How do you think SCOTUS will rule on gay "marriage" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : How do you think SCOTUS will rule on gay "marriage"


Drjones
12-08-2012, 12:42
Please do not discuss the merits of gay "marriage" as that goes nowhere except thread lock.

I'm curious to know how you people think SCOTUS will rule on the two gay "marriage" cases before it.

My confidence in the court to give an unbiased and constitutional ruling is greatly diminished after the obamacare ruling, but there's always hope....

TK-421
12-08-2012, 12:56
There is no reason why they shouldn't rule it is as constitutional.

It all comes down to one simple question.

Should one American Citizen be able to marry another American Citizen. Answer that exact question yes or no. Don't worry about their gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, hair style, type of car they drive, nothing. Just base it on the fact that homosexuals are American Citizens, and they should be afforded the rights that other American Citizens can get, thanks to the fact that they're straight.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that all men are created equal. ALL men, not "All straight men are created equal and gay men are lesser citizens."

hogfish
12-08-2012, 13:17
My money is on gay marriage will be ruled as costitutional; no to the 'defense of marriage'.

Syclone538
12-08-2012, 13:40
I don't know anything about the two cases, and didn't know there were any before seeing this thread.

If they rule against freedom now, it will take them a long time to fix it because they really don't like to change positions, stare decisis.

Cavalry Doc
12-08-2012, 14:24
not very likely that they will enforce the 10th amendment and leave it up to the states.

samurairabbi
12-08-2012, 14:35
5 to 4

Bruce H
12-08-2012, 14:38
If they don't rule in favor of freedom they are lying SOB's that need removed from the bench.

G29Reload
12-08-2012, 14:42
There is no reason why they shouldn't rule it is as constitutional.

It all comes down to one simple question.

Should one American Citizen be able to marry another American Citizen. Answer that exact question yes or no.

Exactly wrong. The are (supposed to be) ruling on whether the two laws in questions are constitutional.

EX: A lot of people think abortion is constitutional. It is not.

The ruling in the matter was whether a law against it was legal as written. A law written later in a different fashion could adhere to COTUS principles and still outlaw it for some different reasoning or logic. As construed Roe v Wade did not meet that test.

TK-421
12-08-2012, 14:54
Exactly wrong. The are (supposed to be) ruling on whether the two laws in questions are constitutional.

EX: A lot of people think abortion is constitutional. It is not.

The ruling in the matter was whether a law against it was legal as written. A law written later in a different fashion could adhere to COTUS principles and still outlaw it for some different reasoning or logic. As construed Roe v Wade did not meet that test.

Yes they are supposed to be ruling on whether the two laws in question are constitutional, but they also have the option on keeping the california decision strictly in california, or making the decision affect the entire country. So they have the option of saying whether or not gay marriage is legal in the entire US, and not just in California.

And to think of a group of people as lower class citizens just because of their sexual orientation is not only unconstitutional, but very discriminatory.

snerd
12-08-2012, 15:04
They'll rewrite it as a tax. Problem solved.

GAFinch
12-08-2012, 15:48
They've already ruled abortion and sodomy as unconstitutional even though they were both illegal when the Constitution was written, so they'll probably declare this legal also.

Blast
12-09-2012, 01:41
http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/liberal-logic-101-245.jpg?w=500&h=416

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/12/8/dUyADrMxU0WPkY3VgFo58A2.jpg

Vic777
12-09-2012, 07:05
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that all men are created equal.And that's true, then some Queer turns you! :rofl::rofl:

W420Hunter
12-09-2012, 09:45
There is a larger hidden issue hidden in this, and weather or not gay marriage is ruled constitutional or not the church will lose. What we really need to be asking is weather or not it is constitutional for the state to order the church to do or not do something that is inherently a religious institution. No matter who wins it invites the state to have power over the church. So how how any true conservative could be for this is something I can not grasp.

AlexHassin
12-09-2012, 10:05
There is a larger hidden issue hidden in this, and weather or not gay marriage is ruled constitutional or not the church will lose. What we really need to be asking is weather or not it is constitutional for the state to order the church to do or not do something that is inherently a religious institution. No matter who wins it invites the state to have power over the church. So how how any true conservative could be for this is something I can not grasp.

as far as i have heard, none of these rules say that a religious institution has to preform a wedding ceremony for anyone.

