BREAKING: Supreme Court Will Decide Same-Sex Marriage Constitutionality This Term

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN / Associated Press / SCOTUSBlog

@SCOTUSblog: All four same-sex marriage petitions are granted.

@SCOTUSblog: Questions: does the 14th Amend. require permitting same sex marriage (90 mins argument) or to recognize a marriage from another state (60)

@SCOTUSblog: Get in line now: SSM arguments at SCOTUS will be the week of April 27; very likely April 29.

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue

By Mary Kay Mallonee, CNN
Updated 3:37 PM ET, Fri January 16, 2015

(CNN)The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday it will tackle the issue of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states are allowed to ban gay marriage.

The nine justices are expected to hear oral arguments in April and deliver a ruling by June.

Supreme Court gay marriage decision could have 2016 impact

The Court had before it petitions from four states -- Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan - all in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which recently went against the national trend and upheld gay marriage bans. The court granted petitions for all four states.

Earlier this month Florida became the 36th state in the country, in addition to the District of Columbia, to allow gay marriage.

MORE

Read more: Link to source

[shenmue]

1. Yaaaaaaaaay!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Aerows]

30. That is absolutely

adorable! Goats are so funny, and the caption is hilarious!

SQUEE!

[Purveyor]

2. Gay Marriage Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review in Landmark Case

By Greg Stohr Jan 16, 2015 3:31 PM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, accepting a case that may cap a transformational decade for gay rights with what would be a landmark civil rights ruling.

The court’s decision, likely to come in late June, could bring gay marriage to 14 more states and stand alongside the 1967 ruling that said interracial couples had a constitutional right to legally wed. Whatever the outcome, the case will be a defining moment for Chief Justice John Roberts’s court.

Both sides urged the Supreme Court to resolve a disagreement among the lower courts. Pro-marriage rulings by four federal appeals courts have helped triple the number of gay-marriage states since 2013. The justices will be reviewing the sole appellate ruling that said states could restrict marriage to heterosexual unions, a decision that applied to Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.

A Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage would be a watershed moment for a movement that as recently as 1996 had support from only 27 percent of the American public, according to a Gallup poll. The latest Gallup survey on the subject, conducted in May, showed 55 percent supporting gay marriage and 42 percent opposing.

A decision against marriage rights might have complicated ramifications. Most of the 36 states that issue gay-marriage licenses do so as a result of court rulings. A Supreme Court decision could nullify those decisions, leaving each state to sort out who can wed while raising questions about the rights of already-married couples.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-16/gay-marriage-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-landmark-case.html

[JimDandy]

12. Watershed moments are made by leaders

who get ahead of an issue and tackle it face on. This court is NOT a leader in this issue and is being forced by overwhelming public opinion, and 36 states, into rubber stamping a train schedule after the train has left the station.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. I don't want anyone to wait

But I'm worried with the make up of this SCOTUS - that they are getting ready to throw gay men and women under the bus.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I don't see how they could at this point.

They've already made it clear that this is an equal protection issue.

[JustAnotherGen]

21. I hope so!

I really hope so!


I'll be married three years in April. It is more than just a piece of paper to me - and everyone who wants their relationship recognized by the "state" should have that opportunity.

[RKP5637]

34. K&R!!!

[bluestateguy]

6. The Koch brothers favor gay marriage

as does much of this country's corporate elite.

Marriage equality does not interfere with the corporate bottom line, which has always been this court's top priority.

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. RW asshole Charles Schwab

was one of the first companies to offer same-sex benefits to their employees. Back in the 90s.

Now, it is a major recruiting tool for top talent. Not only those who would benefit from it, but those who want to see people benefit who need/want to.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. This is actually huge.

[arcane1]

7. Any idea what the rationale was for upholding the bans in those states?

I'm curious what their argument was. I have been unable to come up with one.

[Fearless]

23. It wasn't a rational decision, which is why the court decided to pick up the case

Essentially, the 6th Circuit Court decided that the other courts in other jurisdictions were wrong and that marriage equality wasn't a guarantee under the US Constitution.

