Gay Marriage Cases Soon To Be Heard By American Supreme Court -- It's Complicated

[Jingthing]

Well the beginning of the historic U.S. supreme court gay marriage drama is soon upon us.

As with many legal matters, this is going to take a lot of time and the issues are complicated, with a range of potential outcomes and consequences.

Any decisions won't likely come until June.

But until then, here is a an introduction:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/21/3299165/supreme-courts-gay-marriage-cases.html

Q. Will the court decide whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage?

A. Not necessarily.

The supreme court proceedings aren't televised, but you can listen to audio recordings:

www.supremecourt.gov

Edited March 22, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

OK, here's some insight into the basis of the anti-gay marriage current arguments. They focus on SEX. How surprising.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor,
opponents of same-sex marriage have scrambled to answer the central
question: What is the government’s rational interest in preventing gays
from marrying? The standard argument from moral disapproval was revoked by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
The argument that gay marriages undermine the family has been debunked
by a decade of same-sex marriage in several countries. So, as
Proposition 8 and DOMA wound their way through the courts, gay marriage
opponents lit upon a more durable argument, seemingly grounded in
science rather than animus or religion. Their case, presented most
comprehensively by Princeton professor Robert P. George, is that only
sex acts with a “dynamism toward reproduction”—that
is, penile to vaginal intercourse—create true marriages and lead to
legitimate child-rearing. Same-sex marriages, by this theory, are not
“real” marriages, because they do not involve “organic bodily union.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/gay_marriage_and_sex_why_do_defenders_of_doma_and_prop_8_worship_coitus.html

The two historic cases coming up are:

Hollingsworth v. Perry

and

United States v. Windsor

[Jingthing]

The high drama is getting set to start. Aren't you excited? (Apparently not.)

Next Tuesday and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will dive into
back-to-back arguments about gay marriage. These cases that are probably
the biggest of the term, and certainly the sexiest.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/gay_marriage_at_the_supreme_court_what_to_watch_for.html

[onthemoon]

Following this closely might be interesting for US Americans, especially those living in the US.

For the rest of us, we are just interested in the outcome, so that we can categorise that far-away country as whether it has arrived in the 21st century or not.

For acceptance of gay rights, the USA is not a leading opinion-maker for the world. They are in some other political issues, but not this one. They (a majority or a minority of US citizens, depending on who you ask) are just trying to catch up.

[Jingthing]

...

For acceptance of gay rights, the USA is not a leading opinion-maker for the world.

...

I understand what you mean but I see it differently. The USA is obviously a very important and large country and WHEN it does fully implement gay civil rights equality, that fact may have an influence on some of the majority of countries in the world that still don't. I see the movement as global, with each country obviously having a current situation unique to them. Similar to global movements against racism and for women's rights. The USA is of course also open to foreign influence, and I think the advances for gay civil rights in countries like Canada, France, the U.K. etc, have indeed helped the movement in the U.S.

This positive U.S. influence could happen in many ways. For example, in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency (quite a strong possibility) her strong words of support for gay human rights INTERNATIONALLY which she has already voiced would have even more potential impact when her own country moves further along on this issue. Which it will. The only question now is the exact TIMING.

It is often said that any American president is the most powerful person on the planet. I still think that is true even with the emergence of other strong powers in the world. It may not be true 50 years from now, but it still is now. A pro gay rights U.S. president (already in Obama) mixed with a country far along with gay rights legal equality (not yet in the U.S.) I think is a bigger deal globally when it happens in the U.S. than when it happens in a country like Argentina, no disrespect to Argentina.

For example, in the unlikely event that these current supreme court cases result in a total victory for U.S. gay rights, forcing ALL 50 U.S. states to allow gay marriage, and forcing all such marriages to be recognized as marriages at the the federal level, plus opening up the legal door for discrimination cases (employment, housing, etc.) of any kind to be successful in all states , I can assure you that is going to be FRONT PAGE headlines all over the world. For insiders, the fact that this total victory is even possible right now, this year, is really incredible. But we don't expect that kind of total victory so soon but do expect it within some time.

A few years ago I would have predicted 10 to 50 years for such a total victory. Now while I don't predict that this year even though possible, I would now say NO LONGER than 10 years.

I do understand and agree the "inside baseball" details about U.S. supreme court cases are something that most people, including most Americans, won't have any motivation or interest to follow. But for those who do follow it, it's interesting. Maybe like cricket?

Edited March 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

On to some gossipy details!

Is there any meaning to the fact that mystery voter Chief Justice Roberts "sort of" invited his lesbian cousin and her partner to the California Prop. 8 case hearings?

