Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 769

The Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry , and one Defense of Marriage Act case , Windsor v. United States .

Full Story
First Prev
of 39
Next Last

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#1 Dec 7, 2012
Like there saying on FB Game on!

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2 Dec 7, 2012
Shameful, they should have let the CA verdict stand and NOT taken the case. There is NO justification for bigotry...
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Dec 7, 2012
Uve wrote:
Shameful, they should have let the CA verdict stand and NOT taken the case. There is NO justification for bigotry...
I left these boards a few minutes ago because I had to do something else, but wanted to get back to them. In that few minutes, my head filled with extraordinarily suspicious reasonings for *why* the court would take the proposition 8 case. For one, it crossed my mind that the antigay justices reasoned that if they DIDN'T take the case, they'd have NO opportunity to reverse the previous ruling, but if they DID take the case, they might have SOME opportunity to reverse it.

That is how suspicious I am that they took this case: I am literally picturing them *plotting* to overturn that ruling.

It was a state matter. It was ruled on state grounds. I have a hunch that they are going to find *for* states' rights in this matter,*especially* because of the three recent state votes which were pro-gay. This re-cements my conviction that all of this will take two decades to four decades, as I JUST STATED RECENTLY on these boards, to reverse.

I would *a-d-o-r-e* being wrong.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I left these boards a few minutes ago because I had to do something else, but wanted to get back to them. In that few minutes, my head filled with extraordinarily suspicious reasonings for *why* the court would take the proposition 8 case. For one, it crossed my mind that the antigay justices reasoned that if they DIDN'T take the case, they'd have NO opportunity to reverse the previous ruling, but if they DID take the case, they might have SOME opportunity to reverse it.
That is how suspicious I am that they took this case: I am literally picturing them *plotting* to overturn that ruling.
It was a state matter. It was ruled on state grounds. I have a hunch that they are going to find *for* states' rights in this matter,*especially* because of the three recent state votes which were pro-gay. This re-cements my conviction that all of this will take two decades to four decades, as I JUST STATED RECENTLY on these boards, to reverse.
I would *a-d-o-r-e* being wrong.
You should read what the bigoted SOBs at NOM are saying...All this money being spent to deprive gay rights...Financial cliff my A$$..

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#5 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I left these boards a few minutes ago because I had to do something else, but wanted to get back to them. In that few minutes, my head filled with extraordinarily suspicious reasonings for *why* the court would take the proposition 8 case. For one, it crossed my mind that the antigay justices reasoned that if they DIDN'T take the case, they'd have NO opportunity to reverse the previous ruling, but if they DID take the case, they might have SOME opportunity to reverse it.
That is how suspicious I am that they took this case: I am literally picturing them *plotting* to overturn that ruling.
It was a state matter. It was ruled on state grounds. I have a hunch that they are going to find *for* states' rights in this matter,*especially* because of the three recent state votes which were pro-gay. This re-cements my conviction that all of this will take two decades to four decades, as I JUST STATED RECENTLY on these boards, to reverse.
I would *a-d-o-r-e* being wrong.
Scalia keeps saying, anyone who thinks they know the inner workings of the court is wrong. Even the questions they ask aren't always revealing. We won't know until they rule. The rest is just guessing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I left these boards a few minutes ago because I had to do something else, but wanted to get back to them. In that few minutes, my head filled with extraordinarily suspicious reasonings for *why* the court would take the proposition 8 case. For one, it crossed my mind that the antigay justices reasoned that if they DIDN'T take the case, they'd have NO opportunity to reverse the previous ruling, but if they DID take the case, they might have SOME opportunity to reverse it.
That is how suspicious I am that they took this case: I am literally picturing them *plotting* to overturn that ruling.
It was a state matter. It was ruled on state grounds. I have a hunch that they are going to find *for* states' rights in this matter,*especially* because of the three recent state votes which were pro-gay. This re-cements my conviction that all of this will take two decades to four decades, as I JUST STATED RECENTLY on these boards, to reverse.
I would *a-d-o-r-e* being wrong.
Even if that is true, you're assuming the same 9 justices will be on the SCOTUS for the next 2-4 decades.

Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, & Breyer are all over 70 and will have to retire or die eventually. Depending on who replaces them could easily flip the court to a 6-3 majority either way.

So while it COULD take 2-4 decades, it could just as easily be all over in less than a decade.

You know me, ever the optimist.......

