Supreme Court To Take Up Two Gay Marriage Cases Including Prop 8

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 21
The Supreme Court will hear the challenge to California’s Prop 8 and to one case involving the Defense of Marriage Act. The decision by the court means that same-sex marriage is now about to be put to the test. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1 Dec 7, 2012
Well, now we know what cases will be heard and when a ruling will likely come!

I'm interested to see when SCOTUS will decide on the Standing question with regards to the proponents of Prop 8!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Dec 7, 2012
They accepted the Windsor case and Prop 8.

Both have procedural problems which may allow the SCOTUS to duck ruling on the merits, which is why they asked all parties to address questions of standing & jurisdiction.

Interesting. We may end up right back where we were 4 years ago.
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Dec 7, 2012
I think DOMA will fall as a states' rights issue. And that the California ruling will only apply to California but will open the gates to challenges to individual states' laws being challenged under their individual state constitutions.
Anonymous

United States

#4 Dec 7, 2012
I don't want to be an I-told-you-so, but for all of you insisting they'd pass over the prop 8 case, neener, neener, neener!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Dec 7, 2012
I will likely believe they are going to rule in an antigay manner on proposition 8 unless and until they rule otherwise, if they do.

People may talk me out of it, and point out this or that, but the logic is inescapable, and while I may be temporarily convinced, I will return again and again to doubting with every fiber of my being that they could POSSIBLY have taken that case to uphold the lower court. Everything about this stinks of a suspicion that that ruling will be reversed.

My mind now turns to Plan B (the state vote).
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Dec 7, 2012
The state court ruled *so narrowly* that it's like the supreme court is sticking its nose *into that state's business*. Christ, I am so suspicious.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
I will likely believe they are going to rule in an antigay manner on proposition 8 unless and until they rule otherwise, if they do.
People may talk me out of it, and point out this or that, but the logic is inescapable, and while I may be temporarily convinced, I will return again and again to doubting with every fiber of my being that they could POSSIBLY have taken that case to uphold the lower court. Everything about this stinks of a suspicion that that ruling will be reversed.
My mind now turns to Plan B (the state vote).
I tend to agree, but since we don't know which justices voted to take the case, it's really hard to tell what their movtivation is. They could simply be trying to clear up the standing issue so as not to set a precedent, or the liberals may want to use the case to overturn all marriage bans nationwide.

My gut tells me the conservatives voted to take the case with the intent of overturning the 9th circuit and upholding Prop 8, while the liberals voted to take the DOMA case with the intent of granting quasi-suspect classification and overturning DOMA.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#8 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to agree, but since we don't know which justices voted to take the case, it's really hard to tell what their movtivation is. They could simply be trying to clear up the standing issue so as not to set a precedent, or the liberals may want to use the case to overturn all marriage bans nationwide.
My gut tells me the conservatives voted to take the case with the intent of overturning the 9th circuit and upholding Prop 8, while the liberals voted to take the DOMA case with the intent of granting quasi-suspect classification and overturning DOMA.
And I'm going to disagree with ya on the Prop 8 challenge.......I don't believe that Prop 8 will be upheld because it was done to do nothing more than take a right away.......and until SCOTUS rules otherwise, I will continue to believe that Prop 8 is on limited life-support!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Dec 7, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm going to disagree with ya on the Prop 8 challenge.......I don't believe that Prop 8 will be upheld because it was done to do nothing more than take a right away.......and until SCOTUS rules otherwise, I will continue to believe that Prop 8 is on limited life-support!!!
I didn't say I think they'll be successful in their quest to uphold Prop 8- they'd still have to get Kennedy or one of the liberals to join them- but I think that may be their intent.

Again, without knowing which justices voted to take which cases, it's hard to make an informed opinion. We'll get a better idea during the oral arguments- if they focus more on the standing issue in their questioning, that's a good sign for us.

Now we wait until March.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#10 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say I think they'll be successful in their quest to uphold Prop 8- they'd still have to get Kennedy or one of the liberals to join them- but I think that may be their intent.
Again, without knowing which justices voted to take which cases, it's hard to make an informed opinion. We'll get a better idea during the oral arguments- if they focus more on the standing issue in their questioning, that's a good sign for us.
Now we wait until March.
I was reading an article where Roberts might side with the liberals if Kennedy should side with the conservatives........but again, we will have to wait until briefs are suppose to be turned in..........this could be all about the Standing issue....but like ya said......we won't know until around March!!!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to agree, but since we don't know which justices voted to take the case, it's really hard to tell what their movtivation is. They could simply be trying to clear up the standing issue so as not to set a precedent, or the liberals may want to use the case to overturn all marriage bans nationwide.
My gut tells me the conservatives voted to take the case with the intent of overturning the 9th circuit and upholding Prop 8, while the liberals voted to take the DOMA case with the intent of granting quasi-suspect classification and overturning DOMA.
I have theorized that the antigay justices (and they are that; I am now *refusing* to back down in labeling them that) literally took the proposition 8 case because they figured they'd have *some* chance of overturning it if they review it.

