SCOTUS declines all 7 cases, now 31 states supporting marriage equality

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 3:09 PM GMT
    reference:
    http://www.towleroad.com/2014/10/breaking-supreme-court-denies-review-in-all-seven-gay-marriage-cases.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 3:11 PM GMT
    *30 states
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 3:19 PM GMT
    +district of Columbia

    most important is UT Hasa Diga Eebowai...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 3:19 PM GMT
    And I think it's not right-away right-away "30 states (plus DC)" yet, but really, really soon, after all the formalities at the circuit level kick in!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 5:26 PM GMT
    Not surprising ... it's a radioactive issue for them.
  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Oct 06, 2014 5:46 PM GMT
    So much progress in such a short time. It's inspiring!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 6:12 PM GMT
    I predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution. They had the chance to decide that issue directly in the Proposition 8 case and pointedly avoiding doing so by instead deciding that the proposition's backer's did not have standing where the state officials declined to defend a law.

    Thus, instead of a national gay-marriage holding there will be for at least many years a patchwork of states that allow it and others that don't, which I believe many on the Court see as a reasonable solution given the divisiveness of this issue.

    There may be lawsuits as to whether one state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state, but I think those will be losers for the proponents of gay marriage because the Full, Faith, and Credit clause is rarely if ever used in the arena of domestic relations, which are viewed as purely state-law issues.

    Two things make gay marriage very different from anti-miscegentation laws: they potentially affect only a very small percentage of the population directly (1-3%), and they are not readily tied to a larger societal struggle such as overcoming the historical racist legacy of slavery. It's probably considered by many judges as a "boutique" issue that creates a lot of noise but that has little practical impact for most Americans and the legal system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 6:31 PM GMT
    How interesting, the final hold outs are in the Midwest icon_mad.gif, SCOTUS today, put the pressure on the 6th circuit court representing Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky (all tea party states?) which will be the last to fall, I cant imagine them holding up the progress now, they will look stupid in the eyes of all the other lower courts, we already know how San Francisco court will rule, we could have nation wide gay marriage this week icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 6:44 PM GMT
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.
  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Oct 06, 2014 7:18 PM GMT
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution. They had the chance to decide that issue directly in the Proposition 8 case and pointedly avoiding doing so by instead deciding that the proposition's backer's did not have standing where the state officials declined to defend a law.

    Thus, instead of a national gay-marriage holding there will be for at least many years a patchwork of states that allow it and others that don't, which I believe many on the Court see as a reasonable solution given the divisiveness of this issue.

    There may be lawsuits as to whether one state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state, but I think those will be losers for the proponents of gay marriage because the Full, Faith, and Credit clause is rarely if ever used in the arena of domestic relations, which are viewed as purely state-law issues.

    Two things make gay marriage very different from anti-miscegentation laws: they potentially affect only a very small percentage of the population directly (1-3%), and they are not readily tied to a larger societal struggle such as overcoming the historical racist legacy of slavery. It's probably considered by many judges as a "boutique" issue that creates a lot of noise but that has little practical impact for most Americans and the legal system.


    1.3% in the definitive number since that study is often disputed. We won't know until there's an actual census
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 9:22 PM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 06, 2014 9:39 PM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Yes, I think SCOTUS will have to have its say, too. They're not stupid, and they have their finger on the pulse of society, and they also have their little "internal mechanisms", some of which are more obvious than others. At the time of Loving, remember, 17 states had anti-miscegenation laws meaning 33 didn't; just "about" where we're getting to....now, in this matter? icon_biggrin.gif



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2014 11:33 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Yes, I think SCOTUS will have to have its say, too. They're not stupid, and they have their finger on the pulse of society, and they also have their little "internal mechanisms", some of which are more obvious than others. At the time of Loving, remember, 17 states had anti-miscegenation laws meaning 33 didn't; just "about" where we're getting to....now, in this matter? icon_biggrin.gif






    Possibly, although I don't think that unchallenged Circuit Court decisions are analogous to legislative activity in the states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2014 12:02 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Well certainly, if there is a contrary decision in the 6th circuit (or any other circuit that has not yet decided the issue), it will eventually be decided in the supreme court. But if all the circuits find there is a constitutional right to marry (and we can be certain that there will be plaintiffs in every circuit which has not yet rendered a decision), there won't be a reason for the supreme court to hear the case, as there won't be a conflict among the circuit courts. Even if the republicans win the white house and get some more supreme court appointments, I think it very unlikely (although possible) that the court would take it on themselves then to take it up and go against the tide of history.