Sam Spade
12-09-2012, 10:15
If, as some insist, the government has no role in marriage, the SCOTUS *ought* to bump the matter down to the states and uphold (for instance) the CA state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man-one woman.

I doubt that an activist court will rule with such restraint.

Ruble Noon
12-09-2012, 10:34
They'll rewrite it as a tax. Problem solved.

This.

fx77
12-09-2012, 10:37
If it is anything like Obamacare..Roberts will say it is a civil right and vote for Gay Marriage

Gunnut 45/454
12-09-2012, 10:41
Well considering how they upheld Obamacare, I have zero confidence this court will side with our founders on the basic foundations of our country. We'll slip further into moral depravity. As to how it's constituional please someone show me where in the COTUS it say's anyone has a right to be married? Marriage is a religous right not a constitutional right! Never seen a Federal marriage license!!:rofl:

Further more the only reason STATES got involved with marriage licensing was for taxing purposes! Then of course lawyers for money in devorce/property rights IE taxing!

GAFinch
12-09-2012, 11:37
as far as i have heard, none of these rules say that a religious institution has to preform a wedding ceremony for anyone.

A church can be told to host a wedding reception, a religious school can be told to not teach traditional views on marriage and homosexuality, and religious adoption and foster care agencies can be told to offer services to gay couples. Don't mistake freedom of worship for freedom of religion.

BTW, Democrats have already floated the idea of forcing military chaplains to perform same sex ceremonies.

eracer
12-09-2012, 11:42
The Bill of Rights. How does it work?

From a pure, non-revisionist standpoint, SCOTUS must rule in favor of Life, Liberty, and The pursuit of Happiness, and not in favor of restrictive laws promoted by modern day moralists.

snerd
12-09-2012, 11:49
The Bill of Rights. How does it work?

From a pure, non-revisionist standpoint, SCOTUS must rule in favor of Life, Liberty, and The pursuit of Happiness, and not in favor of restrictive laws promoted by modern day moralists.
The many that are screaming "Constitution!" were quite apathetic with assaults on it as long as it benefited them. Now they're beginning to see the application of that "slippery slope" argument they have heard so much about.

GAFinch
12-09-2012, 12:06
The Bill of Rights. How does it work?

From a pure, non-revisionist standpoint, SCOTUS must rule in favor of Life, Liberty, and The pursuit of Happiness, and not in favor of restrictive laws promoted by modern day moralists.

So you agree that morality invented out of thin air by progressives shouldn't overrule religious liberty? Surprising.

W420Hunter
12-09-2012, 12:15
as far as i have heard, none of these rules say that a religious institution has to preform a wedding ceremony for anyone.

The hole idea is to make it legal you do not think the next steep will be forcing them to do so?

steveksux
12-09-2012, 12:25
The hole idea is to make it legal you do not think the next steep will be forcing them to do so?Does the govt force Catholic Church to marry divorced couples?

As to how SCOTUS will rule, it's anybody's guess. Seeing as how the same arguments against interracial marriage have been resurrected to oppose gay marriage, it ought to rule the same way it ruled in Loving V Virginia.

Randy

IvanVic
12-09-2012, 12:28
As to how it's constituional please someone show me where in the COTUS it say's anyone has a right to be married?

Where in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to have a bookshelf in your house?

Is this honestly your reasoning for determining what is and what is not Constitutional? Really?

Cavalry Doc
12-09-2012, 12:41
The Bill of Rights. How does it work?

From a pure, non-revisionist standpoint, SCOTUS must rule in favor of Life, Liberty, and The pursuit of Happiness, and not in favor of restrictive laws promoted by modern day moralists.

I'm sorry, this might hurt a little.
But I have to point out that the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the United States Constitution. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. Completely wrong document dude. A little modern day education might help. Google is your friend.

Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution of the United States of America (http://voices.yahoo.com/declaration-independence-vs-constitution-of-24419.html?cat=37)


The 10th amendment should apply. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention marriage. Leave it to the states. Problem solved. The feds have no place in this issue.

Naelbis
12-09-2012, 13:25
I think they strike down the FED restrictions but 50/50 on how how they break on the state prohibitions.

Bren
12-09-2012, 13:40
Marriage had been ruled a fundamental right, so the question will be whether state or federal governments have a compellign governmental interest in making marriage between people of the same sex illegal. Most of the objections are moral or religious, so from a government perspective, I'd figure it's mainly a financial issue and it will, therefore, fail. Laws against gay marriage will be found unconstitutional and, very shortly, all states will be required to recognize it, as future cases add to the precedent.