I don't mind your analysis here, but I am tremendously pessimistic. Know what would make me *NOT* pessimistic? The same thing I've been saying for 3-4 years: if, in response to every single thing that *ever* happened in connection with gay rights, the gay groups and pro-gay had Plan B's lined up, refusing ever to back down, determined to fight every last bit of it no matter every outcome, until equality had been reached. If I saw those plans in place, I wouldn't be minding any of this. But we both know what the current plan will be if these cases are decided in an antigay manner: hand-wringing; depression; anger; more sniping back and forth (even and perhaps ESPECIALLY among the pro-gay); a quiet period before new plans are unveiled which *DON'T* and *WON'T* presume that any and all legal means, even those with close to a zero chance, should be used in the fight.

In short, the "fallout" from the fact that the pro-gay don't deal with these issues that way, as you might have noticed, is that I am now vehemently pessimistic about almost every outcome. It is what it is *shrug*. I wouldn't be if I had confidence that the fight was going to go on by every means anyone could find, no matter what. In a sense, I would even say to someone like you, Don't mind me, because what I have just explained means that I am highly unlikely to become more optimistic. LOL.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Dec 7, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm going to disagree with ya on the Prop 8 challenge.......I don't believe that Prop 8 will be upheld because it was done to do nothing more than take a right away.......and until SCOTUS rules otherwise, I will continue to believe that Prop 8 is on limited life-support!!!
This is how I feel, with one key difference: I am fully aware -- no matter how senseless, frightening, horrifying and even *evil* it is -- which it is -- that there are supreme court justices who *don't* see this this way.

The gay rights cases should be decided up and down as follows:

9-0

^ Nine to zero.

All nine justices siding with gay rights, with barely any thought.

That would happen in a world that actually. made. sense.

That's not what's happening, and thus my occasional comments (here and elsewhere) that we live in a frighteningly, laughably nonsensical world.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I was reading an article where Roberts might side with the liberals if Kennedy should side with the conservatives........but again, we will have to wait until briefs are suppose to be turned in..........this could be all about the Standing issue....but like ya said......we won't know until around March!!!
As I've had more time to think about this, the more I doubt the Prop 8 case is just about the standing issue.

Considering how limited the 9th circuits ruling was, I doubt they would bother taking the case just to resolve the question of standing. Seems like a lot of work to end up with the essentially the same result- i.e. Prop 8 overturned, but only applicable to California. They could have achieved the same thing by just denying cert, and it still wouldn't have resulted in a SCOTUS precedent for standing by initiative sponsors.

So I'm leaning more towards the case being accepted by one side with the opposing side adding the standing questions in an attempt to prevent the other side from reaching a decision on the merits of the case. It may be the liberals trying to prevent the conservatives from upholding Prop 8, or the conservative trying to prevent the liberal from making a more sweeping ruling. Considering I don't think even the liberals are ready to make that kind of sweeping ruling, I think it's more likely it's the conservatives who agreed to take the case.

Well that's my latest theory anyways.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Dec 8, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
This is how I feel, with one key difference: I am fully aware -- no matter how senseless, frightening, horrifying and even *evil* it is -- which it is -- that there are supreme court justices who *don't* see this this way.
The gay rights cases should be decided up and down as follows:
9-0
^ Nine to zero.
All nine justices siding with gay rights, with barely any thought.
That would happen in a world that actually. made. sense.
That's not what's happening, and thus my occasional comments (here and elsewhere) that we live in a frighteningly, laughably nonsensical world.
You're spot on. The case SHOULD be a 9-0 slam dunk in favor of equality if (IF) they went strictly by the intent of the constitution. Of course you also recognize the reality (which many on BOTH sides refuse to do) that the SCOTUS justices are human beings who are influenced in their decisions by their own biases; the pro-gays as well as the anti-gays.

That's why throughout our history the SCOTUS has ruled 180 degrees on an issue (segregation, inter-racial marriage, sodomy, etc), and the ONLY thing which changed in the intervening years was societal views and the 9 justices sitting on the court. No changes to the constitution were made; the same identical issue was presented to the SCOTUS but because of changing societal attitudes and the change in sitting justices, they reached the opposite conclusion from the previous court.