That is the only reason the Supreme Court has decided to take up this matter. Originally they had said if all the lower courts agree, then there is no need to intervene. They had all agreed up until the 6th threw out all precedents and decided that everyone else was wrong in their judgments. This creates an unbalanced application of law throughout the US, where some places fall under one ruling and some fall under a contradictory ruling.

[arcane1]

25. Thanks! That is weird.

[Fearless]

26. At the time I had a feeling this would be the case that made it to the SJC

It was the only federal court decision that was against marriage equality this decade.

[arcane1]

27. And hopefully the last!!

[Fearless]

29. +1

[RKP5637]

35. Thanks!!! n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. I heard an analysis after that decision

That said they kicked it upstairs on purpose as it was dragging through the appellate courts with the same results, and they felt it best to just get a federal ruling and be done with it.

[Fearless]

43. I suppose, but the SJC can choose to pick up any case at any time

If they wanted. So I don't see them needing to do this.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. Double check me, but I believe this is Kagan's district

I think I remember that from what I heard that day. Which made sense to me.

[Fearless]

47. Yes, she is.

[LibertyLover]

8. I think it will go 5 to 4 in favor of marriage equality

Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts against, because of the Catholic and Opus Dei ties, and Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg for. I'd like it to be a wider majority, but don't think it's possible at this time.

[irisblue]

15. ^^This!^^

Scalia must be soooooo pissed

[Fearless]

24. You said Breyer twice... You mean Kennedy?

[LibertyLover]

51. Sorry

Hes, meant Kennedy. I was at work and drafting a loan agreement.

[Fearless]

52. No worries, just figured I'd point it out.

[NYC Liberal]

49. The same as US v Windsor. Sounds right.

[gopiscrap]

57. I think it is going to go 6-3

Just Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote against it I don't think Roberts wants to be on the losing side of such a major landmark case

[OnePercentDem]

9. It's 2015

Why is this still an issue?

[iandhr]

10. Once god starts talking to people all other rational thought goes out the window.

[OnePercentDem]

33. Do you mean

A direct line?

[blkmusclmachine]

39. +1

[onehandle]

11. It'll be upheld. This corporate SCOTUS is about lining the pockets of the rich.

This ruling will not only not cost corporations money, it will make them money.

[JimDandy]

14. +1

[hifiguy]

18. It is't about meta- or macro- money and that is why you are correct

Roberts doesn't want to be seen as bucking such a strong national tide on an issue in which $$$ are at the periphery.

[RKP5637]

31. Many corporations, huge ones, want this over and done with and in favor of gay marriage. They

are losing some employees in states with no gay marriage, and also unable to attract some new talent, and the administration of benefits is a nightmare. To me, none have ever been able to prove how have gay marriage across the land is detrimental to straight marriages and society in general. Most of the arguments wanting gay marriage banned are nonsensical IMO.

[JudyM]

42. Interesting. I wonder if they'll bring in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in the opinion...

That would be fun to see and also a pretty sweet irony ...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Links to other articles:

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Constitution Protects Same-Sex Marriage

From Joe.My.God:

BREAKING: Supreme Court To Consider All Four Cases From Sixth Circuit Court

LGBT Rights Groups React To SCOTUS

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Brace yourselves for the filth

that will be leaking out of Antonin Scalia's demented noggin.

[BrotherIvan]

36. My first thought as well

I hope it haunts him in his sleep. He's very high on my Die Already list.

[mountain grammy]

54. Between him and Cheney, both no 1 on mine.

[BrotherIvan]

56. Cheney is on top for me

Koch Bros have to be close, Scalia, Kissinger, all of them would make this country a better place by just shoving off this mortal coil.

[hifiguy]

17. You heard it here first

If there is a written, full-court decision the alignment will come out as follows

For marriage equaity: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Against: Soapy Sam Alito, Fat Tony Scalia, Uncle Ruckus

For the corporatist Roberts there is no skin in the game; this issue does not involve money and power on the macro levels and he's smart enough to want to be on the right side of history; he will tend to his legacy as C.J. by going with the national flow in the direction of gay marriage. He has a ton of precedent, especially in Posner's scorched-earth opinion, for so doing. Kennedy only has to reaffirm his already-known position stated when he authored the opinion that struck down the consensual sodomy laws. The rest don't need explanation.

