Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Update: Split decision on DOMA?

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Abraham Lincoln

Tripwhipper on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Sweet! Freedom means freedom for everyone.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I felt this would be the Friday dump when I read this issue might be on the courts list.
L

letget on December 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Can I just point out those robes aren’t uniforms … they’re costumes.

lm10001 on December 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Tripwhipper on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Good quote–and apt.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Sweet! Freedom means freedom for everyone.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Orwellian.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Watch CJ Roberts find a hidden tax in the DOMA stating that all single people have to pay a tax for not being married.

Good and Plenty Clause!

/

CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

DOMA=Tax

Gay Marriage=Tax.

Next.

JPeterman on December 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Sweet! Freedom means freedom for everyone.

- Couples For Incest 2020

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Natural progression.

NapaConservative on December 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Watch CJ Roberts find a hidden tax in the DOMA stating that all single people have to pay a tax for not being gay married. CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Akzed on December 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

“We have decided to decide if we are God.” -SCOTUS

Akzed on December 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama.

This option is the most troubling because it would imply that they think one of them won’t last for the next four years.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If you think it’s bad now, just wait.

Akzed on December 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Divorce lawyers are licking their chops!!

Deano1952 on December 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So if marriage just becomes the state sanctioning of who can form a couple, then why should the state be involved at all?

MechanicalBill on December 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Watch CJ Roberts find a hidden tax in the DOMA stating that all single people have to pay a tax for not being married.

Good and Plenty Clause!

/

CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Since there already is a tax for being married, wouldn’t we then be taxed for merely existing?

Oh…wait. ObamaCare answered that guestion.

BobMbx on December 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You assume that Roberts is still part of the “conservative” wing. I don’t.

Steve Eggleston on December 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

THIS. I think this is exactly what will happen. The case against Prop 8 is weak, as is the case for DOMA. Let the states decide this, and avoid the sort of permanent social and political war that resulted from Roe v. Wade.

Reinhardt practically wrote a love letter to Justice Kennedy in his Prop 8 ruling, but probably overplayed that hand. The problem in that case is Judge Walker’s original ruling, which as a matter of law is patently ridiculous.

rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Smirky Roberts to the rescue!

Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

The SCOTUS has already betrayed the United States Constitution, no hope or prayer that they will do anything other than Betray America again. They will rule both unconstitutional.

Why the Obama Administration keeps misreading the Arab spring.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Further prediction – Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black rule that churches must perform and sanction gay marriages or lose their tax and PlaceboCare exemptions.

Steve Eggleston on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Steve Eggleston on December 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Exactly right.

kingsjester on December 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

When was the last time conservatives won anything significant in the legislative or in the judicial branch?

Feels like forever. Regardless of the outcome here, SSM is a done deal, its just a matter of time…

joepub on December 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Will Caligula’s Horse get a vote, too?

kingsjester on December 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Never been an issue with more jackassed distortions arguing in favor of it.

I predict 6-3 in favor of the homosexuals, unfortunately. With only Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting.

Save your tired leftist / socially “moderate” (ignorant) bullshit. Civil unions and an inexpensive modicum of legal work give all the ‘protections’ homosexuals pretend this is about. But marriage as a title is a religion-seated union that has historically predominently meant one woman to one man. Forcing its redefinition to include homosexuals is as asinine as the poster above calling it ‘freedom’. And as perverse as forcing religion-sponsored medical facilities and operations to support abortion. It is deliberate deconstructionism and it should be met with lethal force.

rayra on December 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

GOP is EEEEEEEVIL against gays. Muslims, on the other, hand really love gays. Ask them.

NapaConservative on December 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

6-3 supporting gay marriage.

We’re living in Sodom and Gomorrah/Rome/Ancient Greece in the final days of their glory.

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

Right. Just like Brown v Board of Education in 1954, a positive ruling by the Court will simply force the bigots back under their hoods. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans will walk together into a saner future.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable.

