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

Dec 7, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.towleroad.com

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 .

Comments
21 - 40 of 769 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2013

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you filthy queers so infatuated with your asses? It's all you ever think about.
Either go back to surfing porn or hurry to the "cafe" for the late night circle jerk with the other "straights" who lurk here 24/7.

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Warren Peace wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmm. See like you "Norton" are obsessed with asses than anyone else here. You dislike it but why are you on this board?
He's a latent homosexual in denial and he's MORE obsesses with ass that EVERYONE else here on these boards combined.

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dam, you're one ugly A$$ shiteating bitc:h
Speaking of latent homosexuals obsessed with ass...

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.
I hate to say it, but I have the same suspicions. Especially since they're hearing both prop 8 and DOMA. I too hope I am wrong. I performed a same sex ceremony a little over a year ago in CA that I could not make legal because of the current situation and just got home from their place, they just announced that one of the brides is pregnant. More than ever for them this decision is important and it needs to go in their favor. So I hope I'm wrong.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

AdamAZ wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I see your point. It's not changing the way I see it, but I *do* see your point.

I may be the only one here who, given what *ferocity* and *screeching* this issue causes, see the court as -- not kidding -- too *FRIGHTENED* to rule in favor of gay rights.

I have trouble believing they're not frightened by it, honestly. I wouldn't blink, but I am not they.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Dec 8, 2012
 
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to say it, but I have the same suspicions. Especially since they're hearing both prop 8 and DOMA. I too hope I am wrong. I performed a same sex ceremony a little over a year ago in CA that I could not make legal because of the current situation and just got home from their place, they just announced that one of the brides is pregnant. More than ever for them this decision is important and it needs to go in their favor. So I hope I'm wrong.
I have a sneaking, crawling suspicion that some people think they're going to make a sweepingly pro-gay ruling, abolishing all these state bans, abolishing *everything*, permitting gays *all* rights. I would be in the equivalent of catatonic shock for WEEKS. I find it 100.0% categorically impossible to picture that. Absolutely impossible. I think they're *LITERALLY* frightened, or would be too frightened -- not kidding -- to do such a thing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.
The Windsor case was really their only option. The Pedersen & Golinski cases hadn't been ruled on yet by their appeals court, and the Gill & Massachusetts cases would have led Kagan to recuse resulting in a possible 4-4 tie.

In addition, in the Windsor ruling from the 2nd circuit they used a quasi-suspect classification and intermediate scrutiny for the first time. The level of scrutiny will be key to this decision and future gay rights cases. A quasi-suspect classification (like used for gender) lays the groundwork for overturning all remaining state bans in the future.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't expect any such sweeping ruling; not from this court and not at this time.

I DO think the DOMA case will lay the groundwork to overturn the remaining state bans in the near future.

Granting quasi-suspect classification (as the 2nd circuti did) will be key.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
But you often provide logic for your optimism, which I like.
Without logic it's just dreaming.

I've always based by optimism on the facts at hand, and the simple fact is society is rapidly changing its opinion regarding marriage equality. Every poll ever done (even by anti-gays groups) has shown a massive shift in public opinion over the past 5-10-20 years. Support for marriage equality has increased among EVERY generation demographic, even amongst the oldest most anti-gay generation. There is simply no logical reason to believe that the combination of generational replacement and continued "evolving" among all generations will result in anything other than a super-majority approval for marriage equality within a decade.

So whether the SCOTUS acts now or later, or the people act state-by-state, this WILL be over eventually.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to say it, but I have the same suspicions. Especially since they're hearing both prop 8 and DOMA. I too hope I am wrong. I performed a same sex ceremony a little over a year ago in CA that I could not make legal because of the current situation and just got home from their place, they just announced that one of the brides is pregnant. More than ever for them this decision is important and it needs to go in their favor. So I hope I'm wrong.
I would suggest the couple in question go to Washington state and get legally married, that way when DOMA is overturned, at least they're have the federal rights/benefits.

Regardless of why they took the cases they did, BOTH sides think (or hope) they'll have Kennedy's vote. Considering the ruling from the 9th circuit, I just can't see Kennedy ruling to uphold Prop 8. I think the conservatives saw the handwriting on the wall with regards to DOMA going down, and they know this could be their last chance to set a precedent for state marriage bans- IF they can get Kennedy's vote. I think it's a gamble they had to take.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a sneaking, crawling suspicion that some people think they're going to make a sweepingly pro-gay ruling, abolishing all these state bans, abolishing *everything*, permitting gays *all* rights. I would be in the equivalent of catatonic shock for WEEKS. I find it 100.0% categorically impossible to picture that. Absolutely impossible. I think they're *LITERALLY* frightened, or would be too frightened -- not kidding -- to do such a thing.
A ruling did just that with interracial marriage. The Lawrence case did just that with sodomy laws.

But, sadly, much as I would love that to happen here, I doubt it will.

I still hope for a moderately positive outcome for both cases, though.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
A ruling did just that with interracial marriage. The Lawrence case did just that with sodomy laws.
But, sadly, much as I would love that to happen here, I doubt it will.
I still hope for a moderately positive outcome for both cases, though.
I think SCOTUS will rule DOMA unconstitutional because it obviously is.