Bren
12-09-2012, 13:41
The 10th amendment should apply. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention marriage. Leave it to the states. Problem solved. The feds have no place in this issue.

That's where the 14th amendment and subsequent cases will come into play. If something is a fundamental constitutional right, the states can't deny it any more than the feds.

hogfish
12-09-2012, 14:42
There is a larger hidden issue hidden in this, and weather or not gay marriage is ruled constitutional or not the church will lose. What we really need to be asking is weather or not it is constitutional for the state to order the church to do or not do something that is inherently a religious institution. No matter who wins it invites the state to have power over the church. So how how any true conservative could be for this is something I can not grasp.

I didn't know churches were forced to perform marriages. :wow:

ArtificialGrape
12-09-2012, 16:16
Really depends on the point of view from which they consider it -- I don't think a lot of people saw the Obamacare "tax" ruling coming.

From a sex discrimination point of view I could see prohibitions on gay marriage being ruled unconstitutional. Susan is allowed to do something that Joe cannot do because of his sex -- marry a man.

-ArtificialGrape

Gunhaver
12-09-2012, 16:18
The hole idea is to make it legal you do not think the next steep will be forcing them to do so?

We can't even make them pay taxes or stop molesting children. How would you go about forcing them to marry 2 gay people?

Or is this just another BS slippery slope argument?

Can you force a protestant church to give you communion?

This is a legal matter regarding government contracts. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the churches. But the way most fundies harp on the issues I really wouldn't mind seeing them all ziptied on the floor of their churches by the fed. while the priest is forced at taser point to perform the ceremony for Adam & Steve. Would be nice to see them suffer the imaginary BS they come up with sometime just to give them some damn perspective for a change.

AlexHassin
12-09-2012, 19:29
A church can be told to host a wedding reception,

that's interesting, got a source on that? ( i have not heard this part of the laws in debate)

the rest that receive money from my wallet are a separate issue

Sam Spade
12-09-2012, 21:50
We can't even make them pay taxes or stop molesting children. How would you go about forcing them to marry 2 gay people?

At least one state (NM) believes it can force a wedding photographer to provide service to a gay wedding, against religious views and without regard to various 1st Amendment rights. How is that different from forcing the officiating?

janice6
12-09-2012, 21:52
This question must be a joke.

Of course the SCOTUS will say it should be law. It's what the "trend" is for us.

MZBKA
12-09-2012, 22:06
My guess is that the Supreme Court will vote 5-4 or 6-3 for overturning DOMA. Kennedy and maybe Roberts will join the more left leaning justices.

MZBKA
12-09-2012, 22:08
At least one state (NM) believes it can force a wedding photographer to provide service to a gay wedding, against religious views and without regard to various 1st Amendment rights. How is that different from forcing the officiating?

Source?

The Maggy
12-09-2012, 22:18
They'll rewrite it as a tax. Problem solved.
Is that not how it already is?

Two people have to pay a fee, marriage license, before their religious marriage is legally recognized.

Yes, some marriage ceremonies are religious in nature; but do not fool yourself into thinking that it is purely religious. The state gets their piece of the pie as well.

snerd
12-09-2012, 22:26
Source?
Good lord, man. You don't know how to Google?!

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+mexico+wedding+photographer+gay+case

Atlas
12-09-2012, 22:27
They'll rewrite it as a tax. Problem solved.

..and somehow invoke the Commerce Clause.

TK-421
12-09-2012, 22:33
At least one state (NM) believes it can force a wedding photographer to provide service to a gay wedding, against religious views and without regard to various 1st Amendment rights. How is that different from forcing the officiating?

It's called "businesses aren't allowed to discriminate".

Atlas
12-09-2012, 22:43
It's called "businesses aren't allowed to discriminate".

"Discriminate"?
Please cite the applicable law.

Gunhaver
12-09-2012, 22:50
At least one state (NM) believes it can force a wedding photographer to provide service to a gay wedding, against religious views and without regard to various 1st Amendment rights. How is that different from forcing the officiating?


The photographer was offering a service to the public and only decided to refuse to do the wedding because the couple was gay. No different than a pizza delivery place refusing to deliver to a person only because they were Chinese.