We won't know for a long time, if ever, but the games have certainly begun.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/25/john_roberts_jean_podrasky_chief_justice_s_lesbian_cousin_will_attend_prop.html

The news is sure to have court watchers speculating as to what Roberts'
guest list means in regards to how he'll ultimately vote on the pair of
landmark gay-marriage cases before his court. It's worth noting,
however, that Podrasky was the one who asked for the tickets, emailing
Roberts' sister before going through his secretary, according to the
report. So it's not as though the chief justice went out of his way to
invite his lesbian cousin and her partner to hear arguments about
whether they should be allowed to marry. Still, that's unlikely to
dampen the left's excitement over the possibility that the chief justice
could become the latest example of contact theory in action.

[geriatrickid]

Following this closely might be interesting for US Americans, especially those living in the US.

For the rest of us, we are just interested in the outcome, so that we can categorise that far-away country as whether it has arrived in the 21st century or not.

For acceptance of gay rights, the USA is not a leading opinion-maker for the world. They are in some other political issues, but not this one. They (a majority or a minority of US citizens, depending on who you ask) are just trying to catch up.

Ahh so how would you categorize France with its current riots in regard to the same subject?

http://www.euronews.com/2013/03/25/french-riot-police-clash-with-anti-gay-marriage-protesters/

Whatever the USA's failings are, it will never come close to the hypocrisy of many europeans on the subject.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever rioted in the USA over the issue. Perhaps it is time for France one of the EU's leading bleaters on human rights and finger waggers to give it a try?

Edited March 25, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Jingthing]

Another thing I would like to mention is that while America has not been a leader in getting national laws passed for gay equality, it HAS been an early global leader in the gay liberation and gay pride movement itself. The volatile era that spawned the women's movement and the American black power movement also spawned the gay liberation movement. The SOCIAL aspect of it. Yes I mean things like Stonewall and the spread of the political meaning of gay pride parades in so many countries. I suppose pre-Nazi Germany would get the nod for being an earlier pioneer in such things though. Remember the very idea of gay as an IDENTITY and even deserving consideration for equal legal rights is in historical context very MODERN.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

Can we stick to the topic please - this isn't about Europe.

[Jingthing]

On the court cases, in very rough generality, the rulings will be either:

1. Huge defeat for gay rights

2. A solid step forward laying the groundwork for definite inevitable total win later

3. Total win

I reckon the consensus is on option 2 and many people think in the long run this will be a better outcome. The laws not getting ahead of the people argument, which tends to cause backlashes.

I still hope for a total win though but agree with the consensus, probably option 2.

A total defeat would be totally surprising. I don't even want to consider what that could mean, unless of course it happens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/25/doma-prop-8-and-supreme-court-caution/

The quasi-triumphant coverage of this week’s Supreme Court oral
arguments in cases related to marriage equality is making me
uncomfortable. Not because I don’t want the high court to rule in a way
that upholds the dignity and equal protection of same-sex couples who
are or want to be married, but because I don’t think lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans fully appreciate just how
tenuous things are on the court right now. The undeniable forward
momentum propelling today’s hopeful enthusiasm could be the very thing
that keeps the Supreme Court from going big.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[uptheos]

What is people's problem with gay marriage?

IMO anyone wanting to tie the knot with whoever, is perfectly OK.

Worrying about loving couples, when there's such carnage in the world to worry about........geez!!

[Jingthing]

What is people's problem with gay marriage?

IMO anyone wanting to tie the knot with whoever, is perfectly OK.

Worrying about loving couples, when there's such carnage in the world to worry about........geez!!

Yes of course. What is new and exciting to me is an item in the OP article that says that if the judges rule a certain way, the win could be about MUCH MORE than marriage equality, but basically be ruling against the legality of ANY kind of discrimination against gay people in all 50 states (such as housing, employment, etc.). That would be so huge. It would have to be enforced by lawsuits at first but based on such a court ruling the lawsuits would be easy to win, which could have the effect of actually greatly reducing any kind of discrimination. In other words, once the bigots learned their bigotry was going to cost them money, they would change their behavior. Maybe too much to hope for so quickly in a slow to change country.

What I am referring to now is the part about heightened level of scrutiny.

Bottom line, there is this small chance that this year in the supreme court, that gay Americans officially become first class citizens in every way, in all 50 states. Best not to expect that though.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

Either stop the bickering or stop the posting. The topic is "Gay Marriage Cases Soon To Be Heard By American Supreme Court -- It's Complicated"

Stick to it.

