Supreme Court to decide the Gay Marriage debate... (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Wonder if there's a reason for that. Nah, its their fault for being overly sensitive.

It is a two way street. The past was horrible, but until we move on we will be stuck here.

 

[Eminence]

Well, I for one hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

 

[joffer]

Well, I for one hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

first time for everything

 

[jon_mx]

Well, I for one hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

first time for everything

I am guessing his right thing and yours are not the same....

 

[bigbottom]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue

Who posted in: Supreme Court to decide the Gay Marri...

Member name Posts

jon_mx 15

FUBAR 6

SaintsInDome2006 4

beavers 4

popsecret 3

CletiusMaximus 2

Mario Kart 2

Apple Jack 2

njherdfan 2

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

 

[proninja]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Whatever. Just saying basic facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[FUBAR]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Whatever. Just saying basic facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing. It also depends on what sort of person you are."

- C.S. Lewis

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations?

Like a zillion times better.

 

[joffer]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Whatever. Just saying basic facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

please highlight the "fact" in your post. TIA

 

[rct]

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Whatever. Just saying basic facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

"blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights" are basic facts?

Yes, according to people like David Duke.

 

[proninja]

Defining black happiness in terms of what white people think about them is flat plantation mentality.

 

[matuski]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

It will be one less rock for those of you unable to accept it to hide under.

 

[Zow]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

 

[Zow]

I never understood why some here are so

obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you

think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Whatever. Just saying basic facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

Your legal imagination is pretty weak.

 

[jon_mx]

Your legal imagination is pretty weak.

What additional legal protections can we make without violating the equal protection clause?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

Wouldn't that be precedent then?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

Wouldn't that be precedent then?

It's an interesting question. Baker v. Nelson was about a state law forbidding same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it didn't involve a substantial federal question. Back then, gender-based discrimination didn't get heightened scrutiny, and laws making homosexual acts illegal didn't violate the federal constitution. Arguably, the Supreme Court implicitly reversed Baker v. Nelson, on the question of whether discrimination against same-sex couples raises a question of federal law, when it started applying heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination and found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

But in any event, the question of Baker v. Nelson's precedential value will be rendered moot as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case that it just granted cert. to.

 

[FUBAR]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

Wouldn't that be precedent then?

It's an interesting question. Nelson v. Baker was about a state law forbidding same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it didn't involve a substantial federal question. Back then, gender-based discrimination didn't get heightened scrutiny, and laws making homosexual acts illegal didn't violate the federal constitution. Arguably, the Supreme Court implicitly reversed Nelson v. Baker, on the question of whether discrimination against same-sex couples raises a question of federal law, when it started applying heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination and found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

But in any event, the question of Nelson v. Baker's precedential value will be rendered moot as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case that it just granted cert. to.

Actually, they did. Bad decisions happen more often than we'd like.

 

[FUBAR]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

You didn't express an opinion, but this is what the court should do. Let congress and the president do their jobs until they have to step in.

 

[otello]

So is it possible that there will be a ruling here that classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So is it possible that there will be a ruling here that classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect?

I think such a possibility is remote. If Kennedy were on board with that, he'd have done so in Windsor. I'd wager we're likely looking at another 5-4 ruling relying on a flavor of rational basis that only Justice Kennedy seems to really understand, unfortunately.

 

[jon_mx]

So is it possible that there will be a ruling here that classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect?

I think such a possibility is remote. If Kennedy were on board with that, he'd have done so in Windsor. I'd wager we're likely looking at another 5-4 ruling relying on a flavor of rational basis that only Justice Kennedy seems to really understand, unfortunately.

When you are the swing vote, it only takes one. It is all up to Kennedy how far this ruling goes.

 

[zoonation]

Lmao at Jon in here. Classic bafoonary!

 

[SWC]

i hope they say that you can not discriminate based on your orientation and take one more step towards equality take that to the bank freedomhans

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think it would be completely shocking if Kennedy has moved a bit on certain relevant issues since Windsor.

 

[shader]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

These 2% of people are extremely vocal and loud.

 

[cstu]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

This does not change people's hearts. It will change some rules which impact a small minority of a small minority. My problem with this issue on this forum is there is a lynch mob against anyone who has the nerve to make a comment against it. It is a litmus test to many to determine if the other person is even human. Too many here take this issue way too seriously and are overly obssessed with the issue to the point it is impossible to even discuss without name-calling and hatred.