So ANY anti-gay precedent set by an anti-gay majority SCOTUS can and WILL be overturned in the near future by a pro-gay majority SCOTUS.

That's why I think the presidential and senate election is so important; they will determine IF & WHEN we finally get that solid pro-gay majority on the SCOTUS. Considering Scalia & Kennedy are both over 75, statistically that opportunity is likely to come within this decade.

THAT is what keeps me optimistic.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#15 Dec 8, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've had more time to think about this, the more I doubt the Prop 8 case is just about the standing issue.
Considering how limited the 9th circuits ruling was, I doubt they would bother taking the case just to resolve the question of standing. Seems like a lot of work to end up with the essentially the same result- i.e. Prop 8 overturned, but only applicable to California. They could have achieved the same thing by just denying cert, and it still wouldn't have resulted in a SCOTUS precedent for standing by initiative sponsors.
So I'm leaning more towards the case being accepted by one side with the opposing side adding the standing questions in an attempt to prevent the other side from reaching a decision on the merits of the case. It may be the liberals trying to prevent the conservatives from upholding Prop 8, or the conservative trying to prevent the liberal from making a more sweeping ruling. Considering I don't think even the liberals are ready to make that kind of sweeping ruling, I think it's more likely it's the conservatives who agreed to take the case.
Well that's my latest theory anyways.......
Well, we can have different theories as to why the Prop 8 case was taken.......and though you may be right, it's not just about the standing issue, it could be just the fact that SCOTUS typically doesn't like the rulings outta of the 9th, but I seriously doubt Prop 8 will be upheld by SCOTUS because of the fact that there are legally married Same-Sex Couples in California and to tell the rest of these Gay and Lesbian couples that they can't have the right to marry because they were simply to late........would certainly violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Amendment, so I will continue to believe that Prop 8 is merely on life-support at this moment in time.

Remember also that Charles Cooper has lost in every court case so far and all he can do is re-hash what has already been said before......I also believe that Olson has a great chance of winning a broader ruling and has never really lost a case in front of SCOTUS.

Again, we will have to wait and see the final outcome in June 2013........hopefully in time for my birthday........and hopefully it will be a great birthday gift:-)

Since: Mar 07

United States

#16 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we can have different theories as to why the Prop 8 case was taken.......and though you may be right, it's not just about the standing issue, it could be just the fact that SCOTUS typically doesn't like the rulings outta of the 9th, but I seriously doubt Prop 8 will be upheld by SCOTUS because of the fact that there are legally married Same-Sex Couples in California and to tell the rest of these Gay and Lesbian couples that they can't have the right to marry because they were simply to late........would certainly violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Amendment, so I will continue to believe that Prop 8 is merely on life-support at this moment in time.
Remember also that Charles Cooper has lost in every court case so far and all he can do is re-hash what has already been said before......I also believe that Olson has a great chance of winning a broader ruling and has never really lost a case in front of SCOTUS.
Again, we will have to wait and see the final outcome in June 2013........hopefully in time for my birthday........and hopefully it will be a great birthday gift:-)
I pray that you have a lovely birthday present coming your way.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#17 Dec 8, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I pray that you have a lovely birthday present coming your way.
Thanks Quest.......so do I:-)
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've had more time to think about this, the more I doubt the Prop 8 case is just about the standing issue.
Considering how limited the 9th circuits ruling was, I doubt they would bother taking the case just to resolve the question of standing. Seems like a lot of work to end up with the essentially the same result- i.e. Prop 8 overturned, but only applicable to California. They could have achieved the same thing by just denying cert, and it still wouldn't have resulted in a SCOTUS precedent for standing by initiative sponsors.
So I'm leaning more towards the case being accepted by one side with the opposing side adding the standing questions in an attempt to prevent the other side from reaching a decision on the merits of the case. It may be the liberals trying to prevent the conservatives from upholding Prop 8, or the conservative trying to prevent the liberal from making a more sweeping ruling. Considering I don't think even the liberals are ready to make that kind of sweeping ruling, I think it's more likely it's the conservatives who agreed to take the case.
Well that's my latest theory anyways.......
And the reason I find this a smart theory is that you have just painted the justices as no less weak-willed, frightened and laughable than the (rest of the) antigay. I'm shocked that Ruth says abortion should have been waited for; justice either exists on a matter, or it doesn't. There is no in-between and pretending the opinion(s) of the public contribute to COURT RULINGS is very scary, in my eyes. But I think you're correct because I think the justices are just plain scared, or they'd rule 9-0 for marriage equality; my god, my god,*there is no other way to see this* without logically raising the specter of prejudice, it's HILARIOUS to me, nearly, by this point (how the antigay lie, lie, lie, lie, lie to themselves).
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're spot on. The case SHOULD be a 9-0 slam dunk in favor of equality if (IF) they went strictly by the intent of the constitution. Of course you also recognize the reality (which many on BOTH sides refuse to do) that the SCOTUS justices are human beings who are influenced in their decisions by their own biases; the pro-gays as well as the anti-gays.
That's why throughout our history the SCOTUS has ruled 180 degrees on an issue (segregation, inter-racial marriage, sodomy, etc), and the ONLY thing which changed in the intervening years was societal views and the 9 justices sitting on the court. No changes to the constitution were made; the same identical issue was presented to the SCOTUS but because of changing societal attitudes and the change in sitting justices, they reached the opposite conclusion from the previous court.
So ANY anti-gay precedent set by an anti-gay majority SCOTUS can and WILL be overturned in the near future by a pro-gay majority SCOTUS.
That's why I think the presidential and senate election is so important; they will determine IF & WHEN we finally get that solid pro-gay majority on the SCOTUS. Considering Scalia & Kennedy are both over 75, statistically that opportunity is likely to come within this decade.
THAT is what keeps me optimistic.
You also just implied something I've never, never, never, never thought of.