Need I say that the dissents will be comedy gold?

[gopiscrap]

62. That's what I pretty much said in an earlier

thread. Being CJ Roberts doesn't want to be on the losing side of such a major landmark case. Also he wants to be able to assign who is going to draft the opinion.

[Fearless]

19. I hope they rule justly.

[irisblue]

20. Treat this US Citizen like every other Citizen

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Amen!

[RKP5637]

32. Exactly! None have ever demonstrated to me the benefit in banning gay marriages. n/t

[SoapBox]

28. It would seem that the barn doors have been open on SS marriage too long...

However, I have concerns that the 5 Righties will try to let through little bits and pieces...not recognized in all states ( state's rights bullshit), doesn't apply to certain benefits or such...

I think those 5 are untrustworthy.

[dembotoz]

37. sorry i do not trust them

[RKP5637]

44. Hmmm, same here. They will rule, but there could be some strangeness in the ruling. n/t

[sheshe2]

38. Kick and Hell Yes Recommend.

Do it right SCOTUS, do it right.

[Zorra]

46. Recommend. nt

[Flatpicker]

48. The assumption seems to be

That this will land in favor.

But, what happens if it doesn't?
Would SCOTUS falling 5-4 against cause all state ss marriages to be voided?

I don't understand what the ramifications would be. Can someone explain?

[Godhumor]

50. There would not be a federal ban

As the case is set up, a rolling against would mean that states could decide for themselves whether to show fast marriage.

There is a second question of whether a state that has banned gay marriage has to recognize marriages from other states. That should be a pretty simple yes or no.

The fallout from a ruling against equality would be an immediate re-challenge in lower courts for any state where the judiciary decided the issue. That would be the biggest risk to already established unions.

[forthemiddle]

53. All of the major Republican Presidential wannabes are clapping

You KNOW they wanted this decision out of the way before campaign season starts. They can now say "the Supreme Court has ruled, and it is now the law of the land, it no longer matters what I think about it".
This is basically what Scott Walker has already done in Wisconsin. As soon as the SC refused to hear its SS marriage ban case he quickly stated, it's no longer a campaign issue, don't ask me about it.
They may not be in favor of same sex marriage themselves, but it has become way too much of a hot button issue for them in the past few elections. It is kind of like gun control, very few Dem candidates will admit that they are pro gun control. They will hem and haw around the issue.

[mountain grammy]

55. The five corrupt judges will render their judgement on America.

This is a church state issue, like abortion, like health care, like science, etc. Although the separation of church and state is demanded by our Constitution, the 5 corrupt judges have ruled in favor of church interference in government. and they're well paid by the ruling class for their judgments.
Now, in the case of marriage, many of those who pay to play are in favor of equality, so, if the trend holds true and money trumps everything, we just might get a decision that allows for all citizens to have the constitutional right to marry. Imagine that!

I predict 5 to 4 in holding that anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional, and please, let the decision be so egregious to the dissenters that they pass away with great angst.

[roamer65]

58. First Roe v Wade, then a ruling for same-sex marriage.

Religious nutbag heads will truly explode.

[blkmusclmachine]

59. Hobby Lobby, Corporations are people, Money is free speech, voting rights, abortion protestors, etc.

This Court worries me!

[Beowulf42]

60. Sorry.

But I don't see this as good news. The SCOTUS idiots will split hairs and misinterpret everything about this movement, and the relevant parts of the Constitution. I foresee a national disaster created by these numb nuts just when same sex marriage rights are moving in the right direction. In June, if I am wrong, someone let me know and I will be happy to write an apology, but until then I'll be in my bunker hunkered down out of the hurricane.

[cstanleytech]

61. Its to bad that any justice who sides with the "they shouldnt be granted equal rights" cant be

removed because imo if they do side with that crowd they clearly are not fit to be a supreme court justice.