NO.. not states rights, but state sovereignty.. a much looser term when it comes to this sort of ruling. I know it sounds like the same thing, but the smallest difference that allows an indecision is welcomed by a more liberal (sorry) panel.
Supreme Court to Decide Gay Marriage Nationally.
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
NO.. not states rights, but state sovereignty.. a much looser term when it comes to this sort of ruling. I know it sounds like the same thing, but the smallest difference that allows an indecision is welcomed by a more liberal (sorry) panel.
Be prepared.. they will take a high road that gives appearance of acceptance but grants rights all the same. Too many think they are relegated to a yes/no vote, but they're not.
Very good point. I was pretty sloppy in my response.
That said, there just isn't a way to argue to allow some states to discriminate and others not to. If there is an even slightly good argument for this (obviously it would be framed differently than I have framed it) I haven't heard it.
I gave it. State sovereignty.
In an indecisive, supremacy clause world, one must find early float and that is passing the buck. Let states make their own decision. The supreme court finds that the states, on this issue, short of a definitive global decision, have the right to uphold their own ideals/amendments/statutes.
Eventually this will be a 50 states pro vote.. so the SC should just get over it over with.. I just don't think they do, yet.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
^ Reasoning
The court only needs 4 justices to vote in favor of hearing an appeal in order for it to be heard. Obviously when these bans were struck down earlier this year 6 of the justices saw no need to review those decisions. The media says that it is because the lower courts were in agreement but I don't buy that. The SCOTUS cares too much about things like stability to allow many thousands of Americans to get married only to reimpose the ban later.
The court only needs 4 justices to vote in favor of hearing an appeal in order for it to be heard. Obviously when these bans were struck down earlier this year 6 of the justices saw no need to review those decisions. The media says that it is because the lower courts were in agreement but I don't buy that. The SCOTUS cares too much about things like stability to allow many thousands of Americans to get married only to reimpose the ban later.
State sovereignty does not include sovereignty on constitutional issues. The constitution is the document that unites all the states and all of them and their laws must be in congruence with the constitution. The way I understand the issue is that SCOTUS will decide precisely this question - is it constitutional for states to ban marriage or not. It is either constitutional or not and it doesn't matter what their personal feelings about it are or what the feelings of the people in respective states are. If they decide that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, that means that no state would be able to decide for themselves, just like no state can decide whether you have the right to free speech or to own guns. If they decide that it is not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, then the state sovereignty kicks in and every state will have the right to make their own mind about what laws rule their gay marriage or if they will recognize the marriage of people coming from other states, etc...
Here's an article about it from SCOTUS Blog:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/court-will-rule-on-same-sex-marriage/
Last edited:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think they may kick the can down the road on some of the specifics. I think they will likely strike down these bans but there probably will be three opinions written. 1 upholding the bans and 2 striking them down. I think the specifics will depend upon whether Kennedy joins Roberts in his opinion or if he puts his name on the majority opinion.
Then again I'm just a dude that doesn't really know ****, but that's the way I see it.
I actually think the opposite. When it comes to issues of basic human rights and especially with ones of minorities, nothing should be decided by the majority. Those issues should be debated and decided by the ones best qualified to take those decisions(in this case - the people who know best the law in it's pure form and in its intent, as well as the social and legal consequences of those laws). Letting referendums decide issues like that risks having a society where the majority is oppressing the minorities.
To me referendums should be reserved for issues with wide and crucial state/country importance that would affect the huge majority of the population(for example - the country joining economic zones, i.e. joining the EU). The issue of gay marriage affects less than 5% of the population and to me it seems pretty weird to let the rest of the public to decide that issue.
Last edited:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I'm glad that I live in a country that has legal limits on what can be decided by public opinion. The great thing about the supreme court isn't the decisions themselves but the arguments for them.
Example: Evolution vs Intelligent Design/Creationism in government funded schools
https://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
MVP
Well-Known Member
I don't see how it is better to let 0.00005% of population to decide on the same issue.
Again, it matters who those 0.00005% of people are. When it comes to human rights, it's MUCH better to let the 0.00005% most qualified decide than let the majority dictate. When it comes to human rights, majority decision is one of the worst ways to decide, especially when considering the rights of a minority.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Is this really a matter of human rights or just mere name or relationship? Most gays have exactly the same rights while being in common law partnership. I think lots of people just don't like calling a committed gay relationship marriage - which again most associate with male marrying a female. Simple matter of a word. If they would call it something different there it would no fuss and no need for supreme court decisions - nobody would care!
Not really... there are series of rights they don't have... one of them is being decided by SCOTUS - the "portability" and recognizability of it. There are over 1000 federal benefits, legal protections and state responsibilities that you get with marriage, but not with civil unions. Some of the more important ones are - the right to take leave from work to take care of a sick partner, social security benefits, series of legal protections and benefits provided by the federal government when it comes to taxes, pension protection, family insurance protection, health care benefits, etc.
The differences are not small and are not few.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Really? Did not know that. Lets say they would have exactly the same rights like married people except the naming of the partnership, would that be sufficient?
MVP
Well-Known Member
to me its like breaching the patent lol... marriage name was kind of patented by history as relationship between man and woman. Look, all big stores makes no name Cola drinks but nobody names it Coca-Cola. Same here I believe, they can do it, except lets leave original name for original meaning.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
People really need to stop pimping democracy. Democracy is a recipe for oppression and civil war. I very much prefer having a mutually beneficial contract with my fellow citizens over democracy. In order to have such a contract we need arbiters that we can trust. Our arbiters(Justices) have developed a reputation over the course of their legal careers of impartiality. Their reputations were significant enough to be nominated by the President and confirmed by both Houses of Congress.
Contrary to what the headlines say the court is not deciding gay marriage they are settling a dispute about our contract. Without the SCOTUS we would likely eventually resort to violence to settle these disputes.
If I had to guess, for some it would be sufficient, for others it wouldn't. The "separate but equal" doctrine doesn't go well with a lot of people and I can imagine why. It's the same rhetoric that in the past dictated that blacks should have separate fountains to drink from. If there is no real difference from the point of the state, I don't see a reason why not call it the same thing. It's the simplest and as it happens probably the best solution, I think.
MVP
Well-Known Member
But it is still different. When I hear marriage I do not want to guess if it is between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or maybe transgender and transsexual. Why not to have defined meaning?