US Supreme Court to decide whether gay couples can marry

[Lite Beer]

US Supreme Court to decide whether gay couples can marry
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution, setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling.

The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.

Proponents of same-sex marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would urge the court "to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans."

Advocates for traditional marriage want the court to let the political process play out, rather than have judges order states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws," said Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the anti-gay marriage group Alliance Defending Freedom.

Momentum has shifted dramatically in the United States in recent months in favor of gay marriage. Same-sex couples now can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

That number is nearly double what it was just three months ago, when the justices initially declined to hear appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on same-sex marriage. The effect of the court's action in October was to make final several pro-gay rights rulings in the lower courts.

Now the court will be weighing in on major gay rights issues for the fourth time in in 27 years as societal norms have been redefined in the space of a generation.

In the first of those, in 1986, the court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law in a devastating defeat for gay rights advocates. But the three subsequent rulings, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, were major victories for gay men and lesbians.

In its most recent case in 2013, the court struck down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law in a decision that paved the way for a wave of lower court rulings across the country in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

For this latest case, the court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to two-and-a-half hours. The justices will consider two related questions. The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states. It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court's 2013 decision.

One of the plaintiffs from Ohio, James Obergefell, said he was crying "tears of joy and sadness" after the court accepted his appeal. In 2013, Obergefell flew to Maryland with his dying partner, John Arthur, so they could marry before Arthur's death. The couple sued to force Ohio to list Arthur as married on his death certificate, which would allow the men to be buried next to each other. Obergefell died 15 months ago.

"I can't wait to walk up those steps and have the Supreme Court understand that we're just like everyone else," Obergefell said.

Other plaintiffs are Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon, who have been together for 32 years, were married in Canada in 2004 and live in Kentucky. "Our family is like any other family. We have children, we have jobs, we have lives, we are very much engaged in our community and yet we don't feel like we are being treated yet as equal citizens," Bourke said.

Ten other states also prohibit same-sex unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.

Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-17

[Bakeman]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

[brewsterbudgen]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

Don't worry, not everybody is gay.

[Scott]

Thanks for that profound statement. Who is going to go extinct? The Supreme Court? Marriage?

[Publicus]

The fat lady is in the Supreme Court building and for the first time she's gonna sing.

No more anti-gay laws coming soon and there aren't that many left anyhow..

Last one to leave the party kindly turn off the lights please thx.

[Bakeman]

Scott

Everyone else was afraid to post on this topic until I obliged. You are reading too much into it. Its simple math and Brewsterbudgen gets the jest. I have two gay cousins, two gay nephews and a gay step-son and am fine with it. I am just stating that if everyone was gay no one would procreate and humans would all become extinct.

[endure]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

Considering that homosexuality was recorded in China 2600 years ago your assumptions seem rather silly

[endure]

Scott

Everyone else was afraid to post on this topic until I obliged.

The topic was only started 40 minutes ago...

[Publicus]

Scott

Everyone else was afraid to post on this topic until I obliged.

The topic was only started 40 minutes ago...

Indeed, I wuz writing my post when it posted and just finishing it up when two more posted.

I'd thought someone had been at the holy book again first thing in the morning.....

[Berkshire]

Scott

Everyone else was afraid to post on this topic until I obliged. You are reading too much into it. Its simple math and Brewsterbudgen gets the jest. I have two gay cousins, two gay nephews and a gay step-son and am fine with it. I am just stating that if everyone was gay no one would procreate and humans would all become extinct.

Why would you bring up a "what if" scenario that is an impossibility? It's like asking what would happen if women couldn't get pregnant. Of course humans would be extinct. But it's an impossibility.

The question is are you for or against gay marriage? Gays will always be a small minority, something like 5-7% of the population. Which means that if you allow the majority to decide their fate, gays will always be persecuted and discriminated against. This is where the government needs to do the right thing. Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[wirat69]

Seems that many overlook a few basic facts....

1. Gay men can father children.

2. Bi-sexual men can father children

3. Lesbians can mother children

4. Heterosexual men and women have been self-gratifying since the beginning of time

5. There are now more people on the earth than at any other time

6. Why interfere in another's proclivity between consenting adults?

7. Until they make it compulsory, I don't care!

[neverdie]

It's 2015. Time to rubber stamp this nonsense and get on with it.

How can humans still be discriminating against the basic right of someone wanting to get married. Let it go, what a waste of tax payer money.

[sanuk711]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

Bakeman, I think you are a little confused, gay marriage is exactly like normal marriage.......................... but with fewer arguments about who left the toilet seat up...................

Edited January 17, 2015 by sanuk711

[new2here]

For me, while I am not gay, I can't see a valid reason to deny that (marriage and all the other aspects that come with it) to those who are.