$5 says both are struck down and Roberts is the 5th vote, not Kennedy.

Kataklysmic on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Why do we even bother to vote?

BallisticBob on December 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

PappyD61

Too bad we can’t send you back to Ancient Rome.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Sweet! Freedom means freedom for everyone.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Agreed. ALL must pay taxes.

Eliminate all marriage. It’s so passe.

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Why the Obama Administration keeps misreading the Arab spring.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

How hilariously and bitterly stupid. They’re not misreading a damned thing. They are deliberately fomenting revolution to destabilze those governments and hand power to muslim jihadist fanatics, and tilting those neighbor nations towards the active destruction of Israel. Plain as day. Anyone who thinks their policy is amateurish, misreading, or an accident is a god-damned moron.

rayra on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Why not 3 men?

Why not 2 brothers?

A father and a son?

A goat…

faraway on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Homosexuality is not a race, idjit.

Please cite the genetic factors for me.

kingsjester on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Why is the federal government in the marriage-definition business again?

Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

And let’s face it, we all know how that’s going to turn out. Nobody, including that gaggle on the supreme court give a big rat’s backside what conservative people believe or think.

Move on . . . nothing here.

rplat on December 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

6-3 supporting gay marriage.

We’re living in Sodom and Gomorrah/Rome/Ancient Greece in the final days of their glory.

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

LOL

Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Next up?..

…churches will have their non-profit status revoked along with any state licenses for “ministers” unless the agree to array the homosexuals.

….and at some point you could see cities refusing to allow building expansions or construction of churches or other organizations that don’t support gay/transgender/tri-sexual marriage.

Chicago alderman essentially warned Chik-Fil-A about that earlier this Summer.

Welcome to Sodomerica!

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

o bad we can’t send you back to Ancient Rome.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

thank you for being honest sodomite.

this is the kind of candor the godless reprobates need to employ with greater fervor.

tom daschle concerned on December 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

faraway on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Exactly…it has no end.

joepub on December 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Steve Eggleston on December 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I disagree, I don’t think they’ll use sanctions. The goal here is to shut down the Bible-believing churches. Instead they’ll use huge punitive damages or simply shut them down while pointing out that they’re not against religion, because they haven’t shut down the Gospel of Marx Churches like ECUSA and United Methodists. Remeber what the Romans said: you can worship whatever god you want, so long as you worship Caesar first.

mabryb1 on December 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Bigots?

Propaganda Technique #1: Name Calling.

When we spot an example of Name Calling, we must ask ourselves these questions:

What does the name mean?

Does the idea in question-the proposal of the propagandist-have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?

Is an idea that serves my best interests and the best interests of society, as I see them, being dismissed through giving it a name I don’t like?

In other words, leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

We must constantly remind ourselves of the danger of omnibus-word reactions. Such reactions, rather than detailed appraisals of a philosophy and its ideals, are what we commonly encounter.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Marry not array.

IPad thingy.

:-)

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

10 quadrillion years of darkness!!!11

lester on December 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I’m surprised.

I don’t understand why. We have conflicting lower court rulings concerning the federal DOMA, and that awful ruling concerning Californian’s right to amend their own constitution. SCOTUS was only going to dodge this issue if the lower courts weren’t overturning the federal DOMA left and right, and if that criminal district court judge in California didn’t exist. I’m surprised you’re surprised. Whether or not we agree with the constitutional interpretations of the different courts they still follow general legal rules concerning conflicting rulings and overturned law. You are politicizing the process far too much in your analysis.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

thank you for being honest sodomite.

LOL. Good luck in the next election!

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Why is the federal government in the marriage-definition business again?

Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Because many federal benefits are contingent upon marital status.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM

SCOTUS blog says the announcement was to consider, not necessarily decide.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Bigots?

