The Supreme Court will not here same sex marriage cases.

[bigvalboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=po_t1

[justaguy]

I was really hoping they would take this issue on and make a firm ruling. Historically, though, the Supreme Court would rather not take the bold step. At least, this time, it works in our favor.

[instudiocity]

They will not HEAR those cases either.

 

I believe it's a states' rights issue. Keeping the Feds out of our bedrooms is a good thing...

 

States lose their distinctiveness when everything is ordered by Federal edict. Just look at the school lunch program. Washington cannot possibly be all things to all peoples in all areas of the country. That's coercive. We all love our freedoms too much.

[+ Charlie]

They will not HEAR those cases either.

 

I believe it's a states' rights issue. Keeping the Feds out of our bedrooms is a good thing...

 

States lose their distinctiveness when everything is ordered by Federal edict. Just look at the school lunch program. Washington cannot possibly be all things to all peoples in all areas of the country. That's coercive. We all love our freedoms too much.

Well, it is FEDERAL appeals courts that overturned each of those state laws; the Supreme Court simply refused to reconsider those judgments. Perhaps you don't understand how the judicial system works?

[Lookin]

I believe it's a states' rights issue. Keeping the Feds out of our bedrooms is a good thing...

 

States lose their distinctiveness when everything is ordered by Federal edict. Just look at the school lunch program. Washington cannot possibly be all things to all peoples in all areas of the country. That's coercive. We all love our freedoms too much.

 

 

Honestly! And keeping other folks from getting married is one of the freedoms we hold most dear. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

http://travelingdictionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/statue-of-liberty-728x240.jpg

 

(Just so long as a little buggery is still OK. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/whistle.png)

[wisconsinguy]

Well, it is FEDERAL appeals courts that overturned each of those state laws; the Supreme Court simply refused to reconsider those judgments. Perhaps you don't understand how the judicial system works?

I agree with u Charlie. From what I read thus far: There are a number of states that are in the process of looking at this issue. They wanted time to look at these conclusions to determine constitutionality? They are open to look at this issue again. I hope every state in the union takes issue!!! If they use the bible as a background for a man to a woman thing, they are dead in the water. What about a man should " not spill his seed?" All us guys would be in prison. Thank us Democrats.

[Kevin Slater]

Surprising. The upshot is that the Court couldn't find four votes to hear the cases.

 

It's clear why the conservative four justices, finding themselves in the minority, wouldn't want to decide the cases.

 

The liberal four apparently want to give the nation more time to get used to the idea, to see that the sky doesn't fall with the advent of gay marriage. Also, they have their way now: no federal district court has ruled against gay marriage. That drumbeat may continue.

 

Like many, I was hoping for a definitive affirmation of our rights. By not picking up one or all of these cases, this court punts to some future court, possibly one where Ginsburg has been replaced by some future republican president, or perhaps a democrat who had to nominate a judge able to be confirmed by a republican Senate.

 

So far, there is no dissension between federal district courts on the issue. If some such court does rule against gay marriage in the coming year or two, the supreme court will feel more compelled to step into the matter. I fear what the composition of that court may be.

 

Kevin Slater

[marylander1940]

Republicans won the 2004 election in Ohio because gay marriage was on the ballot, and some of the poorest and hopeless white Americans showed up to vote to keep it illegal... I guess now they're moving on to attack other group or Americans, homophobia is so early XX century.

 

Speaker John Boehner vowed last year that he’d back gay GOP candidates. Now, he’s making good on his word.

 

The Ohio Republican is heading to California this week, where he’ll raise cash for openly gay Republican candidate Carl DeMaio in defiance of several conservative groups....

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219754-boehner-rakes-in-cash-for-openly-gay-republican

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm so happy!! I'm getting a little emotional just reading the news stories. (I just had my testosterone level checked. It was really low at 167. The doctor asked me if I had found myself crying as he had had patients with low testosterone say that they were very weepy. I told him no. But then today reading these articles, I'm a little choked up although no tears as yet.). I doubt marriage will ever happen to me. But I'm so very glad for everyone out there who can now become legally married!!

 

 

 

I believe it's a states' rights issue. Keeping the Feds out of our bedrooms is a good thing...