    As to current law in the circuits that have decided the issue, I disagree that any federal court would contradict the existing rulings of the court of appeal. There is no better way for a federal judge to get his hand publicly slapped than to issue a decision contrary to recent precedent of the circuit the court is in. If the judge didn't grant a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment based on the circuit court's ruling, his decision would be summarily reversed.

    My guess is the field for future litigation will involve divorce, and parental and adoption rights.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 12:51 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Yes, I think SCOTUS will have to have its say, too. They're not stupid, and they have their finger on the pulse of society, and they also have their little "internal mechanisms", some of which are more obvious than others. At the time of Loving, remember, 17 states had anti-miscegenation laws meaning 33 didn't; just "about" where we're getting to....now, in this matter? icon_biggrin.gif






    Possibly, although I don't think that unchallenged Circuit Court decisions are analogous to legislative activity in the states.


    They are as "analogous" as your misinterpretation of your earlier post as to how many people this "affects." The number of "black/white" married couples - TODAY - in the United States, after Loving, is about the same as the "1-3%" you mention of "our" community.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 12:57 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 12:59 AM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Well certainly, if there is a contrary decision in the 6th circuit (or any other circuit that has not yet decided the issue), it will eventually be decided in the supreme court. But if all the circuits find there is a constitutional right to marry (and we can be certain that there will be plaintiffs in every circuit which has not yet rendered a decision), there won't be a reason for the supreme court to hear the case, as there won't be a conflict among the circuit courts. Even if the republicans win the white house and get some more supreme court appointments, I think it very unlikely (although possible) that the court would take it on themselves then to take it up and go against the tide of history.

    As to current law in the circuits that have decided the issue, I disagree that any federal court would contradict the existing rulings of the court of appeal. There is no better way for a federal judge to get his hand publicly slapped than to issue a decision contrary to recent precedent of the circuit the court is in. If the judge didn't grant a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment based on the circuit court's ruling, his decision would be summarily reversed.

    My guess is the field for future litigation will involve divorce, and parental and adoption rights.


    Of COURSE it would be summarily reversed. What is "sfswimmer" talking about here????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2014 2:20 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 2:30 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!


    Again, and I "think" agreeing with you - to some extent? - I was taught there isn't an enunciated "fundamental right" to marriage, even in Loving. I mean, look at it, they used all "kinds" of language to get around it, without actually "using" the phrase??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2014 2:47 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!


    Again, and I "think" agreeing with you - to some extent? - I was taught there isn't an enunciated "fundamental right" to marriage, even in Loving. I mean, look at it, they used all "kinds" of language to get around it, without actually "using" the phrase??


    That could be the case, and as you acknowledge supports my point that there are ways to distinguish and avoid precedent.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 2:51 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!


    Again, and I "think" agreeing with you - to some extent? - I was taught there isn't an enunciated "fundamental right" to marriage, even in Loving. I mean, look at it, they used all "kinds" of language to get around it, without actually "using" the phrase??


    That could be the case, and as you acknowledge supports my point that there are ways to distinguish and avoid precedent.


    Not "quite"? For how long do you think a lower court will, as you put it, "buck the trend" without being summarily reversed, as our colleague (somewhere above) notes? Or are you basically saying stare decisis "doesn't work"? (I'm making no comment as to whether it always "should" :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2014 3:04 AM GMT
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!



    The Supremes actual precedent (2013) in the case of gay marriage wasn't about gay marriage per se, it has been more about voter ballot initiatives that were used to discriminate against a minority using the US constitution as an excuse to do so. That IS the precedent. The subject matter, of gay marriage, is actually a secondary issue, which is why I believe SCOTUS has not yet said anything about the constitutional right to gay marriage. Good news though, through this voter precedent, the majority can no longer use voting against the constitutional rights of ANY minority. In this case, it has been religion, the majority, that has used the voting power of its people to discriminate against the minority, the LGBT community, and SCOTUS, said, no way José'..........whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right, is a separate issue than the one before us. (voting)
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 3:18 AM GMT
    scruffLA said
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!



    The Supremes actual precedent (2013) in the case of gay marriage wasn't about gay marriage per se, it has been more about voter ballot initiatives that were used to discriminate against a minority using the US constitution as an excuse to do so. That IS the precedent. The subject matter, of gay marriage, is actually a secondary issue, which is why I believe SCOTUS has not yet said anything about the constitutional right to gay marriage. Good news though, through this voter precedent, the majority can no longer use voting against the constitutional rights of ANY minority.