[Jingthing]

It's interesting to note, and probably SCARY in these cases, that the other recent major historic supreme court case (about Obamacare) was read completely wrong by the tea leaf readers, who predicted the outcome based on the QUESTIONS of the justices. The overwhelmingly consensus was that Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. But it wasn't, with a twist added by Roberts who weakened the potential to fully implement the bill. So my point here is that NOBODY knows and any predictions based on "hints" from the proceedings should be taken with skepticism.

From the ego aspect of the justices, they have a chance to "go big" and make big dramatic history -- instantly. What an amazing amount of power. I hope they can't resist.

For the pure entertainment value of the cases, what anti-gay right winger Scalia says will be "fun" to watch.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

It's interesting to note, and probably SCARY in these cases, that the other recent major historic supreme court case (about Obamacare) was read completely wrong by the tea leaf readers,

Is that the tea party or the tea baggers?

[Jingthing]

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Listen to history:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/26/full-audio-of-supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-california-prop-8-gay-marriage-case/

Decision in June.

The attorneys (the Bush v. Gore attorneys uniting for this) arguing the pro-gay side said in a press conference following that they have NO IDEA what the decision will be based on the proceedings.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

What is people's problem with gay marriage?

IMO anyone wanting to tie the knot with whoever, is perfectly OK.

Worrying about loving couples, when there's such carnage in the world to worry about........geez!!

It's economics now. Additional spousal or survivor benefits will kill some pension and health plans or add extra costs that were not contemplated when the contributions were first set up. If people were told, hey, your pension contributions will increase by another X% and your benefit schedule may decrease, I expect the opposition would be even greater. Many of these pension and health plans are supported by that large group of "single" contributors.

[isanbirder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-hearing

I just love the poster

"Jesus had 2 Dads and he turned out fine".

It's also an interesting account of the discussion.

[Jingthing]

The audio recording of the Prop 8 case (above) isn't very long, somewhat over one hour. I really recommend listening. These two cases are very hot and truly historic; people are paying big bucks for the seats (paying people to stand on line for them). It's really fascinating and many of the issues discussed would be relevant to many countries considering legalizing gay marriage. Obviously the details about the states's rights and the complications of some states having civil unions, some states having gay marriage, and most states offering nothing would be USA specific.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

An interesting perspective on why things are changing FAST on the gay marriage issue in the USA. Yes, they are changing very fast by USA standards.

Basically because so many people came out. Thank you again Harvey Milk, martyr, and also because gay people are found in all parts of society, including the rich and the powerful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-gay-marriage-is-a-matter-of-class/2013/03/26/60bce1ce-9671-11e2-9e23-09dce87f75a1_story.html

It’s obvious but still bears underlining: When every economic and
social class shares in the experience of injustice or intolerable
wrongs, things change faster. If only poor people were gay, does anyone
think our political leaders would have “evolved” at this pace? Likewise,
if we had a draft, does anyone think our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
would have proceeded as they did?

Today we all have friends,
colleagues and relatives who are gay. That’s the way societies change.
The moral circle widens. The boundaries of empathy expand. This was the
genius of the strategy in Harvey Milk’s passionate refrain on Gay
Freedom Day almost 35 years ago: “Come out . . . come out . . .
come out.” Despite the pain and risk, Milk knew that once enough gay
men and women found the courage to stand up, it would became impossible
to sustain bigotry or defend discrimination.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

OK, here's the second case, the DOMA case:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/27/scotus_doma_audio_transcript_listen_to_today_s_supreme_court_hearing.html

The consensus about this case is very good. The questions indicate they won't find DOMA constitutional. That means the gay marriages in the NINE U.S. states that offer it would then have REAL marriages, recognized at the federal level the exact same way as any marriage.

The conservative justices seem to want to throw out the case, not make a ruling, that would be a big loss, but I doubt they have the votes.

My prediction is they will raise the level of scrutiny. Making it easier to challenge discrimination nationally.

On the Prop 8 case my prediction is they won't rule broadly. In any case, California, the biggest state, would get gay marriage anyway during the next election on that issue. So even a big loss on the Prop 8 case isn't a permanent denial to Californians.

I suppose there is some chance they will force the states now offering only civil unions to convert that to marriages, which with DOMA struck down would be REAL marriages.

So my prediction as before is a limited win, no instant equal marriage rights for all 50 states, but setting the stage for that to happen more slowly over time.

This is no Roe v. Wade. The backlash won't be the same. What are the opponents going to do? Be rude to gay marriage couples? It's not like there is a place like abortion clinics that they can bomb.

