Another round for Prop 8 in Calif. state court?

Mar 22, 2013 Full story: www.washingtonblade.com 35

Prop 8 proponents say the Supreme Court may want to send the case back to state court.

Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#22 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
No problem at all. The feds can recognize the marriage while the state doesn't; just like they did with inter-racial marriages, and they currently do with 1st cousin marriages.
It's gonna take another SCOTUS ruling to force states to recognize all marriages, even if they don't perform them.
That's my point; this will almost certainly be a multiple step process. Anyone hoping for a grand solution will be disappointed.
I'm not expecting a grand solution, but the path of least resistance, a ruling which generates the least amount of future controversy for the courts to resolve. I kind of expect them to federalize the May standard and essentially first cousining us. We can marry where we can marry and as long as we aren't breaking laws to prevent residents from crossing state lines to avoid the laws back home, they have to recognize the marriage based on the law in the place of its celebration. The feds will have to.

No right to marry but the right to be married.
Irreversible

Tempe, AZ

#24 Mar 24, 2013
The writing is on the wall.

Ginsburg warned you the liberals don't want another Roe v. Wade. Kennedy warned you. Scalia and his pet monkey are openly mocking you.

You were scheduled during Holy Week.

The problem is the Supreme Court bar's fight for notorious cases--Boies and Olson wanted the notoriety and jumped the gun, just to make sure no other attorney got this issue, and will thereby foreclose the issue. You won't have gotten you what you seek as you watch Boies and Olson happily go into the sunset.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#25 Mar 24, 2013
Irreversible wrote:
The writing is on the wall.
Ginsburg warned you the liberals don't want another Roe v. Wade. Kennedy warned you. Scalia and his pet monkey are openly mocking you.
You were scheduled during Holy Week.
The problem is the Supreme Court bar's fight for notorious cases--Boies and Olson wanted the notoriety and jumped the gun, just to make sure no other attorney got this issue, and will thereby foreclose the issue. You won't have gotten you what you seek as you watch Boies and Olson happily go into the sunset.
Well, you'd be wrong.....Olson has a 75% win ratio in front of the High Court.......and there is a good chance that it won't just be Justice Kennedy who is the possible swing vote!!!

We will know soon enough how they decide come June if not possibly by the end of May!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Mar 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It HAS NOT been so argued.
It could be.
Anything CAN be argued.

I could argue the moon is made of cheese, doesn't mean the SCOTUS is likely to rule that it is.

Considering the LOOOOOONG history of allowing public policy exemptions, it's much more likely a due process and/or equal protection argument would be successful.

That said, I welcome any & all lawsuits on every ground imaginable to overturn the remaining state bans. We need to clog the state & federal courts with MILLIONS of cases until marriage equality is a reality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Mar 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not expecting a grand solution, but the path of least resistance, a ruling which generates the least amount of future controversy for the courts to resolve. I kind of expect them to federalize the May standard and essentially first cousining us. We can marry where we can marry and as long as we aren't breaking laws to prevent residents from crossing state lines to avoid the laws back home, they have to recognize the marriage based on the law in the place of its celebration. The feds will have to.
No right to marry but the right to be married.
Possible but not probable; at least not from THESE 2 cases. That may be what the NEXT set of cases achieve.

I see this ruling just overturning section 3 of DOMA but leaving intact section 2 which allows states to refuse to recognize any marrriages they don't want to recognize.

Most important will the level of scrutiny applied to cases going forward. THAT will determine how quickly the remaining state bans are overturned. Overturning DOMA with a quasi-suspect classification (similar to gender) sets the stage for rapidly overturing all remaining bans; any kind of enhanced rational basis will mean a much slower path forward.