 

States lose their distinctiveness when everything is ordered by Federal edict. Just look at the school lunch program. Washington cannot possibly be all things to all peoples in all areas of the country. That's coercive. We all love our freedoms too much.

 

I can't agree with you here. While the majority is not always wrong, it's definitely not always right. With thinking like that mixed race marriages might still be illegal, as well as separate and only supposedly equal school segregation might still be around. If changes like this followed only the majority 'Whites Only' seats and drinking fountains would probably have been with us much longer.

 

Of course the Judiciary isn't always right either (Citizens United, anyone?). I'm not sure if this refusal to take up the cases plays into the right-wingers on the SCOTUS or not. But at least in the short term, SCOTUS has done good. May today's non-ruling soon lead to legality for gay marriage throughout the land. And to paraphrase the ending of many a sermon given by the rabbi of my teen years, "And to that I say 'Amen'!!!

 

Gman

[+ Funguy]

May today's non-ruling soon lead to legality for gay marriage throughout the land. And to paraphrase the ending of many a sermon given by the rabbi of my teen years, "And to that I say 'Amen'!!! Gman

 

Or was it, "Next year, Jerusalem!"?

[+ Gar1eth]

 

The liberal four apparently want to give the nation more time to get used to the idea, to see that the sky doesn't fall with the advent of gay marriage. Also, they have their way now: no federal district court has ruled against gay marriage. That drumbeat may continue.

 

Like many, I was hoping for a definitive affirmation of our rights. By not picking up one or all of these cases, this court punts to some future court, possibly one where Ginsburg has been replaced by some future republican president, or perhaps a democrat who had to nominate a judge able to be confirmed by a republican Senate.

 

Kevin Slater

 

IMHO I wouldn't hold my breath for the Court of Appeals of the 5th Circuit to uphold the San Antonio federal district court's ruling that Texas' constitutional ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. And I just read a newspaper article from the New Orleans newspaper that reported that the 6th Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had sharp words for lawyers fighting the bans during their cases in August. So maybe SCOTUS is waiting for the 5th or 6th Circuit to rule NO causing a conflict between Courts of Appeals pretty much forcing SCOTUS to take up the case to resolve the inconsistency between the Circuits.

 

Gman

[+ Charlie]

I think the court has sent a pretty clear message to the lower courts that SCOTUS is not willing to overturn rulings in favor of same sex marriage, so anyone who rules against it is likely to face the strong possibility of being overturned by SCOTUS in future appeals. In fact, the justices are probably waiting for just such a situation before they will consider the subject again, hoping that all the appeals courts will do the job of overturning the state laws for them, so they don't have to rule on the Constitutionality of the right to marry.

[instudiocity]

Well, it is FEDERAL appeals courts that overturned each of those state laws; the Supreme Court simply refused to reconsider those judgments. Perhaps you don't understand how the judicial system works?

Actually I do understand them thar courts system... jest amemba dat it was state laws being ruled unconstitutional... States still have rites...

 

Written in the Southern dialect to reflect my ignorance.

[+ Gar1eth]

I think the court has sent a pretty clear message to the lower courts that SCOTUS is not willing to overturn rulings in favor of same sex marriage, so anyone who rules against it is likely to face the strong possibility of being overturned by SCOTUS in future appeals.

 

One of the commentators I heard on the radio today made the same point that I think Justice Ginsburg made a month or so ago. Currently there wasn't a great impetus currently for SCOTUS to act as all the Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled the same with I believe the same legal reasoning. With that being the case SCOTUS is willing to let the matter play out more in the court of public opinion and Circuit by Circuit. They can remain blameless and above the fray until there is a conflict in Circuit Court rulings.

 

Gman

[dannyboynyc]

There is another element at play in the same sex marriage arena which has not gotten any notice - corporate America. As much as large corporations have been criticized for many valid reasons, there is a growing trend to support diversity and inclusion. Many large corporations provide domestic partner benefits. When it comes to domestic partner / same sex married couples, with the mix of state laws, administration is a nightmare and the cost is huge. However, corporations are willing to bear the cost - and fight for things like same sex marriage - for several reasons. One major driver is a recognition that competition for talent is increasing, and will continue to increase as baby boomers retire. I work for a relatively conservative company who is embracing diversity and inclusion for this reason and clients are asking about it. To understand more, see the Out & Equal site - http://www.outandequal.org/.