Assuming DOMA is struck down, yes, the USA would then be on the list of world countries that offers FULL marriage equality, something the UK can't even say yet ... BUT with a big asterisk, only residents of certain states.

OK, it's all about reading the tea leaves now. Obviously don't bet the house on my predictions!

Edited March 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[Pawpal]

What are the implications for American ex-pats who are U.S. citizens but not residents of any state? Will it be possible for us, say, to get married in New York or (hopefully) California and have the marriage recognized on a federal level?

[Scott]

Generally, you need to be a resident of the state to get married. Even in Nevada, people at least rent a P.O. Box and declare themselves a resident. The time it takes to legally become a resident varies from state to state.

[Jingthing]

The odd patchwork system which I predict will probably happen, well, if it happens it certainly seems to open up a huge can of worms that I think would speed up more states deciding to offer gay marriage later. There are probably thousands of twists, but consider a gay couple legally married in New York (gay marriage state) and then they move to Georgia (nothing offered state) or to a civil union state. Their New York marriage was recognized by the feds for over 1000 rights, what will their marriage mean federally when they aren't New Yorkers anymore? Is it still a New York marriage to the feds? It would just be easier if the supremes bit the bullet and went for broke (declaring not allowing same sex marriage unconstitutional) and prevented all this nonsense to start with!

Assuming the patchwork outcome, gay marriage will continue to be fought, state by state for who knows how many years to come. Obviously with public opinion having changed favorably so quickly within 10 years that would mean A LOT of states going legal. Of course that doesn't mean a new supreme court case won't come up that using the precedent of these two cases, FINISHES the job. (Please.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/28/our_possible_future_of_endless_state_level_gay_marriage_campaigns.html

Also note the supremes DID discuss the idea of a FEDERAL marriage for gay people living in states with no marriage for them. That would be highly against states rights and is very unlikely to happen. However, if it did happen, that would solve the patchwork problem. The expat question actually is related to that. For an expat not a resident of a gay marriage state, they won't have options to import a foreign spouse like their heterosexual brothers. That could be the basis for a new case!

Edited March 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

A musical interlude about the civil rights movement of the moment in the USA:

[Suradit69]

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

If you want a feel for the sentiments of the barely literate American public (unscientifically polled) check this out. The original article on eHarmony is sort of neither here nor there, but scroll through some of the comments from the unwashed masses following the article.

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/165686-gay-marriage-debate-has-damaged-eharmony-com-christian-ceo-says.html

a little taste of the well thought out, intelligent comments:

sirron •

this is futher evidence that the world is spiraling to the end times I hope that we who are Christians are watching and praying and doing the work and the willl of the Lord because Jesus is coming back soon whether we want him to or not!

Edited March 31, 2013 by Suradit69

[rijb]

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

If you want a feel for the sentiments of the barely literate American public (unscientifically polled) check this out. The original article on eHarmony is sort of neither here nor there, but scroll through some of the comments from the unwashed masses following the article.

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/165686-gay-marriage-debate-has-damaged-eharmony-com-christian-ceo-says.html

a little taste of the well thought out, intelligent comments:

unlike yours?

[tombkk]

What is people's problem with gay marriage?

IMO anyone wanting to tie the knot with whoever, is perfectly OK.

Worrying about loving couples, when there's such carnage in the world to worry about........geez!!

It's economics now. Additional spousal or survivor benefits will kill some pension and health plans or add extra costs that were not contemplated when the contributions were first set up. If people were told, hey, your pension contributions will increase by another X% and your benefit schedule may decrease, I expect the opposition would be even greater. Many of these pension and health plans are supported by that large group of "single" contributors.

No, it's not only economics. My boyfy and I are going to marry in a European country, and it will not be recognized in Thailand, where we both live.

Sorry, I don't think we are the only couple (straight or gay) marrying out of love rather than economics.

[Jingthing]

Gay Americans are about 3 percent of the U.S. population and even with legal gay marriage probably the majority will never marry. I think such a small minority of people won't break any financial systems that aren't going to break anyway. But really the GALL to suggest opposing equal rights on that basis. Can you imagine people opposing legalizing interracial marriages on those grounds?

Consenting adults mix of motivations to marry or not marry? That's their own damn business!

Edited March 31, 2013 by Jingthing

[KED]

Maybe I am naive, but I am saddened by the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the civil rights of gay marriage. Just like women's rights and the civil rights movement for blacks, marriage equality for gays is a civil rights issue - even if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with a gay lifestyle, they should still be able to rule that we have equal rights under the constitution. The fact that this is even debated saddens me - it should be obvious to the Supreme Court, regardless of their politics.