I think SCOTUS will either say that the petitioners in the Prop 8 case have no standing, thus letting the appeals court ruling which said Prop 8 was unconstitutional, to stand, or if they rule that the petitioners do have standing (I don't think that they do have standing), they will affirm the appeals court's ruling.

I cannot see SCOTUS ruling that both DOMA & Prop 8 are constitutional. I think they obviously aren't, and I think SCOTUS will agree.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

the DOMA case only pertains only to part three and doesn't get us any closer to equality at the state lever than it was before, where as if they rule that prop 8 is constitutional at the state level we may not see any change nationally for decades

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest the couple in question go to Washington state and get legally married, that way when DOMA is overturned, at least they're have the federal rights/benefits.
Regardless of why they took the cases they did, BOTH sides think (or hope) they'll have Kennedy's vote. Considering the ruling from the 9th circuit, I just can't see Kennedy ruling to uphold Prop 8. I think the conservatives saw the handwriting on the wall with regards to DOMA going down, and they know this could be their last chance to set a precedent for state marriage bans- IF they can get Kennedy's vote. I think it's a gamble they had to take.
Tey want me to make I've offerred to go out of staate with them and do just that. But they waant a CA marriage license. They won't get married until it becomes legal here. I have to admit I don't blame them. This is where one of the brides grew up. This is where they met and this IS where they got married, even though it wasn't legal. For better or worse they're going to hold out. So we all wait, holding our breath. If prop 8 is struck down then I'll be signing their license on their 2nd anniversary next year, and one of them will be holding a 4 month old while I'm doing it.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Dec 8, 2012
 
*They want me to make their marriage legal.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

I "think" this will be happening with tens of thousands of SS couple from all over the country. This mass movement will result in SS marriages in every state almost immediately. Once that occurs this ball game is all but over.

We were going to do the Washington state thing over Christmas but the crazy airline rates killed that idea. We'll wait till spring (maybe over Easter vacation) or next June and be well prepared to deal with the citizenship immigration issue come next summer.

I checked the rules for SSI and my other half will get 82% of mine upon my departure and his reaching retirement age. That certainly helps planning for the future.

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest the couple in question go to Washington state and get legally married, that way when DOMA is overturned, at least they're have the federal rights/benefits.
Regardless of why they took the cases they did, BOTH sides think (or hope) they'll have Kennedy's vote. Considering the ruling from the 9th circuit, I just can't see Kennedy ruling to uphold Prop 8. I think the conservatives saw the handwriting on the wall with regards to DOMA going down, and they know this could be their last chance to set a precedent for state marriage bans- IF they can get Kennedy's vote. I think it's a gamble they had to take.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I'm still at a loss as to why marriage equality isn't being argued as sex discrimination, where a legal standard for review already exists. While the practical discrimination may be based on sexual orientation, the LEGAL discrimination in these cases is SOLELY based on sex. After all, no state denies the right to obtain a civil marriage based on sexual orientation, gay people can marry everywhere, even gay couples can marry in every state. The limitation would require that one partner be a gay male and the other a gay female. Sex -- not sexual orientation.

Cases like Romer and Lawrence dealt with sexual orientation discrimination. Windsor and Perry do not. The legal discrimination is based on sex, and the standard of review for sex discrimination is higher than rational basis. Government needs a legitimate reason to deny a fundamental right based on sex.

The Supreme Court has held on over a dozen occasions that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Civil marriage is the only form of marriage at issue here, and the only form of marriage over which the court has jurisdiction. There is no such legal construct as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage", only civil marriage, so no new "right to same-sex marriage" is created.

The legal question is whether the state can deny a fundamental right based solely on the sex of a citizen. Sexual orientation is legally irrelevant, since no state denies the right on that basis.
Chance

Grove City, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Bring it on, before Obama has a chance to load up the Court with more people who do not respect the Constitution.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's not technically the backlash that I would find concerning, it's about the fact that SCOTUS only rarely issues rulings with such broad implications. I worry because for justice to be had, Prop 8 and DOMA need be struck down unequivocally, or else the court would likely use rational basis as the standard for review. If the court sets that precedent, it would be disastrous. Worse, I think it is likely, because numerous lower court ruling have held in these cases that the laws do not even pass muster under rational basis review. It gives SCOTUS a way out of issuing rulings with broad implications. Even if those rulings are favorable to gay rights, a lessor standard of review would put legal consideration of our rights back onto the back seat of the bus.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not technically the backlash that I would find concerning, it's about the fact that SCOTUS only rarely issues rulings with such broad implications. I worry because for justice to be had, Prop 8 and DOMA need be struck down unequivocally, or else the court would likely use rational basis as the standard for review. If the court sets that precedent, it would be disastrous. Worse, I think it is likely, because numerous lower court ruling have held in these cases that the laws do not even pass muster under rational basis review. It gives SCOTUS a way out of issuing rulings with broad implications. Even if those rulings are favorable to gay rights, a lessor standard of review would put legal consideration of our rights back onto the back seat of the bus.
Why is "gay rights" at issue? In which state is a gay person denied the right to marry? Indeed, in which state is a couple denied the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••