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

[Jingthing]

They might do exactly that. The consensus is they won't though. It is also possible that they will raise the level of "scrutiny" for gay as an identity class of Americans and that would mean gay people would have increased rights to bring successful discrimination court cases of many kinds in all states. The patchwork mess that I posted about before is indeed being roughly predicted (the consensus) as the probable result at this stage. IF that happens, most definitely there will be future cases to seek judgment on the ridiculous injustices caused by the patchwork phase. In other words married in New York, move to Alabama, you're screwed. A case like that would be a natural for a future supreme court case. BTW, I have confirmed the patchwork thing would be real if they don't force ALL states to allow gay marriages (assuming they take the state of having the feds accept the gay marriage state marriages). Those New York married people moving to Alabama would not only not be married anymore in Alabama, their marriages would also instantly not be recognized by the feds for the THOUSAND plus rights of marriage. How the justices could allow this mess in the first place is pretty bizarre, but that's the consensus of what will happen.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

They might do exactly that. The consensus is they won't though. It is also possible that they will raise the level of "scrutiny" for gay as an identity class of Americans and that would mean gay people would have increased rights to bring successful discrimination court cases of many kinds in all states. The patchwork mess that I posted about before is indeed being roughly predicted (the consensus) as the probable result at this stage. IF that happens, most definitely there will be future cases to seek judgment on the ridiculous injustices caused by the patchwork phase. In other words married in New York, move to Alabama, you're screwed. A case like that would be a natural for a future supreme court case. BTW, I have confirmed the patchwork thing would be real if they don't force ALL states to allow gay marriages (assuming they take the state of having the feds accept the gay marriage state marriages). Those New York married people moving to Alabama would not only not be married anymore in Alabama, their marriages would also instantly not be recognized by the feds for the THOUSAND plus rights of marriage. How the justices could allow this mess in the first place is pretty bizarre, but that's the consensus of what will happen.

You mean it was brought to the Supreme Court too early in history?

[Jingthing]

You mean it was brought to the Supreme Court too early in history?

Not exactly. The insider information is that the conservative justices wanted to rule on this sooner rather than later because they know it's only going to get worse for their anti-gay civil rights positions. But that doesn't mean that a step forward decision is the same as a loss. It would be another BIG step. Many analysts even feel a total loss on both of these cases (not likely) won't even stop the inevitability of gay marriage equality in the USA. I don't see the point of speculating about a total loss on both these cases at this point and hopefully never.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

... It is also possible that they will raise the level of "scrutiny" for gay as an identity class of Americans and that would mean gay people would have increased rights to bring successful discrimination court cases of many kinds in all states.....

For the n'th time, there are NO federal laws controlling discrimination of ANY kind on the grounds of gender let alone sexual preference in the US, except for the military and the post office. NONE.

... I don't see the point of speculating about a total loss on both these cases at this point and hopefully never.

Well at least that's one bit of pointless speculation we're spared ....

[Jingthing]

... It is also possible that they will raise the level of "scrutiny" for gay as an identity class of Americans and that would mean gay people would have increased rights to bring successful discrimination court cases of many kinds in all states.....

For the n'th time, there are NO federal laws controlling discrimination of ANY kind on the grounds of gender let alone sexual preference in the US, except for the military and the post office. NONE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... I don't see the point of speculating about a total loss on both these cases at this point and hopefully never.

Well at least that's one bit of pointless speculation we're spared ....

It would really help if you read the article in the OP. I am specifically referring to the real possibility that the LEVEL OF SCRUTINY for legal cases about discrimination against gay people will be raised and the NATIONAL legal implications of that would be very beneficial for the future of gay civil rights in the USA, not ONLY marriage rights. I never said there were these federal laws you speak of and I reckon you know that.

Q. What are “levels of scrutiny,” which get talked about lot with these cases?

A. It’s about how much leeway the Supreme Court will give legislation.

The high court subjects laws and policies that potentially discriminate by race or national origin to “strict scrutiny.” This is a tough standard, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

The court applies “intermediate” or “exacting” scrutiny to laws that potentially discriminate by gender. These laws must be substantially related to an important government interest.