It would be the biggest change to civil rights since the Voting Rights Act. I think ~5% of the population is more than a "small minority of a small minority".

 

[rockaction]

Seems like the Supreme Court is about 3 years behind the times on this.

You realize they have to wait for a case with this issue ripe in the facts in order to decide the issue, right?

They have had several, both those they have taken up and those they have taken a pass on. Of course delaying taking on constitutional issues as long as they can is what the court usually does but the idea that this is the first opportunity is simply wrong. Just think of how much better the world would be today if the court didn't punt, didn't whiff on Nelson v Baker forty plus years ago,

Wouldn't that be precedent then?

It's an interesting question. Nelson v. Baker was about a state law forbidding same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it didn't involve a substantial federal question. Back then, gender-based discrimination didn't get heightened scrutiny, and laws making homosexual acts illegal didn't violate the federal constitution. Arguably, the Supreme Court implicitly reversed Nelson v. Baker, on the question of whether discrimination against same-sex couples raises a question of federal law, when it started applying heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination and found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

But in any event, the question of Nelson v. Baker's precedential value will be rendered moot as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case that it just granted cert. to.

I realize I'm treading very serious lawyerly ground here and going after MT, too, but I don't think this is accurate. Under the 14th, scrutiny only comes into play under EP. Only O'Connor wrote a concurrence that found a heightened scrutiny or recognized an EP claim.

This was decided under strictly substantive due process 14th Amendment grounds, if I'm not mistaken. If I am, correct me please. I went to a law school where we explicitly concentrated on this case in Criminal Law under a very liberal and feminist professor (she was awesome), but I'm not a lawyer. I think this is a common misinterpretation of that case. And it's an important one.

From Wiki: On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court released its 6–3 decision striking down the Texas statute. Five justices held it violated due process guarantees, and a sixth, Sandra Day O'Connor, held it violated equal protection guarantees. The opinion overruled Bowers v. Hardwick and implicitly invalidated similar sodomy statutes in 13 other states.

 

[FUBAR]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

These 2% of people are extremely vocal and loud.

and throw fabulous parties.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Arguably, the Supreme Court implicitly reversed Nelson v. Baker, on the question of whether discrimination against same-sex couples raises a question of federal law, when it started applying heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination and found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

This was decided under strictly substantive due process 14th Amendment grounds, if I'm not mistaken.

My sentence was ambiguous; sorry. I did not mean that the Supreme Court found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional when it applied heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination. I meant, rather, that that Baker v. Nelson was arguably implicitly reversed when the Supreme Court, in two separate actions, (1) started applying heightened scrutiny to gender-based discrimination, and (2) found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

 

[skol asylum]

SCOTUS says corporations are people, so i don't see how they can say gays aren't.

And to carry it one step further gay corporations too i guess.

 

[rockaction]

Arguably, the Supreme Court implicitly reversed Nelson v. Baker, on the question of whether discrimination against same-sex couples raises a question of federal law, when it started applying heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination and found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

This was decided under strictly substantive due process 14th Amendment grounds, if I'm not mistaken.

My sentence was ambiguous; sorry. I did not mean that the Supreme Court found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional when it applied heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination. I meant, rather, that that Nelson v. Baker was arguably implicitly reversed when the Supreme Court, in two separate actions, (1) started applying heightened scrutiny to gender-based discrimination, and (2) found anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

Yeah, I also should have read it more clearly. Nelson v. Baker was not Lawrence v. Texas, so the fault lies with me, too.

I was concentrating on whether the Lawrence case would be precedent for Equal Protection as it relates to gayness/homosexuality. People that like law, but don't have the advantages of having it hammered home by a professor, often think that Lawrence was an EP thing or would act as further precedent in the gay marriage debate, when it was the 14th and substantive due process, IIRC.

 

[shader]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

These 2% of people are extremely vocal and loud.

and throw fabulous parties.

Usually quite flamboyant affairs

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think it would be completely shocking if Kennedy has moved a bit on certain relevant issues since Windsor.

The guy has now applied a loosely defined version of rational basis in three decisions over 16 years. I'd be surprised if he decided to apply a different standard now.