I get it, that this issue runs counter to what American law and perhaps societal values have been for many, many years... But I also recognize that values are not static.. They can, and I argue, should change as the times and situations change.

I also cede that this issue may run counter to those of certain religions.. As such, I don't think they should be compelled by law to participate... It's their right to accept it or deny it as such.

But when we speak of "The State" as a public entity, that to me is fundamentally different - and everyone should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and privileges.

Now, I might feel different IF I could see or articulate some kind of "harm" that I would be suffering if such as made legal across the states and territories/possessions in the US.

I have friends who are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage - but that too, unless you can show me a "harm" that is being caused, I can't support a denial.

For me, I'm a "neither here nor there" kind of person on this issue largely because I can't see the denial of this marriage issue as causing me - or society at large - a harm.

Now, I can see a possible harm for things like marriage of those say under 16, where many states have restrictions or approvals that must be obtained.. And I can see a possible harm that can result from the marriage between people who are genetically too close in terms of family (ie brother & sister, first cousins etc)

[wwest5829]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

Understand your point but a couple of observations. 1. The hero couples in the U.S. And Western Europe are not reproducing thus the increases in immigration will continue 2. Our sexual orientation I's the result of our chemical makeup, thus others will be born with the same leanings. We have all seen males with feminine attributes and females with male attributes. Hmmm, Thailand may well be leading the way in recognizing that a middle way is the best approach.

[wwest5829]

For me, while I am not gay, I can't see a valid reason to deny that (marriage and all the other aspects that come with it) to those who are.

I get it, that this issue runs counter to what American law and perhaps societal values have been for many, many years... But I also recognize that values are not static.. They can, and I argue, should change as the times and situations change.

I also cede that this issue may run counter to those of certain religions.. As such, I don't think they should be compelled by law to participate... It's their right to accept it or deny it as such.

But when we speak of "The State" as a public entity, that to me is fundamentally different - and everyone should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and privileges.

Now, I might feel different IF I could see or articulate some kind of "harm" that I would be suffering if such as made legal across the states and territories/possessions in the US.

I have friends who are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage - but that too, unless you can show me a "harm" that is being caused, I can't support a denial.

For me, I'm a "neither here nor there" kind of person on this issue largely because I can't see the denial of this marriage issue as causing me - or society at large - a harm.

Now, I can see a possible harm for things like marriage of those say under 16, where many states have restrictions or approvals that must be obtained.. And I can see a possible harm that can result from the marriage between people who are genetically too close in terms of family (ie brother & sister, first cousins etc)

I think those who wanted to defend the more traditional" marriage" screwed up in launching a broad attack. My thinking is that the argument should have been approached that marriage was a sacrament of the church and thus should be up to the church to control. Then the case could be made for equal rights under a civil union controlled by government. The "traditionalists" would have their control and yet equal rights for all would be secured. Well, just my approach but, of course, that horse has left the barn.

[ggt]

P l e a s e...Supreme Court let these people marry...so they can move on with their lives...and so can we...

[NeverSure]

For me, while I am not gay, I can't see a valid reason to deny that (marriage and all the other aspects that come with it) to those who are.

I get it, that this issue runs counter to what American law and perhaps societal values have been for many, many years... But I also recognize that values are not static.. They can, and I argue, should change as the times and situations change.

I also cede that this issue may run counter to those of certain religions.. As such, I don't think they should be compelled by law to participate... It's their right to accept it or deny it as such.

But when we speak of "The State" as a public entity, that to me is fundamentally different - and everyone should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and privileges.

Now, I might feel different IF I could see or articulate some kind of "harm" that I would be suffering if such as made legal across the states and territories/possessions in the US.

I have friends who are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage - but that too, unless you can show me a "harm" that is being caused, I can't support a denial.

For me, I'm a "neither here nor there" kind of person on this issue largely because I can't see the denial of this marriage issue as causing me - or society at large - a harm.

Now, I can see a possible harm for things like marriage of those say under 16, where many states have restrictions or approvals that must be obtained.. And I can see a possible harm that can result from the marriage between people who are genetically too close in terms of family (ie brother & sister, first cousins etc)

I think those who wanted to defend the more traditional" marriage" screwed up in launching a broad attack. My thinking is that the argument should have been approached that marriage was a sacrament of the church and thus should be up to the church to control. Then the case could be made for equal rights under a civil union controlled by government. The "traditionalists" would have their control and yet equal rights for all would be secured. Well, just my approach but, of course, that horse has left the barn.

I don't understand. People can get married in a church or at a government office as it is.

[mayview]

As Christopher Hitchens, a strong supporter of gay marriage, once said: (paraphrasing): Wait till the divorces start. You haven't seen anything yet!

[attrayant]

For me, I'm a "neither here nor there" kind of person on this issue largely because I can't see the denial of this marriage issue as causing me - or society at large - a harm.