Yes. Gay marriage will be the law of the land and absolutely nothing will happen to ‘traditional’ marriage. Much like the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the segregation crowd in the 1950s.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

But marriage as a title is a religion-seated union that has historically predominantly meant one woman to one man. Forcing its redefinition to include homosexuals is as asinine as the poster above calling it ‘freedom’.

rayra on December 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM


This

HotAirian on December 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Right. Just like Brown v Board of Education in 1954, a positive ruling by the Court will simply force the bigots back under their hoods. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans will walk together into a saner future.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Yeah because being black involves behavior that 97% of humanity doesn’t engage in… Sorry sweetie, but no matter how many courts legalize gay couplings- they will always be an oddity because humans are programmed to reproduce.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Why not 3 men?

Why not 2 brothers?

A father and a son?

A goat…

faraway on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Why not? If states aren’t allowed to define marriage then why can’t anyone marry anyone else or anything else?

Let’s shoot the gay marriage movement in the throat and revoke all state and federal benefits for spouses. And while we’re at it get the states out of the marriage business altogether. Let them reap what they sow.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:01 PM

It is deliberate deconstructionism and it should be met with lethal force.

rayra on December 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

What does this mean? You want people signing gay marriage certificates shot, or something?

The vote will be in favor of gay marriage, no two ways about it. And I’m betting one of the conservatives joins Kennedy and the libs. (Isn’t it funny that here, again, we KNOW how the progs on the Court will vote…it’s only a question of how the conservatives might. Yet it’s conservatives who are the ideologues…)

changer1701 on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Yes. Gay marriage will be the law of the land and absolutely nothing will happen to ‘traditional’ marriage. Much like the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the segregation crowd in the 1950s.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Yep nothing other than constitutional protections for polygamists and incestuous couples. Because it it is a “right” to marry and the state can’t regulate it then they can’t regulate it for ANYONE. I mean equal is equal and fair is fair.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

If the Federal Government can weigh in on this (and they shouldn’t), then next up has to be bigamy and polygamy. Before you take me for a bigot, I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against the Feds having a say in it. This is not a Federal issue, it’s a state issue. But the feds were the ones who forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy as a condition of statehood.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Did anyone catch the little phrase stating that ruling against homosexual marriage now doesn’t mean a lib court can’t overturn later? You never hear leftists talk like that. The conservative losers mentality on full display.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Freedom means freedom for everyone.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Tautologies are. Now define “freedom”.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

If the Federal Government can weigh in on this (and they shouldn’t), then next up has to be bigamy and polygamy. Before you take me for a bigot, I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against the Feds having a say in it. This is not a Federal issue, it’s a state issue. But the feds were the ones who forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy as a condition of statehood.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Exactly.. If it is unconstitutional for a state to regulate marriage then there that applies equal for all types of marriage. Marriage becomes something else.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

They have DP cases that the families of the victims have been waiting almost 20 years for the sentence to be carried out, that the court has had before it 6 months and they still have not decided whether to grant cert or not. They need to get off their collective senior a$$es.

Blake on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Did anyone catch the little phrase stating that ruling against homosexual marriage now doesn’t mean a lib court can’t overturn later? You never hear leftists talk like that. The conservative losers mentality on full display.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Good thing we got us some super smart trolls to interpret things for us. The only thing that might possibly upset such a brilliant analysis would be the fact that AP supports legalizing gay marriage…oh wait…

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.

Right, like every other social issue. It’s called federalism, and it should be the conservative stance.

cpaulus on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Why not 3 men?

Why not 2 brothers?

A father and a son?

A goat…

faraway on December 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Oh wait, just you wait! It’s coming.

milemarker2020 on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Did anyone catch the little phrase stating that ruling against homosexual marriage now doesn’t mean a lib court can’t overturn later? You never hear leftists talk like that. The conservative losers mentality on full display.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Is he wrong?

changer1701 on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

And Churches etc. will be forced to perform them, or risk their tax exempt status. The ACLU won’t rest until Christian churches are closed down for believing as they wish.