But in the end I see the last bans (in the south & plains states)being overturned around 2020 after we've gotten about 20 states, depending on the makeup of the SCOTUS of course.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Mar 24, 2013
Irreversible wrote:
The writing is on the wall.
Ginsburg warned you the liberals don't want another Roe v. Wade. Kennedy warned you. Scalia and his pet monkey are openly mocking you.
You were scheduled during Holy Week.
The problem is the Supreme Court bar's fight for notorious cases--Boies and Olson wanted the notoriety and jumped the gun, just to make sure no other attorney got this issue, and will thereby foreclose the issue. You won't have gotten you what you seek as you watch Boies and Olson happily go into the sunset.
All I seek at this point is overturning DOMA, which even the conservatives admit is very likely.

Prop 8 has almost become irrelevant at this point. I never expected the SCOTUS to issue any sweeping ruling overturning all bans. Most likely they'll limit their decision to just California.

Even IF they should uphold Prop 8, it won't matter in the long run. We'll just overturn it at the ballot box in '14 or '16, and we'll get another 10 states or so through either state legislatures and/or popular referendum votes.

Then it's back to the SCOTUS again to overturn the remaining bans around 2020 when there will most likely be a different make-up of SCOTUS justices.

This only ends one way- marriage equality nationwide; it's only a matter of how & when.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#29 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Possible but not probable; at least not from THESE 2 cases. That may be what the NEXT set of cases achieve.
I see this ruling just overturning section 3 of DOMA but leaving intact section 2 which allows states to refuse to recognize any marrriages they don't want to recognize.
Most important will the level of scrutiny applied to cases going forward. THAT will determine how quickly the remaining state bans are overturned. Overturning DOMA with a quasi-suspect classification (similar to gender) sets the stage for rapidly overturing all remaining bans; any kind of enhanced rational basis will mean a much slower path forward.
But in the end I see the last bans (in the south & plains states)being overturned around 2020 after we've gotten about 20 states, depending on the makeup of the SCOTUS of course.
Unless they bring it up in the context of the California challenge, Section 3 is unlikely to even be raised in the challenge to Section 2. Where you see a three step process, I'm seeing only two. The first is the determination that same sex couples enjoy the right to be married. That would involve killing both DOMA Section 2 and the state amendments. the second step is the question of the individual's right to marry. Having accepted the Perry case, even a California specific resolution against the amendment can and would be used in challenges to the rest of the amendments. While I imagine that they would really rather wait on that part of the question until we had overturned a few of these stains at the ballot box, but their hand is being forced.

They only have three real options when it comes to the thirty odd elephants being dragged into the room with this case. Uphold them all, but that only delays the inevitable and would likely mean that the question of whether the couples have the right to be married and stay that way until they decide otherwise, wouldn't get back before the really big question of whether we have the right to marry someone of the same sex in the first place. This time they get one challenge, next time, a whole slew. They can kill off just California's, but that still spawns the whole slew of cases. Or they can kill them all and dump the results on the states as whether to approve of same sex marriages happening in state or not until a direct challenge to Baker finally gets to them.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
All I seek at this point is overturning DOMA, which even the conservatives admit is very likely.
Prop 8 has almost become irrelevant at this point. I never expected the SCOTUS to issue any sweeping ruling overturning all bans. Most likely they'll limit their decision to just California.
Even IF they should uphold Prop 8, it won't matter in the long run. We'll just overturn it at the ballot box in '14 or '16, and we'll get another 10 states or so through either state legislatures and/or popular referendum votes.
Then it's back to the SCOTUS again to overturn the remaining bans around 2020 when there will most likely be a different make-up of SCOTUS justices.
This only ends one way- marriage equality nationwide; it's only a matter of how & when.
But I want it NOW !!!

<stamps foot, pigtails flying>

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then show me one state which was forced to recognize every marriage from all the other states based on FFC.
The marriage of first cousins is specifically prohibited by about one half the states, while about one half the states permit it. Yet ALL 50 states LEGALLY RECOGNIZE the marriages of first cousins, who were married in another state, even if their state prohibits it by law BECAUSE OF the "full faith and credit" clause of Artilce IV. of the U. S. Constitution.