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9 Dec 7, 2012
Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you filthy queers so infatuated with your asses? It's all you ever think about.
Forget it R1, not interested in your TX trailer trash, sex offender type, welfare grubbing, old fat hairy a$$

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#10 Dec 7, 2012
Oh Lord, this is possibly the worst outcome for the Supreme Court deciding which cases to take. Even though I see potential for the Prop 8 case and DOMA case to yield rulings so powerful that in a one-two punch marriage equality would be the law of the land, it's not going to be like that.

The DOMA case could offer clear reasoning for why a marriage license (contract) issued in one state is valid in another and honored by the Federal government. In effect, the DOMA case could make marriage equality the law by itself. Gay couples could then marry in states that allow it and travel back to the state where they live and have that legally recognized.

The Prop 8 case, however, it a bit more complicated. The implications of a ruling hedge strongly on what determination the court makes regarding scrutiny. If strict scrutiny is not applied, then the precedent would reverse previous decisions and all of a sudden... virtually any kind of discrimination against gay people is legal so long as the government comes up with what the court thinks is an okay reason for it. It could also end up affirming the rights of states to ban gay marriage, or conversely, force those states that have banned it to reverse position. If that happens overnight, the backlash will be huge.

A mixed bag is what is more than likely to happen. The court is not likely to decide both cases on the basis of strict scrutiny, or else both rulings will have to follow that logic and so DOMA and state bans on gay marriage would be unconstitutional. However, if the court does not use a heightened level of scrutiny, it could set back gay civil rights for decades....

I am not liking this. Why the F didn't SCOTUS just drop the prop 8 case and take up the DOMA case instead?!

Uggghhh...

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#11 Dec 7, 2012
First I haven't read any of the previous comments yet. But I'm really glad these two cases will be heard.

Because of DOMA I can't see how SCOTUS will dodge the issue of an equally enforced federal standard for marriage. Current law won't allow it.

And because of 8, I think it will be pretty hard for SCOTUS to overturn any current SSM in CA as well as avoid the issue on voting away civil rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Dec 7, 2012
Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you filthy queers so infatuated with your asses? It's all you ever think about.
??

And yet YOU are the first to bring it up. Telling....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Dec 7, 2012
Color me surprised, I didn't think they'd want to touch Prop 8 with a ten foot pole and that Windsor was the least likely to be the lead case, let alone only DOMA challenge they would hear. Wrong on both.

Having thought about it for awhile, my being wrong actually makes me hopeful for the outcome in both. I think they have cobbled together a majority to settle the question once and for all.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Dec 7, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You should read what the bigoted SOBs at NOM are saying...All this money being spent to deprive gay rights...Financial cliff my A$$..
I agree.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#15 Dec 7, 2012
I really don't believe this will be settled with these two cases. DOMA killed, yes but to apply SSM for the entire country at this point in time would be such a huge national impact on the far right as to cause social problems like we haven't seen since the 60s. It could drive the fools with the Uzis and Bibles right out of the woods and onto the streets of the major cities.