The lowest level of “rational basis” scrutiny often ends up as a green light, testing simply whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/21/3299165_p2/supreme-courts-gay-marriage-cases.html#storylink=cpy

The point is that NOW at the supreme court level gay identity is low scrutiny. IF it is raised and that is a good chance, that will be a HUGE federal precedent opening up potential law suits (and also of potential legislation) that will have meaning in ALL U.S. states. In ALL areas of gay rights. I know for many months now you have been making dismissive remarks about how gay marriage is the wrong emphasis. IF the scrutiny level is raised, the progress on gay marriage rights will ALSO have implications nationally in all areas of life that gays may be discriminated against. NO. Not in instant legislation. Nobody said that. Nobody implied that.

In LEGAL PRECEDENCE at the highest level.

You know, sir, you are not obligated to follow any thread here about American gay civil rights issues and then you will be totally spared of ANY speculation on such matters. These cases are among the most important to happen in modern American history and the speculation about these cases is rampant, so why not here if you're interested, but if you are NOT interested, that's OK too. They are not everyday cases. Both cases are extremely HISTORICALLY important cases.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The speculation continues as it will do until the decision is read (and beyond):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-politics-of-roe-v-wade-and-gay-marriage/2013/04/04/33b4352e-9d56-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html

Harvard Law School’s Michael Klarman, who believes that Roe
“catalyzed a powerful right-to-life movement,” nonetheless predicts that
a broad ruling on same-sex marriage would be less incendiary, in part
“because the effect . . . on others’ lives is so indirect.”
That sounds right: Those who view abortion as murder understandably
feel more intensely than those who express moral distaste for same-sex
marriage.

In short, the justices shouldn’t worry about the threat
of a backlash. They should focus on their constitutional role as a
backstop.

Wishful thinking I think. I agree the backlash fear is overblown but I still don't see them going super big on their decision.

[isanbirder]

In 2010, 16 American senators supported gay marriage; now 53 do. That's some change!

[LeCharivari]

In 2010, 16 American senators supported gay marriage; now 53 do. That's some change!

A majority! Maybe one of them will propose changing the law ....

[Jingthing]

In 2010, 16 American senators supported gay marriage; now 53 do. That's some change!

A majority! Maybe one of them will propose changing the law ....

That's not an option. That is SENATORS. Republicans control the house of representatives and still the vast majority of republicans retain anti-gay civil rights positions. I assume you're talking about FEDERAL recognition of existing state gay marriages now, a small minority of states at this point but sure to grow a lot in the coming years. Also the legislature lacks the power to make all states offer gay marriage. Only the supreme court (or a constitutional amendment which will not happen or even be started, everyone knows that) has that power. The supreme court probably won't exercise that power over the states this year, but they may someday. The USA system and politics is unique and the path gay civil rights activists have chosen is reaping gains and will continue to do so in future, but instant results were NEVER possible.

The fact that recently gay marriage was approved by POPULAR vote in multiple states this last election was HUGE. We're on the road and the light at the end of the tunnel is very bright indeed. Even the most vehement right wing enemies of U.S. gay civil rights are conceding they have LOST this battle and the only question is the TIMING of their total loss.

I get the feeling that some people are just not happy with GOOD NEWS (at least from America ).

Edited April 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

This Time magazine cover has got his exactly right!

"The Supreme Court Hasn't Made Up It's Mind -- But America Has"

A court still stinging from controversies over Obamacare, campaign
financing and the 2000 presidential election may be leery of removing an
issue from voters’ control. Yet no matter what the Justices decide
after withdrawing behind their velvet curtain, the courtroom debate —
and the period leading up to it — made clear that we have all been
eyewitnesses to history. In recent days, weeks and months, the verdict
on same-sex marriage has been rendered by rapidly shifting public
opinion and by the spectacle of swing-vote politicians scrambling to
keep up with it. With stunning speed, a concept dismissed even by most
gay-rights leaders just 20 years ago is now embraced by half or more of
all Americans, with support among young voters running as high as
4 to 1. Beginning with the Netherlands in 2001, countries from Argentina
to Belgium to Canada — along with nine states and the District of
Columbia — have extended marriage rights to lesbian and gay couples.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/28/how-gay-marriage-won/#ixzz2PkZRs0mg

Edited April 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Opinion of an American fourth grader expressed in a school assignment:

[LeCharivari]

Opinion of an American fourth grader expressed in a school assignment:

6a00d8341c730253ef01901b8b86d3970b.jpg

What an appalling indictment of an education system.

