Supreme Court Finally Agrees to Decide

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

    Jan 17, 2015 1:19 AM GMT
    I can't believe that there aren't ten threads on this yet.
    Well, it is Friday night... Metta must be out on a hot date. icon_razz.gif
    http://news.yahoo.com/justices-must-act-fast-gay-marriage-settled-june-083801891.html

    Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

    The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.

    Also:

    http://news.yahoo.com/odds-marriage-equality-013915528.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2015 5:40 PM GMT
    Wouldn't it be cool if the decision (assuming it's favorable) came down on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2015 6:38 PM GMT
    Metta had it in his meta marriage thread.

    I like to think we're going to get it this round. If we don't, as I've gotten real tired of contributing to my own country as it treats me as a second class citizen, I'd likely put more energy into considering living my remaining days as an expat.

    And even if we do finally get our human rights here, I'm actually worried more so about how I might feel if none of my friends and family call to congratulate us. I suspect they will not initiate that conversation and I fear whether that's by their inconsideration of the conditions of my life, having known me and claimed my friendship and love for all these decades, or even of their lack of initiation by their fears or whatever the fuck stops them, that their inaction will reposition how I feel about my relationships with them.

    Lose or win, for me, never mind having in mind that I've lived all these years without my rights--so there's sadness inherent anyway--I suspect there will be some more sadness marring this defining otherwise so very happy moment that I have longed for my entire life.

    The mixed blessings of life. Best of luck to us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2015 7:08 PM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?emc=edit_th_20150118&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=23077370

    The first page of a petition seeking Supreme Court review is the most important. It sets out the “question presented,” the one the court will answer if it takes the case.

    The justices do not ordinarily tinker with the wording of those questions. But on Friday something unusual happened: In agreeing to hear four same-sex marriage cases, the court framed for itself the issues it would address.

    But there are perfectly innocuous explanations for the court’s new questions. It agreed to hear four different petitions, from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, and they featured different questions, which needed to be harmonized since the cases were consolidated.

    “The court’s order represents good housekeeping,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard.

    But Professor Tribe also voiced a small note of caution.

    “The rephrased questions,” he said, “technically leave open a middle path along which the court would prevent states from discriminating against same-sex couples lawfully married in their home states without requiring any state to take the affirmative step of issuing its own marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    Koastal saidWouldn't it be cool if the decision (assuming it's favorable) came down on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots?

    June 28 is on a Sunday this year, so it won't be possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2015 8:24 PM GMT
    The wording of the questions appears intended to focus the justices on the precise legal questions at hand. I don't think you can read anything into it beyond that.