On the other hand it would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff, perhaps it's time to just get it over with once and for all, let them fully expose themselves and fill up our prisons with them.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Color me surprised, I didn't think they'd want to touch Prop 8 with a ten foot pole and that Windsor was the least likely to be the lead case, let alone only DOMA challenge they would hear. Wrong on both.
Having thought about it for awhile, my being wrong actually makes me hopeful for the outcome in both. I think they have cobbled together a majority to settle the question once and for all.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia keeps saying, anyone who thinks they know the inner workings of the court is wrong. Even the questions they ask aren't always revealing. We won't know until they rule. The rest is just guessing.
Another senseless statement from Scalia; it doesn't even make logical sense *prima facie*: It defies logic that *everyone* is wrong; it sounds like he wants to be exclusionary. I spoke of my *suspicions* and I will very likely stand by them; however, I agree with your central point; we have no way of knowing. I'm speaking privately of what logic dictates to me, that's all.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that is true, you're assuming the same 9 justices will be on the SCOTUS for the next 2-4 decades.
Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, & Breyer are all over 70 and will have to retire or die eventually. Depending on who replaces them could easily flip the court to a 6-3 majority either way.
So while it COULD take 2-4 decades, it could just as easily be all over in less than a decade.
You know me, ever the optimist.......
But you often provide logic for your optimism, which I like.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Dec 7, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Oh Lord, this is possibly the worst outcome for the Supreme Court deciding which cases to take. Even though I see potential for the Prop 8 case and DOMA case to yield rulings so powerful that in a one-two punch marriage equality would be the law of the land, it's not going to be like that.
The DOMA case could offer clear reasoning for why a marriage license (contract) issued in one state is valid in another and honored by the Federal government. In effect, the DOMA case could make marriage equality the law by itself. Gay couples could then marry in states that allow it and travel back to the state where they live and have that legally recognized.
The Prop 8 case, however, it a bit more complicated. The implications of a ruling hedge strongly on what determination the court makes regarding scrutiny. If strict scrutiny is not applied, then the precedent would reverse previous decisions and all of a sudden... virtually any kind of discrimination against gay people is legal so long as the government comes up with what the court thinks is an okay reason for it. It could also end up affirming the rights of states to ban gay marriage, or conversely, force those states that have banned it to reverse position. If that happens overnight, the backlash will be huge.
A mixed bag is what is more than likely to happen. The court is not likely to decide both cases on the basis of strict scrutiny, or else both rulings will have to follow that logic and so DOMA and state bans on gay marriage would be unconstitutional. However, if the court does not use a heightened level of scrutiny, it could set back gay civil rights for decades....
I am not liking this. Why the F didn't SCOTUS just drop the prop 8 case and take up the DOMA case instead?!
Uggghhh...
As an aside to all of this, I have never been concerned about the backlash in reaction to positive gay rights rulings. The antigay will complain and scream no matter what; a determination to fight that backlash by every legal means will be the smartest thing the pro-gay can do. What I am saying is: The backlash is the *LAST* thing in the universe I think should stop the court from ruling in favor of gay rights.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Dec 7, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
I really don't believe this will be settled with these two cases. DOMA killed, yes but to apply SSM for the entire country at this point in time would be such a huge national impact on the far right as to cause social problems like we haven't seen since the 60s. It could drive the fools with the Uzis and Bibles right out of the woods and onto the streets of the major cities.
On the other hand it would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff, perhaps it's time to just get it over with once and for all, let them fully expose themselves and fill up our prisons with them.
By settled once and for all, I mean the right is going to have an issue to bitch about for years to come and to come up with all sorts of twisted ways of limiting our rights. By taking on the Prop 8 case, the Justices are going to have to address the issue of the constitutionality of the rest of the amendments if they don't go wandering off on tangential issues like the proponents standing, because Olsen and Boies are certain to bring it up. They must have a solid majority one way or another on the question or they never would have taken the case.
Anonymous

United States

#20 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I left these boards a few minutes ago because I had to do something else, but wanted to get back to them. In that few minutes, my head filled with extraordinarily suspicious reasonings for *why* the court would take the proposition 8 case. For one, it crossed my mind that the antigay justices reasoned that if they DIDN'T take the case, they'd have NO opportunity to reverse the previous ruling, but if they DID take the case, they might have SOME opportunity to reverse it.
That is how suspicious I am that they took this case: I am literally picturing them *plotting* to overturn that ruling.
It was a state matter. It was ruled on state grounds. I have a hunch that they are going to find *for* states' rights in this matter,*especially* because of the three recent state votes which were pro-gay. This re-cements my conviction that all of this will take two decades to four decades, as I JUST STATED RECENTLY on these boards, to reverse.
I would *a-d-o-r-e* being wrong.
DISCLAIMER: not an attorney

If they just wanted to smack the 9th circuit, couldn't they just answer the narrow reversal question the circuit made? Instead they took a broader question, that held by Vaughn Walker.

It means they actually want to weigh in and I don't think it tips their hand the way accepting the narrow question would have

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#21 Dec 7, 2012
Judging from how the reversal of DADT panned out, there is nothing to fear. The moment it's official the naysayers will shrink back into their shells -- as far as any political action is concerned. Privately bigots will always be bigots, but they'll become as irrelevant as racists or segregationists in modern times.
Warren Peace

Waxahachie, TX

#22 Dec 7, 2012
Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you filthy queers so infatuated with your asses? It's all you ever think about.
Hmmmm. See like you "Norton" are obsessed with asses than anyone else here. You dislike it but why are you on this board?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 39
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 22 min QUITTNER Dec 21 2014 182
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMerde 51,255
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr One Voice Many Co... 31,515
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr chris toal 26,759
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 4 hr DRUGDAEGUKMERDEBD... 38
randy-travis 4 hr sdyghs 1
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 5 hr KiMare 51
More from around the web