Here's a clue. If a Mormon (orthodox, not reformed) business person refused to provide a service to a black person based on his religious beliefs that black people are of the devil then would that be covered under freedom of religion or is the Mormon just using religion as an excuse to be a racist bigot?

But churches are not providing a public service. (Quite the opposite if you ask me.) There are conditions placed on members of most churches in order to be a member.

TK-421
12-09-2012, 23:04
"Discriminate"?
Please cite the applicable law.

Hmm, lets see. Back in the 50s, white people could eat at the counter, black people had to get their food at the back door. White people could sit in the front of the bus, black people had to sit in the back.

In the 2000s, straight people are allowed to marry, gay people aren't. Straight people are allowed to be happy, un-persecuted, gay people aren't.

It was deemed during the 50s that what happened was discrimination based on race.

Please tell me how what is going on today is not discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Atlas
12-09-2012, 23:12
Hmm, lets see. Back in the 50s, white people could eat at the counter, black people had to get their food at the back door. White people could sit in the front of the bus, black people had to sit in the back.

In the 2000s, straight people are allowed to marry, gay people aren't. Straight people are allowed to be happy, un-persecuted, gay people aren't.

It was deemed during the 50s that what happened was discrimination based on race.

Please tell me how what is going on today is not discrimination based on sexual orientation?

My point was this:
You can't cite the specific law..
People have become so accustomed to the idea that everyone is protected by law against anything that may be perceived to be "unfair" or somehow hurtful or unjust that they assume that any such action or behavior is legally defined as "discrimination" and as such is illegal.

Yes, there are Federal laws governing discrimination in business on the basis of race.
The topic at hand though is not about race.

Simply, you cannot assume that anything that seems to you to be unfair is (legally speaking) "discrimination" and governed by some law somewhere.

I have no argument with you or anyone regarding the topic of homosexual marriage or anything else of the sort...
I have no dog in that fight and I don't really care.

Gunnut 45/454
12-09-2012, 23:17
IvanVic
Yep I see you can't show anywhere in the COTUS that says you have a right to be married! Thats because there is none! Get it NO FREAKING RIGHT! I love how you progressive ass holes just think anything you want is a Constitutional right! Sorry it don't work that way. Just like Health care isn't a FREAKING RIGHT. And what really pisses you off when we call them God given rights for which they are! You have the right to ask a preacher,priest , rabbi etc if they will marry you in a church for which they can deny you that privilege or you can go pay the fee and have the state give a civil ceremony and get a state issued license if you can legally be married-remember gay marriage is not legal in most states. Since Marriage is a privilege and not a right your ****ed!:rofl:

TK-421
12-09-2012, 23:20
My point was this:
You can't cite the specific law..


http://escholarship.org/uc/item/63k8x206#

http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/new-mexico-non-discrimination-law1

TK-421
12-09-2012, 23:22
"The state Human Rights Commission fined Elane Photography nearly $7,000 saying the company was guilty of discrimination for sexual orientation, a decision upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June, the station reported."

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/21/abqnewsseeker/updated-n-m-high-court-to-hear-gay-ceremony-photo-case.html

Seeing as how the courts are the ones who enforce the rules, and they say that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, please tell me how businesses should be able to go against the court and discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Atlas
12-09-2012, 23:30
"The state Human Rights Commission fined Elane Photography nearly $7,000 saying the company was guilty of discrimination for sexual orientation, a decision upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June, the station reported."

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/21/abqnewsseeker/updated-n-m-high-court-to-hear-gay-ceremony-photo-case.html

Seeing as how the courts are the ones who enforce the rules, and they say that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, please tell me how businesses should be able to go against the court and discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Ah ha!
A state law...
That's good.
In this case, a New Mexico state law.
I believe that California has a similar law, and I've no doubt that other states do as well.

Now, show me a Federal law which requires you or I to do business with everyone regardless...

There may be such a law, I wouldn't know.
I'm only asking the question.

TK-421
12-09-2012, 23:39
Ah ha!
A state law...
That's good.
In this case, a New Mexico state law.
I believe that California has a similar law, and I've no doubt that other states do as well.

Now, show me a Federal law which requires you or I to do business with everyone regardless...

There may be such a law, I wouldn't know.
I'm only asking the question.