I believe that the last time that SCOTUS made a ruling based on that clause, it was about 1998 or 1999. The court ruled that states MUST legally recognize the legal acts of other states, their own laws notwithstanding. Look it up.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Mar 24, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The marriage of first cousins is specifically prohibited by about one half the states, while about one half the states permit it. Yet ALL 50 states LEGALLY RECOGNIZE the marriages of first cousins, who were married in another state, even if their state prohibits it by law BECAUSE OF the "full faith and credit" clause of Artilce IV. of the U. S. Constitution.
I believe that the last time that SCOTUS made a ruling based on that clause, it was about 1998 or 1999. The court ruled that states MUST legally recognize the legal acts of other states, their own laws notwithstanding. Look it up.
NO they don't. Kentucky DOES NOT recognize 1st cousin marriages preformed elsewhere; a case even went to their Supreme Court and they upheld the ban.

That case had NOTHING to do with marriage.

Like I said, show me ONE state that was forced to recognize marriages they didn't want to under the FFC clause.

You can't, because there has always been a public policy execption.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#33 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
NO they don't. Kentucky DOES NOT recognize 1st cousin marriages preformed elsewhere; a case even went to their Supreme Court and they upheld the ban.
That case had NOTHING to do with marriage.
Like I said, show me ONE state that was forced to recognize marriages they didn't want to under the FFC clause.
You can't, because there has always been a public policy execption.
Read the General Motors case, 1998, which I believe is the last time SCOTUS ruled on a case specifically citing the full faith and credit clause.

And do you have a citation for teh case you mentioned ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34 Mar 24, 2013
I do SO love it when the boyz start bonin' smart!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#35 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the General Motors case, 1998, which I believe is the last time SCOTUS ruled on a case specifically citing the full faith and credit clause.
And do you have a citation for teh case you mentioned ?
The GM case had NOTHING to do with marriage.

Again, provide a case where ANY state has been forced to recognize a MARRIAGE against their own state laws using the FFC clause.

As for 1st cousin marriage-

Bowen (1952) Kentucky

KRS 402.010 holds that 1st cousin marriages are incestous and as such are prohibited.

The court ruled 1st cousin marriages are void even if entered into in another state.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#36 Mar 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The GM case had NOTHING to do with marriage.
Again, provide a case where ANY state has been forced to recognize a MARRIAGE against their own state laws using the FFC clause.
As for 1st cousin marriage-
Bowen (1952) Kentucky
KRS 402.010 holds that 1st cousin marriages are incestous and as such are prohibited.
The court ruled 1st cousin marriages are void even if entered into in another state.
I'm unaware of any federal case in the past half century that addressed teh marriage of first cousins. Since about half the states allow the marriage of first cousins, and teh state has no legitimate interest, based on any scientific, nor rational basis for barring them, if the case you cited is applicable, I would make a large wager it would be overturned by the federal courts, if a similar case were brought to them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#37 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm unaware of any federal case in the past half century that addressed teh marriage of first cousins. Since about half the states allow the marriage of first cousins, and teh state has no legitimate interest, based on any scientific, nor rational basis for barring them, if the case you cited is applicable, I would make a large wager it would be overturned by the federal courts, if a similar case were brought to them.
That's my whole point- the federal courts HAVE stayed out of it for the past 235 years. They've allowed the states to set their own rules.

If it was such a obviously violation of the FFC clause as you & others keep claiming, certainly it would have been addressed by now.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Jacques Ottawa 185,798
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 26 min OzRitz 52,223
News Attitudes shift on illegal immigration, but uni... 1 hr Who Guessed it 5
News Anti-gay initiative puts California attorney ge... 1 hr WasteWater 12
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Big D 201,741
News California attorney general moves to end anti-g... 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 25
California Prop to execute gays 4 hr Steven Mathew Rob... 1
More from around the web