That's a big part of the problem. Minority groups can (and have been) denied justice because others either didn't see or didn't care how the issue affects them personally. Thankfully the legal system doesn't rule based on how random individuals are affected, it rules based on how the plaintiff is affected. Slavery probably provides a net benefit to the majority but thankfully most courts haven't looked at it from that perspective; they looked at it from the perspective of the slaves themselves.

People who don't think they're personally affected still need to get off their butts and do the right thing for those who are. You know what happens when good men do nothing, right?.

Edited January 17, 2015 by attrayant

[granuaile]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

Not really true, as others have noted. Not everyone is gay, and that will never occur - I don't see being gay as so overwhelmingly a life-choice that there will be a mass shift in sexual orientation and marriage won't change that in any way. Also there are other options now, I've had lesbian friends have children through artificial insemination. Then there are scientific discoveries, for example a recent study was able to use stem cells in female mice to create sperm cells... No one loses their ability to procreate because they are gay or lesbian...

[Jingthing]

Many people might not understand that the U.S. governmental structure is designed so that major social changes like this tend to be VERY, VERY SLOW.

So within that perspective, the fact that we are going to get a final decision on this soon (and the decision will most likely be in favor of 50 state marriage equality) this has actually been VERY FAST.

Historically so.

Obviously if seen as a speed competition with earlier reforming countries, it looks as if the U.S. is behind the curve. But ... be clear, within the the U.S. context, the time frame has been simply AMAZING.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-gays-nationwide-can-marry.html?_r=0

The pace of change on same-sex marriage, in both popular opinion and in the courts, has no parallel in the nation’s history.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[OMGImInPattaya]

I predicted here on T-V last year that same-sex marriage would be legalized in all 50 States in a year or two at the most. How prescient I was.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage is a bunch of hetero-adoptive queers behaving badly but if that's what these preppy-dressing boys want to do with their lives so be it.

Edited January 17, 2015 by OMGImInPattaya

[Jingthing]

I predicted here on T-V last year that same-sex marriage would be legalized in all 50 States in a year or two at the most. How prescient I was.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage is a bunch of hetero-adoptive queers behaving badly but if that's what these preppy-dressing boys want to do with their lives so be it.

Hmm. Interesting. Someday soon straight people getting married will be homo-adoptive.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I predicted here on T-V last year that same-sex marriage would be legalized in all 50 States in a year or two at the most. How prescient I was.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage is a bunch of hetero-adoptive queers behaving badly but if that's what these preppy-dressing boys want to do with their lives so be it.

Hmm. Interesting. Someday soon straight people getting married will be homo-adoptive.

Unfortunately yes. And this whole gay marriage issue is so bogus to begin with...it's just a bunch of members of the chic liberal crowd showing how "progressive" they are by patting their homo friends on the head and letting them get married...thinking that gays must for some reason want to ape their pathetic lifestyles and believing that this is some some burning issue in the gay community.

All the stories I have read show that maybe 20% of gays even care about gay marriage, and of that group 80% of them are lesbians. This makes sense as it's women who want to couple-up for the long term generally, not men, so the issue really is "lesbian marriage" not same sex marriage.

[sfokevin]

I am not judging anyone and people can do as they wish but I will say that extinction would be in their future without the ability to procreate.

It should be noted that gay married couples are having children through a number of means and 90+% of those children end up being straight - and none of those children are disowned by their parents for their sexual orientation...

[Jingthing]

I predicted here on T-V last year that same-sex marriage would be legalized in all 50 States in a year or two at the most. How prescient I was.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage is a bunch of hetero-adoptive queers behaving badly but if that's what these preppy-dressing boys want to do with their lives so be it.

Hmm. Interesting. Someday soon straight people getting married will be homo-adoptive.

Unfortunately yes. And this whole gay marriage issue is so bogus to begin with...it's just a bunch of members of the chic liberal crowd showing how "progressive" they are by patting their homo friends on the head and letting them get married...thinking that gays must for some reason want to ape their pathetic lifestyles and believing that this is some some burning issue in the gay community.

All the stories I have read show that maybe 20% of gays even care about gay marriage, and of that group 80% of them are lesbians. This makes sense as it's women who want to couple-up for the long term generally, not men, so the issue really is "lesbian marriage" not same sex marriage.

Sorry, but you don't even begin to have clue one about the decades long struggle for GLBT civil rights in the USA. I can speak with some authority as having interviewed one of the historic pioneers of the movement, Franklin Kameny, while I was a high school journalist. It is true the decision to focus on marriage equality came later in this CIVIL RIGHTS movement, which continues even after 50 state marriage equality is achieved because there are other perhaps more important issues as well, such as nationwide protection against discrimination in employment, housing, etc. It was actually a tactical decision to concentrate on marriage equality. Serious gay civil rights lobbyists well understand that is not the whole ball game, but the thinking is win that big one, so symbolic, and the rest of it will tend to be MUCH EASIER. Some people might not know in a number of U.S. states there are still anti-gay laws on the books that would give Putin a woody. Even if/when those states get marriage equality, those laws stand.