Federal law? Not yet, for the everyday citizen, from what I gather. However, federal employees are protected. They've tried a few times to get a federal law passed for gays and transgenders, but it's failed. However, apparently more people are getting on board with it, so it'll probably pass sometime in the future. No idea when though. However, since this occurred in New Mexico, I'd say it's a state matter, so the laws of New Mexico apply.

That, along with the fact that the courts say you're not allowed to discriminate against your customers based on sexual orientation, I'd say it's illegal, even if there isn't an exact law number that is quotable. However, there would be a court case ruling, if you felt like looking up the exact court case name in the article I linked. And a court case ruling is good enough for me, seeing as how this is more a civil matter than it is a criminal matter.

Bren
12-10-2012, 05:34
Ah ha!
A state law...
That's good.
In this case, a New Mexico state law.
I believe that California has a similar law, and I've no doubt that other states do as well.

Now, show me a Federal law which requires you or I to do business with everyone regardless...

There may be such a law, I wouldn't know.
I'm only asking the question.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces you to do business with everyone regardless of race, religon, national origin, sex, etc. As the owner of the former Heart of Atlanta Motel found out back in the 60's.

I wouldn't be surprised if they amended that to include "sexual orientation" too, before long. As TK-421 said, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 already includes "sexual orientation" along side the other protected classes.

eracer
12-10-2012, 05:39
So you agree that morality invented out of thin air by progressives shouldn't overrule religious liberty? Surprising.
Are you saying the Bill of Rights is a moral code invented out of thin air by progressives?

Equally surprising.

IvanVic
12-10-2012, 05:49
IvanVic
Yep I see you can't show anywhere in the COTUS that says you have a right to be married! Thats because there is none! Get it NO FREAKING RIGHT! I love how you progressive ass holes just think anything you want is a Constitutional right! Sorry it don't work that way. Just like Health care isn't a FREAKING RIGHT. And what really pisses you off when we call them God given rights for which they are! You have the right to ask a preacher,priest , rabbi etc if they will marry you in a church for which they can deny you that privilege or you can go pay the fee and have the state give a civil ceremony and get a state issued license if you can legally be married-remember gay marriage is not legal in most states. Since Marriage is a privilege and not a right your ****ed!:rofl:

You have to be a troll.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Gunnut 45/454
12-10-2012, 10:29
IvanVic
Yea I'm a troll cause I call you progressive dirt bags out! I'm still waiting for the Constitutional reference on the right to marry? Come on you know the COTUS so well where is the reference!!

UtahGlocker
12-10-2012, 11:28
IvanVic
Yea I'm a troll cause I call you progressive dirt bags out! I'm still waiting for the Constitutional reference on the right to marry? Come on you know the COTUS so well where is the reference!!

The rulings on the same-sex marriage laws have found that it is a violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states the following:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Homosexuals are denied equal protection of the marriage laws. These laws are available to heterosexuals, so the 14th amendment demands they be available to ALL law abiding citizens, which includes homosexuals. Some people argue that homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. This argument is without merit. If a woman can marry a man, then the state cannot prevent a man from also marrying a man without a damn good reason.

Laws against same-sex marriage is a 14th Amendment FAIL.

Glock_Convert
12-10-2012, 11:37
I don't even understand why the govt should have a say. If two citizens want to commit to each other and care for each other, they should have the liberty to do so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

UtahGlocker
12-10-2012, 11:45
I don't even understand why the govt should have a say. If two citizens want to commit to each other and care for each other, they should have the liberty to do so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

Anybody can commit to another without getting the government involved. People do this all of the time, both straight and gay. However, the civil marriage contract provides certain legal protections and benefits as it defines a next of kin relationshipship that the government can use to determine social security benefits, inheritance, etc.

IvanVic
12-10-2012, 17:58
IvanVic
Yep I see you can't show anywhere in the COTUS that says you have a right to be married!

So what? It also doesn't say that I have a right to own a bookshelf. What's your point?

IvanVic
I love how you progressive ass holes just think anything you want is a Constitutional right!

I never even said I was in favor of gay marriage.

IvanVic
Sorry it don't work that way.

The Constitution is apparently something that you have absolutely no idea "how it works." You seem to be under some completely insane impression that if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then you have no right to do it, own it, or partake in it. That's so unbelievably stupid I have a hard time believing that you aren't trolling.

IvanVic
And what really pisses you off when we call them God given rights for which they are!

I'm not sure why that would piss me off, considering that I believe in God.

You are most certainly trolling this thread.