Ever.

The "gay rights imperative" is being heralded as the "fastest-moving" civil rights issue (or bundle of issues) in American history.

Why might the court not overturn an *antigay* ruling IN RECORD TIME, AS WELL???

Maybe.

Just maybe.

Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in juuust slightly less.

But I encourage every last one of you to be very, very open, vocal and unflinching in your determination that the court was WRONG, UNEDUCATED, STUPID, AFRAID and MORALLY BANKRUPT if they hand down any antigay ruling. Please, for the love of god, ALL of you, you personally and everyone else who is pro-gay, PLEASE have the confidence and the moral backbone to call them *what they are* if they rule in any antigay way. And to never stop calling them that and to never back down,*EVER*, in telling the world that that's what they are. They literally *have no right* to rule in any other way, but according to the makeup of our country, no one can stop them so being extraordinarily vocal and unwavering will be an attitude which is very much your friend.:D

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#20 Dec 10, 2012
I sincerely doubt the court will go against the stream of progress however it is our duty to work towards a measured process with this issue. To have them issue a blanket decision that the house of cards built in part by state constitution and bigotry be blown up with an atomic bomb would be an absolute disaster for all concerned.

Keep in mind that we are in a major financial crisis and need to keep some oil on the waters of national emotion. Immediate removal of the state laws would only feed a seething discontent that could very well rip our country apart. That is not something any of us should wish for in our battle for equal rights.

We need to remove the definition of marriage from DOMA and just go about our business of change in a manner which allows for understanding and respect of those who don't yet "get it". By turning the dripping faucet into a steady trickle will get us further than blowing up the dam.

If we do so we should see a complete change by the end of this decade and we may very well end up with a raft of equal rights for all of us. Slow and steady as we go.
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
You also just implied something I've never, never, never, never thought of.
Ever.
The "gay rights imperative" is being heralded as the "fastest-moving" civil rights issue (or bundle of issues) in American history.
Why might the court not overturn an *antigay* ruling IN RECORD TIME, AS WELL???
Maybe.
Just maybe.
Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in juuust slightly less.
But I encourage every last one of you to be very, very open, vocal and unflinching in your determination that the court was WRONG, UNEDUCATED, STUPID, AFRAID and MORALLY BANKRUPT if they hand down any antigay ruling. Please, for the love of god, ALL of you, you personally and everyone else who is pro-gay, PLEASE have the confidence and the moral backbone to call them *what they are* if they rule in any antigay way. And to never stop calling them that and to never back down,*EVER*, in telling the world that that's what they are. They literally *have no right* to rule in any other way, but according to the makeup of our country, no one can stop them so being extraordinarily vocal and unwavering will be an attitude which is very much your friend.:D

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Apple CEO Donating to Gay Rights Campaign in South 5 min bocott shmoycott 20
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 16 min Brian_G 1,907
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 18 min Abe 5,521
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 18 min RevKen 48
Obama calls on women only at news conference 19 min Deo Vindice 5
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 24 min feces for jesus 219,634
The NE Jade Saturday Afternoon Thread 26 min Abe 2
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 26 min KiMare 2,862
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 49 min nhjeff 5,020
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 3 hr WeTheSheeple 18
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 7 hr Mikey 14
More from around the web