Assuming the supreme court rules on making it unconstitutional to discriminate against same sex in marriage, how much longer can the many, many anti-gay states laws (and anti-gay corporate policies, etc.) having nothing to do with marriage stand CONSTITUTIONALLY? The thinking is ... hopefully not very long.

Anyone who imagines this movement was ONLY about marriage rights is tripping.

Yes there has been a GAY AGENDA. It's really simple: 100 percent equality under the law in the USA, at the state and federal level.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

Procreation is a legal argument in law in these cases that the SCOTUS have decided to rule on.

The cases before the Court say a US state has the constitutional right to define marriage for the purpose of procreation, which would also mean a state has the concomitant constitutional right to deny a license to a same sex marriage. This legal argument is well known and has been rejected by the supreme courts of a dozen states and in almost every US district court and US appeals court in jurisdictions throughout the country.

In striking down prohibitive laws, the states supreme courts and the many US district and appeals courts have ruled marriage also includes a loving relationship in itself, adopted children, no children, insemination, poses no threat to traditional marriage, and it is an individual personal right provided in the constitution.

In 2013 SCOTUS allowed gay marriage in the California case it accepted but only because opponents petitioning the court had no standing, not because of any ruling on the merits of the different arguments for and against gay marriage. The liberal justices expressed their frustration at the court's majority decision to accept the case then to not rule on it directly.

So the comments of the "swing" Justice Anthony Kennedy in oral arguments this spring will be important to hear. Normally conservative and in the Court's 5-4 conservative majority, Kennedy in the California case said the concerns of the more than 40,000 adopted children of gay parents in the state might be more important than other considerations.

The court has applied its two and a half-hour rule of oral argument to this case instead of the standard one hour rule because there is so little documentation of such new laws and court rulings. The conservative Justice Samuel Alito has argued this line, saying gay marriage is newer than cell phones or the internet, so many more years and much more data are needed before the court can consider the question of gay marriage.

A ruling is expected around June.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Publicus

[OMGImInPattaya]

I predicted here on T-V last year that same-sex marriage would be legalized in all 50 States in a year or two at the most. How prescient I was.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage is a bunch of hetero-adoptive queers behaving badly but if that's what these preppy-dressing boys want to do with their lives so be it.

Hmm. Interesting. Someday soon straight people getting married will be homo-adoptive.

Unfortunately yes. And this whole gay marriage issue is so bogus to begin with...it's just a bunch of members of the chic liberal crowd showing how "progressive" they are by patting their homo friends on the head and letting them get married...thinking that gays must for some reason want to ape their pathetic lifestyles and believing that this is some some burning issue in the gay community.

All the stories I have read show that maybe 20% of gays even care about gay marriage, and of that group 80% of them are lesbians. This makes sense as it's women who want to couple-up for the long term generally, not men, so the issue really is "lesbian marriage" not same sex marriage.

Sorry, but you don't even begin to have clue one about the decades long struggle for GLBT civil rights in the USA. I can speak with some authority as having interviewed one of the historic pioneers of the movement, Franklin Kameny, while I was a high school journalist. It is true the decision to focus on marriage equality came later in this CIVIL RIGHTS movement, which continues even after 50 state marriage equality is achieved because there are other perhaps more important issues as well, such as nationwide protection against discrimination in employment, housing, etc. It was actually a tactical decision to concentrate on marriage equality. Serious gay civil rights lobbyists well understand that is not the whole ball game, but the thinking is win that big one, so symbolic, and the rest of it will tend to be MUCH EASIER. Some people might not know in a number of U.S. states there are still anti-gay laws on the books that would give Putin a woody. Even if/when those states get marriage equality, those laws stand.

Assuming the supreme court rules on making it unconstitutional to discriminate against same sex in marriage, how much longer can the many, many anti-gay states laws (and anti-gay corporate policies, etc.) having nothing to do with marriage stand CONSTITUTIONALLY? The thinking is ... hopefully not very long.

Anyone who imagines this movement was ONLY about marriage rights is tripping.

Yes there has been a GAY AGENDA. It's really simple: 100 percent equality under the law in the USA, at the state and federal level.

Civil rights and equal rights yes...if to some hetero-normative queers this means "marriage" then I'm down with that...just don't think it's a true part of gay culture.

[Jingthing]

Gay culture can continue. Yes there will be some weird and probably unwelcome changes such as pressure for one person in a couple to get married when they really don't want to. Before you could say, I'd love to, really I would, but darn it, it's not legal!