
14th amendment
Which was only passed by the Southern states under duress, as part of the price of losing the
civil War.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:05 pm to SirWinston
quote:
There's no way this issue will be "over with" until it's legal in all 50 states.
And it eventually will be. I don't really care either way about the issue, but I believe the Federal Gov't shouldn't force social progression on the entire nation. It should be allowed to gradually happen as people become accustomed and open to it. Forcing it on people too soon can have devastating effects....see forced integration of schools for one example. Had that been more gradually implemented at the state level those massive riots likely wouldn't have occurred and I guarantee within 10 years all states would have integrated.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:06 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Was that the right link? If so I fear your question is going over my head.
I edited and fixed.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:07 pm to SirWinston
quote:
There's no way this issue will be "over with" until it's legal in all 50 states.
Even then it won't be over. Is abortion over just because it is legal?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:08 pm to Sentrius
meh IMO that's a red herring and a reasonable person would make allowances that my point was sound despite the careless error.
LSURussian on the other hand.... He'd call me an "idiot" and tell me I'm "wrong again".
LSURussian on the other hand.... He'd call me an "idiot" and tell me I'm "wrong again".
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:09 pm to Sentrius
quote:In the end as callous as it may sound, gay marriage is about federal acknowledgement rather than any illegality. Federal acknowledgement is substantially about tax. SCOTUS has already identified that Congress has broad privilege to tax Americans as it sees fit. Should make for an interesting case.
Now I'm no legal scholar, expert or attorney of any kind but I opine that if gay marriage is going to be decided by SCOTUS, it will hinge on the question of whether or not a gay marriage ban violates the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause and the 14th is an amendment all states have approved of and if SCOTUS rules as such
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:09 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:Do you know why the case lacked standing?
The SCOTUS dismissed the case for lack of standing.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:11 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Now I'm no legal scholar, expert or attorney of any kind but I opine that if gay marriage is going to be decided by SCOTUS, it will hinge on the question of whether or not a gay marriage ban violates the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause and the 14th is an amendment all states have approved of and if SCOTUS rules as such, this would nullify the states rights argument under the 10th amendment. Poliboard lawyers and SCOTUS watchers, am I correct with my reasoning?
There are equal protection arguments, full faith and credit arguments, and substantive due process. The Supreme Court has rarely used the 10th amendment in it's cases.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:13 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Even then it won't be over. Is abortion over just because it is legal?
I don't know that abortion has a true "socially progressive" compass like gay marriage or attemtping to treat all races/genders the same does.
In fact, the act of aborting a fetus is almost contrary to all "liberal" and "progressive" views in other topics - animal rights, the environment, death penalty, war, etc. To me it's an outlier and a hijacking of an issue by powerful special interest groups on the left. I could be wrong though - would make for an interesting debate.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:20 pm to SirWinston
quote:
I don't know that abortion has a true "socially progressive" compass like gay marriage or attemtping to treat all races/genders the same does.
I disagree with the implication that conservatives, by contrast, seek to "treat all races/genders differently".
Of the 2 major parties (I know, in practice, both parties of full of rhetoric spewing douchebags - at last at the upper echelons), one, at least in theory, pursues a platform of a color blind, meritocracy, where everyone has equal opportunity to seek the American dream, and everyone is treated equally, regardless of race.
The other pursues policies that overtly seek to repair past and current perceived inequities, explicitly by treating the races differently, affording more favorable treatment to one or more races.
The former is the position of the more "conservative" party and the latter is the position of the more "liberal" or "progressive" party.
But, by all means pretend that it is the opposite.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:23 pm to Ace Midnight
Yeah I didn't mean it the way you took it, but I see how you can read it that way. I didn't mean to sound so complimentary of "progressiveness" as a political philosophpy, rather more along the progression of what is innately "correct" as humans become more civilized and educated.
Example - whipping your kids with a belt or switch is probably less common to parents in downtown Tokyo or downtown Paris than in the remote parts of Africa or Biloxi.
Example - whipping your kids with a belt or switch is probably less common to parents in downtown Tokyo or downtown Paris than in the remote parts of Africa or Biloxi.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:28 pm to SirWinston
quote:Abortion and gay rights, two key "progressive" cornerstones, have one thing in common. Care to guess? Once you figure that out, it's easy to understand the dichotomy.
In fact, the act of aborting a fetus is almost contrary to all "liberal" and "progressive" views in other topics - animal rights, the environment, death penalty, war, etc.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:29 pm to JazzyJeff
quote:
Abortion and gay rights
Zero population growth
Posted on 9/12/14 at 5:32 pm to deltaland
quote:
Good. Whichever way they decide I just want this stupid issue to be over with
If the SCOTUS rules same sex marriage bans unconstitutional then it will be over. If it rules then constitutional, the gheys and their allies will flip shite and it will be even worse than it is now. I am so sick of this issue I hope the SCOTUS rules in favors of the gheys.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News