AmeriCuda on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Tautologies are. Now define “freedom”.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

:)

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

If the Federal Government can weigh in on this (and they shouldn’t), then next up has to be bigamy and polygamy. Before you take me for a bigot, I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against the Feds having a say in it. This is not a Federal issue, it’s a state issue. But the feds were the ones who forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy as a condition of statehood.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

No, it will be challenges to the age of consent. The ultimate goal is to normalize man-boy relationships that are now considered pedophilia. Ruth Bader Ginsburg already said years ago that she thinks an age of consent of 12 would be perfectly fine.

rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Right, like every other social issue. It’s called federalism, and it should be the conservative stance.

cpaulus on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

There is nothing remotely conservative about redefining marriage.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

With this decision we will see the accomplishment of the Bush clan and what they did to the GOP. Let’s see how Roberts decides. And if he decides like I think he will, why do we still support the GOP?

milemarker2020 on December 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Did anyone catch the little phrase stating that ruling against homosexual marriage now doesn’t mean a lib court can’t overturn later? You never hear leftists talk like that. The conservative losers mentality on full display.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

No. AP is in favor of redefining marriage.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Is he wrong?

changer1701 on December 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Yeah, I’m sure we’ll never see a future challenge to the Citizens United case from the left if SCOTUS gets a couple of more liberal justices. *eyeroll*

The typical liberal retort to anything: Shut up!

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Gay marriage will be the law of the land and absolutely nothing will happen to ‘traditional’ marriage.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Considering traditional marriage has been on the decline for decades, I find the latter prediction to be very unlikely.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Did anyone catch the little phrase stating that ruling against homosexual marriage now doesn’t mean a lib court can’t overturn later? You never hear leftists talk like that. The conservative losers mentality on full display.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Because they never give up. Their whole existence is to “progress” society into something unrecognizable. When conservatives fight back on this change; they are called bigots etc. and shoving THEIR morals down everyone’s throat. People just get a little sick of it all. Frankly, I am at the point of giving the whining crybabies what they want. When their fascists tendencies come out again for the next “civil right”: we will all tell our progressive tolerant Republican friends- WE FRICKING TOLD YOU SO…but by then it will be too late.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Notcoach having read enough of your posts I wouldn’t talk about anyone’s brilliance or lack thereof, sfb.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

This isn’t the end game, it’s only the beginning. The end game (for now) is to force churches/religions to perform and sanction SSMs or get out of the marriage business altogether. Of course, one special religion will be exempted.

jdp629 on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

No, it will be challenges to the age of consent. The ultimate goal is to normalize man-boy relationships that are now considered pedophilia. Ruth Bader Ginsburg already said years ago that she thinks an age of consent of 12 would be perfectly fine.

rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Also a state issue, not Federal. None of this is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. If the states are OK with it, then fine. Again, not the Fed’s business.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Wait, wait – you’re still pretending Roberts is part of the ‘conservative wing’ of the court?

Pray tell, why?

Midas on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Meh. This SCOTASS is nothing but a joke. Their opinions are laughable parodies of jurisprudence. Benedict Roberts isn’t qualified to sit on anything but a park bench. If it weren’t for the Indonesian being in the White House and the Senate GOP being a bunch of cowards I’d advocate Roberts’ immediate impeachment and expulsion from the SCOTASS … but, as things stand, might as well leave the idiot in there until the national divorce. In the meantime, nothing they say has any meaning or value. After all, we are living well outside of the Rule of Law and everything comes down to the whim of the inept, Dog-Eating Retard at Pennsylvania Avenue, who has been allowed to do anything that popped into that pathetic pea-brain of his.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Also a state issue, not Federal. None of this is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. If the states are OK with it, then fine. Again, not the Fed’s business.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Agreed, but who exactly is making it a federal issue?

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

If the states are OK with it, then fine. Again, not the Fed’s business.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Then we have a large problem with the full faith and credit clause.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Notcoach having read enough of your posts I wouldn’t talk about anyone’s brilliance or lack thereof, sfb.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Does that mean my star shines too brightly for you to see straight and give a decent retort?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Political correctnes and affirmative action has slowly destryoed this, once great, nation.

