Supreme Court to Decide Gay Marriage Nationally.

[Gameface]

Utahns on both sides welcome U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to rule on same-sex marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution — a potentially historic ruling that Utahns on both sides of the debate say they welcome.
Justices on Friday said they will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — after a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in November consolidated the cases and upheld their respective bans on same-sex marriage, reversing the rulings of federal judges in all four states.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2068953-155/utahns-on-both-sides-welcome-us

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

If they vote no, does this then overturn the rulings that has allowed gay marriage in certain states?

 

[Dr. Jones]

If they vote no, does this then overturn the rulings that has allowed gay marriage in certain states?

If I understand correctly, a state's statute or amendment can be overturned by the Supreme Court, yes.
In this case, however, I see no chance of that happening. This will either be a vote to allow or, more likely, a less definitive approach by simply upholding the bans (in non gay marriage friendly states) without explicitly stating that gay marriage is unconstitutional.

 

[moevillini]

If they vote no, does this then overturn the rulings that has allowed gay marriage in certain states?

I would say No. It would just mean that the US Constitution can't be used to force states that object to it to approve gay marriage.

To me, it seems to be an equal protection issue.

It just seems to me that either NOBODY has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to marriage or EVERYBODY does. I don't think the Constitution really makes a distinction on the issue.

But hey, I've never claimed to be a constitutional scholar, so what do I know?

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I can't see them voting to allow gay marriage nationally. It just doesn't feel like we're there as a nation yet. Sadly.

 

[spycam1]

I can't see them voting to allow gay marriage nationally. It just doesn't feel like we're there as a nation yet. Sadly.

Change often happens more rapidly than you'd expect.

 

[Gameface]

I can't see them voting to allow gay marriage nationally. It just doesn't feel like we're there as a nation yet. Sadly.

The shift in public opinion and the law has been very dramatic over the last 5 years. I think if we're not "there" yet right now we will be as soon as the supreme court strikes down bans on gay marriage.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I can't see them voting to allow gay marriage nationally. It just doesn't feel like we're there as a nation yet. Sadly.

Change often happens more rapidly than you'd expect.

If I understand correctly, a state's statute or amendment can be overturned by the Supreme Court, yes.
In this case, however, I see no chance of that happening. This will either be a vote to allow or, more likely, a less definitive approach by simply upholding the bans (in non gay marriage friendly states) without explicitly stating that gay marriage is unconstitutional.

This is my bet at the outcome. Basically hiding behind state sovereignty rather than making a direct ruling over constitutionality.

 

[spycam1]

This is my bet at the outcome. Basically hiding behind state sovereignty rather than making a direct ruling over constitutionality.

Or loosely translated:

 

[The Blue Elephant]

On the topic of gender equality.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-weho-gender-neutral-restroom-20150113-story.html

Single stall bathrooms gotta be gender neutral. I am surprised there is no law that feminists are complaining "how come the woman sign has a dress, that is sexist."

 

[Nate505]

I can't see them voting to allow gay marriage nationally. It just doesn't feel like we're there as a nation yet. Sadly.

In this case it only takes 5 people to decide we are

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Change often happens more rapidly than you'd expect.

Have you been watching this Jazz team the last five years?

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

In this case it only takes 5 people to decide we are

Or five to decide we aren't.

 

[spycam1]

Have you been watching this Jazz team the last five years?

Have you been watching Gobert, bruh.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Have you been watching Gobert, bruh.

Haha...yo, what was the gif Adrien Brody?

 

[LogGrad98]

If I understand correctly, a state's statute or amendment can be overturned by the Supreme Court, yes.
In this case, however, I see no chance of that happening. This will either be a vote to allow or, more likely, a less definitive approach by simply upholding the bans (in non gay marriage friendly states) without explicitly stating that gay marriage is unconstitutional.

I think, along these lines, they will rule that each state has the right to set these laws up themselves, rather than making a blanket constitutional ruling. That's a possibility, right?

As Moe said, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

 

[The Thriller]

Justice Roberts has a close family member who is gay. He's one conservative who I could see as siding with the liberal justices. If that happens, it's lights out for gay marriage bans.

Hopefully they rule to end the bans. I'm tired of this being an issue. Get it over with so we can focus on more important issues, like resurrecting the middle class and jobs that actually paid well.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think, along these lines, they will rule that each state has the right to set these laws up themselves, rather than making a blanket constitutional ruling. That's a possibility, right?

As Moe said, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

The first part, yes.

 

[Gameface]

I think, along these lines, they will rule that each state has the right to set these laws up themselves, rather than making a blanket constitutional ruling. That's a possibility, right?

As Moe said, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

I really doubt this.

If they strike down the bans before them they strike down all bans. I see that as much more likely. Not because that's how the supreme court rolls (they typically don't if they don't have to) but because there is no reasonable argument for banning certain people from getting married. There is no argument for allowing one state to ban gay marriage while others permit it. The pro-prohibition arguments that have been put forth are laughably weak, in my not at all humble opinion.

My bold prediction is that the SC ends marriage discrimination.

 

[Gameface]

The first part, yes.

The case for "states rights" (contradiction in terms, sorry southerner) is incredibly weak when it comes to gay marriage.