[Jingthing]

Opinion of an American fourth grader expressed in a school assignment:

6a00d8341c730253ef01901b8b86d3970b.jpg

What an appalling indictment of an education system.

There is no rest for the grammar and spelling police. (Especially if it involves America bashing.)

[Jingthing]

This news is arguably worth a new thread, but I'll tack it on here instead.

The supreme court decisions are coming rather soon, but here is some bad news already on another front.

The congress is discussing immigration reform and it appears something will pass, but sadly gay people are being thrown under the bus on gay related immigration rights.

So assuming that the supremes rule that state gay marriages will be treated like any marriage for general federal matters such as social security survivor benefits, these federal rights will for the time being NOT include immigration rights equality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-groups-denounce-lack-of-protection-in-senate-immigration-bill/2013/05/22/c731eab0-c2d8-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

Gay rights advocates are reacting angrily to a decision by Senate
Democrats on Tuesday to drop protections for same-sex couples from a
landmark immigration reform bill in order to preserve Republican support
for the legislation.

“Today it became clear that our so-called ‘friends’ don’t have
the courage or the spine to stand up for what’s right,” Felipe
Sousa-Rodriguez, co-director of the social-justice organization
GetEQUAL, said.

The politics of this are difficult. The republican party remains disgustingly anti-gay. They would not pass ANY reform if the gay immigration rights were included. So if the democrats decided to have spine and insist gays be included ... no reform at all. Politically, I'm not sure the democrats had any real choice on this at this time.

[LeCharivari]

As Senator Richard Durbin has already said, its all a bit academic until there is a decision on DOMA - if its out then gay marriages are marriages recognised at federal level, if its in they're not. Maybe it is simple after all ...

[Jingthing]

As Senator Richard Durbin has already said, its all a bit academic until there is a decision on DOMA - if its out then gay marriages are marriages recognised at federal level, if its in they're not. Maybe it is simple after all ...

By George, I think you might be right!

Savor the moment ...

[Jingthing]

Well, within the next two weeks, we will hear these historic gay marriage decisions, the biggest decisions of the season.

While waiting, this is seriously interesting:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/anthony_kennedy_s_gay_marriage_views_the_supreme_court_justice_may_see_banning.html

But we shouldn’t dismiss Kennedy’s question about gender discrimination
too hastily. The court’s precedents on gender might offer Kennedy the
conservative compromise he is looking for: a way to recognize a
constitutional right for same-sex marriage in a limited way.

[MrRealDeal]

Like I posted last year ..... They won't want to be on the wrong side of this and will make it clear in their wording no matter how they rule on prop 9 or DOMA ..... That Gay people are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else however the term used to obtain them is not of concern to them and to Jing's disappointment they will have no problem with civil unions.

They will most likely make rulings that may seem like a loss like perhaps deciding that DOMA is legal , however saying at the same time that while it's legal but unnecessary to define hetro sexual coupling as some word or another that doesn't mean homosexuals are not equally entitled to the same things with a different word. The reason for this is because the situation is different enough to make is reasonable to use different terms however not different enough to allow for different Government restrictions, rights or benefits without cause or reason which is some cases it is .... Like hetro people being required a blood test to reduce certain problems with child bearing that would not apply to Gay people for example.

It's only a defeat if you want a smaller less instructive and specific dictionary , not a defeat in outcome of the rights the court will say they are entitled to under the Law.

I realize you disagree on that point Jing so let's skip that old discussion. My main point is that what they Rule on the individual cases will not be nearly as important as the opinion part of the rulings , they can, and in my opinion will, make clear what needs to be made clear and put an end to the discussion even if prop 9 is tossed out and DOMA upheld.

[Jingthing]

These cases have very little to do with the wording, civil unions vs. marriage. That's a projection of issues in other countries on the USA.

It is true part of the rulings are about whether gay marriages in gay marriage states entitle those married there to have equal rights under FEDERAL LAW so the rulings MIGHT cover whether those joined in gay state civil unions are to be seen as the SAME as state gay married or not. That's pretty much it on that aspect of it. NOT a major part of these cases by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

Well, within the next two weeks, we will hear these historic gay marriage decisions, the biggest decisions of the season.