    See, and I still hold that SCOTUS has never enunciated a "fundamental right to marriage" itself...yet, not even in Loving. And I still think this is where Ginsburg is trying to push them (I have no inside info, so my wish might just be father to the thought...but here's hoping, and it makes sense to me).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2014 3:40 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    scruffLA said
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!



    The Supremes actual precedent (2013) in the case of gay marriage wasn't about gay marriage per se, it has been more about voter ballot initiatives that were used to discriminate against a minority using the US constitution as an excuse to do so. That IS the precedent. The subject matter, of gay marriage, is actually a secondary issue, which is why I believe SCOTUS has not yet said anything about the constitutional right to gay marriage. Good news though, through this voter precedent, the majority can no longer use voting against the constitutional rights of ANY minority.


    See, and I still hold that SCOTUS has never enunciated a "fundamental right to marriage" itself...yet, not even in Loving. And I still think this is where Ginsburg is trying to push them (I have no inside info, so my wish might just be father to the thought...but here's hoping, and it makes sense to me).



    ^At this point in history, that is probably true. Voting by ballot, (the majority using it against the minority) state bans is the same way that all happened in the Loving case. Now that this supreme court has ruled this type of voter discrimination is unconstitutional (2013) and gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, I would expect them finally rule on the "fundamental right to marriage" itself, for ALL people, heterosexual, homosexual, interracial. After all is said and done, Polygamy could be the next battle ground.

    Imagine having 5 gay husbands, or one wife and four husbands, each with a child from the same wife, artificially inseminated icon_wink.gif
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Oct 07, 2014 3:50 AM GMT
    scruffLA said
    WrestlerBoy said
    scruffLA said
    sf_swimmer said
    WrestlerBoy said
    sf_swimmer said
    HikerSkier said
    sf_swimmer saidI predict that it will be at least a decade before the Court decides squarely whether there is a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution.


    The court may never need to decide - all depends on what the remaining circuits decide. (The one in the news is the 6th). If the 6th decides in favor of a right to same sex marriage, the remaining circuits may follow suit, in which case the Supreme court never has to hear the issue of the basic right. OTOH, if the 6th circuit makes a final decision upholding state bans, the Supreme court is likely to take up the issue very soon.


    I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether there is a Constitutional right. Circuit Court rulings do not have the same force as Supreme Court decisions because Circuit Courts are not courts of last resort. Circuit Court decisions do not have the same automatic effect of nullifying contrary authorities. And there are a lot of District Courts within each circuit, at least one of which will find a rationale to buck the trend, I would bet. Thus the more conservative states will disregard the Circuit Court decisions as not the final word, and eventually the issue will have to be decided the Supremes, which is waiting to see how things develop before jumping into the process.


    Erm....?? No wonder you agree so much with SVN, or whatever his name is. How does a "District Court" "buck the trend" of a "Circuit Court's"...decision? And how does a "conservative state" "disregard" a Circuit Court's decision???

    The state can ask to "stay" that Circuit's decision... which was exactly what was "unheard" today? But "disregard" it?????


    They disregard it by citing, correctly, that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage ... just as there is none in the 9th Circuit, I believe. Then, as all good lawyers do, they distinguish unfavorable precedent. Voila!



    The Supremes actual precedent (2013) in the case of gay marriage wasn't about gay marriage per se, it has been more about voter ballot initiatives that were used to discriminate against a minority using the US constitution as an excuse to do so. That IS the precedent. The subject matter, of gay marriage, is actually a secondary issue, which is why I believe SCOTUS has not yet said anything about the constitutional right to gay marriage. Good news though, through this voter precedent, the majority can no longer use voting against the constitutional rights of ANY minority.


    See, and I still hold that SCOTUS has never enunciated a "fundamental right to marriage" itself...yet, not even in Loving. And I still think this is where Ginsburg is trying to push them (I have no inside info, so my wish might just be father to the thought...but here's hoping, and it makes sense to me).



    ^At this point in history, that is probably true. Voting by ballot, (the majority using it against the minority) state bans is the same way that all happened in the Loving case. Now that this supreme court has ruled this type of voter discrimination is unconstitutional (2013) and gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, I would expect them finally rule on the "fundamental right to marriage" itself, for ALL people, heterosexual, homosexual, interracial. After all is said and done, Polygamy could be the next battle ground.

    Imagine having 5 gay husbands! icon_wink.gif


    Indeed! In the broadest possible sense, I (somewhat surprising even myself, maybe) don't have anything against polygamy, either.