[bigvalboy]

There is another element at play in the same sex marriage arena which has not gotten any notice - corporate America. As much as large corporations have been criticized for many valid reasons, there is a growing trend to support diversity and inclusion. Many large corporations provide domestic partner benefits. When it comes to domestic partner / same sex married couples, with the mix of state laws, administration is a nightmare and the cost is huge. However, corporations are willing to bear the cost - and fight for things like same sex marriage - for several reasons. One major driver is a recognition that competition for talent is increasing, and will continue to increase as baby boomers retire. I work for a relatively conservative company who is embracing diversity and inclusion for this reason and clients are asking about it. To understand more, see the Out & Equal site - http://www.outandequal.org/.

 

You make an interesting point dannyboynyc. I remember David Koch coming out in favor of gay marriage during the election. It didn't get much air time, as you can imagine. The Gop quickly swept his comments aside, and he himself didn't really elaborate on the subject, but his comments still stand.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-koch-supports-gay-marriage-pot-legalization-and-ending-wars-and-you-shouldnt-be-surprised/

[+ deej]

Like many, I was hoping for a definitive affirmation of our rights. By not picking up one or all of these cases, this court punts to some future court, possibly one where Ginsburg has been replaced by some future republican president, or perhaps a democrat who had to nominate a judge able to be confirmed by a republican Senate.

 

So far, there is no dissension between federal district courts on the issue. If some such court does rule against gay marriage in the coming year or two, the supreme court will feel more compelled to step into the matter. I fear what the composition of that court may be.

 

Actually it's the circuits, not the district courts. (There *have* been dissenting opinions in the districts. Alabama was it?) If at some time there is disagreement in the circuits SCOTUS is required to break the tie.

 

But just today the 9th circuit put its oar in and struck down Idaho and Nevada's bans. The only reason a circuit would go the other way now is with intent to force SCOTUS into it.

 

The issue has gone from something I didn't expect to see in my lifetime to something that's looking to be settled in one fast-paced sprint. Wow.

[Guest]

What about a man should " not spill his seed?" All us guys would be in prison.

 

Hell, I would be the next in line on death row....

[Strafe13]

You're mostly right, Deej, except that the SCOTUS is not required to break a tie or to resolve any split in the circuit courts of appeal. The court often does, but this all falls under its discretionary jurisdictional review. There are very few matters for which the court is required to act or hear a matter.

 

I believe that a federal district court judge in Louisiana upheld that state's same-sex marriage ban, although a state judge independently hearing a case ruled that the state ban was unconstitutional under the federal constitution. I believe one of the three judges on the panel at 4th circuit court of appeals dissented from that court's decision invalidating the VA ban. Based on the tenor of oral arguments, many observers suspect that the 6th circuit might uphold the ban in MI and one other state. Also, if the LA challenge or eventual TX challenge makes it to the ultra-conservative 5th circuit, observers predict that the court is likely to uphold those states' bans, as well. If the splits occur, then the SCOTUS will almost assuredly take the appeals, but there's still no guarantee.

 

Actually it's the circuits, not the district courts. (There *have* been dissenting opinions in the districts. Alabama was it?) If at some time there is disagreement in the circuits SCOTUS is required to break the tie.

 

But just today the 9th circuit put its oar in and struck down Idaho and Nevada's bans. The only reason a circuit would go the other way now is with intent to force SCOTUS into it.

 

The issue has gone from something I didn't expect to see in my lifetime to something that's looking to be settled in one fast-paced sprint. Wow.

[Kevin Slater]

there is no way Justice Kennedy will not side with the liberal wing on this issue. In fact, I'm betting he will write the majority opinion.

 

The senior justice in the majority decides who will write the opinion. If this hypothetical case is 6-3 with Roberts, he'd be able to write it or assign to another justice. If it were 5-4, Kennedy would be the senior justice and most likely chose to write the opinion himself, as he has recent landmark gay rights cases.

 

Kevin Slater

[justaguy]

Just last night an article on the local news gave this a new spin. Marriage equality could be good for the economy because of all the business associated with a marriage. One florist was looking forward to the increased profits to be made. I admit that I'm in northern Virginia, which is a world away from the rest of the state. Still, things are changing, in a very good way.