You don't think the upcoming ruling on affirmative action is the biggest ruling of the year?

[Jingthing]

Well, within the next two weeks, we will hear these historic gay marriage decisions, the biggest decisions of the season.

You don't think the upcoming ruling on affirmative action is the biggest ruling of the year?

History will tell, mate.

[MrRealDeal]

These cases have very little to do with the wording, civil unions vs. marriage. That's a projection of issues in other countries on the USA.

It is true part of the rulings are about whether gay marriages in gay marriage states entitle those married there to have equal rights under FEDERAL LAW so the rulings MIGHT cover whether those joined in gay state civil unions are to be seen as the SAME as state gay married or not. That's pretty much it on that aspect of it. NOT a major part of these cases by any stretch of the imagination.

You missed the entire point which is the cases themselves are not as important was what they say in their opinion about Gay rights in general. Their comments will forge the future more so than whatever ruling they make. Most people don't understand the wide reaching effects the Opinion page of rulings have well beyond the narrow scope of the actual rulings they make.

[Jingthing]

MRD, you said this:

That Gay people are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else however the term used to obtain them is not of concern to them and to Jing's disappointment they will have no problem with civil unions.

The only way that would apply in these cases is if they rule (and/or OPINE) civil unions are legally equivalent to marriage in terms of FEDERAL rights. Or not.

To create an impression that the "debate" of terminology gay marriage vs. gay civil unions is a significant part of these cases is a FALSE impression.

[MrRealDeal]

MRD, you said this:

That Gay people are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else however the term used to obtain them is not of concern to them and to Jing's disappointment they will have no problem with civil unions.

The only way that would apply in these cases is if they rule (and/or OPINE) civil unions are legally equivalent to marriage in terms of FEDERAL rights. Or not.

To create an impression that the "debate" of terminology gay marriage vs. gay civil unions is a significant part of these cases is a FALSE impression.

Terminology is obviously important because the DOMA case is about the defining of terms , defining marriage to be exact , the court will say what I said ,,,,, you can define hetro marriage any way you like, and Gay marriage anyway you like as long as the outcome is the same. To think that the terminology of marriage in a case over the definition of marriage is not significant is unfortunately for you absurd.

Not as significant as the results of what they decide and say , but when you have a case that results from people trying to define a term it's a significant part of the case and will be mentioned in the decision.

But yes, my opinion is that they will opine that Gay people should have the same rights as others under the Federal Constitution even if they were to rule that it's legal to define "marriage" as it's defined in DOMA , Our inability to see eye to eye on this is that I can see a decision that both upholds DOMA and also makes it clear Gay people have the same rights. They may say their is nothing illegal although it's a little absurd and unnecessary to define marriage as a hetrosexual thing , however Gay people are entitled to the same rights under the Law and may advise using a different term is foolish and unnecessary but not strictly illegal under the Constitution.

Or they may say that DOMA is Unconstitutional because it bars Gay people from the right to marry because of the terminology ........ either way you slice it the terminology of the word is significant to the outcome of the case

Like I said my opinion has always been that defining marriage as one man and one woman is unnecessary and a waste of time but does not by itself disallow Gay people from the same rights with a different word , and since the two things are different, just barely reasonable enough to allow under the Law.

You can have the last word if you like I will opine again myself after the court explains all that to you, because I know you don't care to believe or understand my explanation.

[Jingthing]

The ruling will not offer a total victory because of the fear of moving too fast and creating a backlash. The ruling will allow continued inevitable progress and it may take one more generation to achieve the goal of full equality. That equality will be called MARRIAGE and you can take that to the bank.

[Jingthing]

Last chance for predictions.

The big rulings coming ... TOMORROW.

[MrRealDeal]

Prop 9 will have no standing in the Court and be sent back to Calif.

DOMA will be ruled as Unconstitutional

[Jingthing]

The right wing ruling on the voting rights act is kind of scary.

Anyway, here's a kind of cheat sheet to look at the possible results of the different possible rulings TODAY (soon!) on the two momentous gay rights cases:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/how-supreme-court-could-rule-on-gay-marriage/

[MrRealDeal]

That's actually what changed my mind about DOMA

[MrRealDeal]

Well ..... I was correct on DOMA