This gay circus is driving the stake through her heart.

NapaConservative on December 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Melle you got my point. (NB I misread the author so civilly toned points well taken) nevertheless the way you described the leftists is right. And look at the responses of the people who rightfully oppose homomarriage- exactly as I described.

avgjo on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Oh, one other thing: Why do they get to be called “progressives” when they fight any change to decades old programs like social security and medicare/medicaid and want to go back to the “good old days” of the 1990s tax rates?

jdp629 on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Then we have a large problem with the full faith and credit clause.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Explain.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wait, wait – you’re still pretending Roberts is part of the ‘conservative wing’ of the court?

Pray tell, why?

Midas on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

On this issue I would count him as part of the so called conservative wing. Not because he opposes gay marriage, but because he generally opposes usurping legislative authority. He is likely to vote to uphold the federal DOMA and California’s right to amend its own constitution. What he is apparently truly afraid to do is to uphold the constitution when it means invalidating a law.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Interracial marriage was reviled for all types of BS reasons too.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Oh, one other thing: Why do they get to be called “progressives” when they fight any change to decades old programs like social security and medicare/medicaid and want to go back to the “good old days” of the 1990s tax rates?

jdp629 on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Cause progressive is when libs get free sh!t from earners.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Now define “freedom”.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Your right to choose the direction of your own life so long as you don’t inhibit the liberties of others.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

What rights are homosexuals currently denied?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

This is the time when I would love to listen to the ol’ Opie and Anthony takedown of Olby after his Prop 8 rant several years back. And it’s NSFW.

guido911 on December 7, 2012 at 5:19 PM

All of this talk of states issues reminds me of the similar talk about slavery and states prior to the Civil War.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

So when are gays going to sue Mother Nature and have the court mandate that they be allowed to procreate?

GarandFan on December 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Right. Just like Brown v Board of Education in 1954, a positive ruling by the Court will simply force the bigots back under their hoods. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans will walk together into a saner future.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You can marry anyone you wish as far as I’m concerned. Why should you be special and not suffer the same consequences, or pay the same price?

However, to equate this with slavery is an enormous indignity to slavery.

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 5:21 PM

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage.

I’ll never see the equal protection argument that gays are trying to make. Gender, race, nationality, religious belief–all logical. But behavior in the form of unsafe, aberrant sexual conduct? That warrants elevation to the same reverential status as marriage between a man and a woman, a union that has been and continues to be the backbone of an ordered society? No phucking way.

BuckeyeSam on December 7, 2012 at 5:21 PM

AP knows when to come back from vacation.

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Get a brain. Family members have no “right” to marry each other. You would argue the same for incest because you are a depraved, demented individual.

There is a right to “marriage” as it has been known for millenia, for the purposes of forming a family and procreating – i.e. a male and a female of appropriate characteristics (age, not family, etc.) – not just because any two or more people decide they want to touch each others’ genitals with government certification. You can call gay pretend marriage to be “marriage” but that doesn’t make it so.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:22 PM

We’re facing a government spending-induced economic meltdown and we waste our time fighting over crap like this?

I don’t give a flying Focker whether or not two manjos want to get fake-married. If that’s what they want, fine. Whatever. I’m a bit more concerned about our $200T in unfunded liabilities. (You know, stuff that actually affects my life.)

EddieC on December 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

And that same SCOTUS who ruled on Loving agreed with the Minnesota Supreme Court that homosexuals unions were not the same as interracial unions see Baker v. Nelson.

If you use one ruling to back up your case– you have to cite the sister case..

Interracial marriage was reviled for all types of BS reasons too.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Yeah the difference is that an interracial couple can create a legal pair bond WITHOUT the state by having a child, so it is in the state’s interest to recognize and put that pair bond under state watch. Gheys can’t legally pairbond naturally.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8