Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage
The decision on whether to hear the case could be a hard call for both the court’s conservatives and liberals.
Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit’s ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”
If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case…
Still, the court’s liberals also may hesitate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though a leading women’s rights legal advocate, has said she thought the court made a mistake in the 1970s by moving too fast to declare a national right to abortion.
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 Next »
Praying this won’t be another Roe, or we’ve lost the culture battle for good at the federal level.
MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Ahh equal protection and yet hate crime laws are considered constitutional.
oryguncon on November 25, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Elana Kagan can marry Sonia Sotomayor.
portlandon on November 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM
It’s a tax.
Next.
profitsbeard on November 25, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Just exudes “hotness”. Me go take a cold shower now.
arnold ziffel on November 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM
The pagan rite of child sacrifice was made legal under the premise of “privacy”
Can’t wait to hear what made up right legalized sodomy falls under.
tom daschle concerned on November 25, 2012 at 10:35 PM
They better hurry before Obama puts all gays on the court!
Warner Todd Huston on November 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM
My father just pointed out to me “Better now than later”, which I hadn’t thought about.
I didn’t want the SCOTUS to rule on it at all – but he’s right. I mean, really, are things supposed to go uphill in the forseeable future?
MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM
They caved on Obamacare with their fraudulent “tax” decision.
They can twist themselves into any ‘legal’ position they prefer if the popular mood will not riot on the contortionist ruling.
They should have all been impeached and ejected after the Obamacare idiocy.
profitsbeard on November 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM
As I understand it, Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment (to the CA constitution), and was thrown out for… violating the CA constitution.
If you see the problem, you’re with me in thinking this should be a no-brainer decision.
Atlas on November 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
32 states have banned homosexual marriage in their constitutions, if you think they’re just going to lie down and let a single judge overturn the clear will of the people, they’re quite wrong.
Rebar on November 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM
what could go wrong?
ted c on November 25, 2012 at 11:28 PM
How does that sound?
cam2 on November 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Stupid. How antebellum of you…
tom daschle concerned on November 25, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Like you’re a moonbat with the IQ of a parakeet.
MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Neither the federal nor the state government should be involved in marriage. However, government is involved in marriage. When government got involved in marriage, it ceased to be a religious institution and became a civil one.
I don’t see how restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is consistent with the 14th Amendment.
eaglescout_1998 on November 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Maybe not this year or even this decade, but like it or not, the writing’s on the wall…
cam2 on November 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM
OK, you happy that mankind is slouching towards gomorrah.
I hope you are ‘man’ enough to accept what you reap. I know you will not be able to. Enter schadenfreude.
tom daschle concerned on November 25, 2012 at 11:43 PM
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN
MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM
so the federal gov’t is ruling on whether the “town of make believe” exists? go for it losers there is only $20 trillion in make believe debt stopping you.
newrouter on November 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM
hey mormons polygamy is back
newrouter on November 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM
I’m not worried. I live in a state that allows gay marriage. It hasn’t affected my marriage, nor anyone else’s that I know. Two of the houses in my neighborhood are owned by gay couples raising their families. They are kind and lovely people. My daughter babysits their children. She hasn’t developed “cooties” yet.
cam2 on November 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM
moe meet aisha aisha moe. easy moe she’s 9
newrouter on November 25, 2012 at 11:54 PM
you’re an anti darwin fundamentalist. “gays” don’t reproduce you ignorant public school trash.
newrouter on November 25, 2012 at 11:57 PM
red herring, an informal fallacy.
tom daschle concerned on November 26, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Well, my neighbor just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy, so some gays clearly reproduce.
P.S. I think anti-Darwin fundamentalists generally go to private school or are home-schooled.
cam2 on November 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM
So you are ignorant and stupid. shame…
tom daschle concerned on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Apparently. I guess I can only pray that some day I’ll be as enlightened and intelligent as you. Until then, good night.
cam2 on November 26, 2012 at 12:32 AM
not they don’t anti darwin loser. turkey basters don’t count for lesbians. same sex = anti darwin loser
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 12:37 AM
alinsky alinsky alinsky to the anti darwin peeps
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 12:38 AM
woman can make babies from the sperm of males you anti science reactionary!
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 12:41 AM
cam2 – sharia compliant lady parts butcher. allen ackbar cam
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 12:44 AM
And while we’re at it, a muslim man is allowed to have max 4 wives. How can we stop those in love from marrying? It wouldn’t be ‘fair’. Theres ‘marriage equality’. We should fight for their civil rights too. /s
tommy71 on November 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM
The real problem with “gay marriage” is that the government is changing the definition of marriage to just being a government sanctioning of who can form a couple. If that’s the case, then government no longer has a reason to be involved at all. It was a method of encouraging the production of future tax payers into an environment that could reduce the likelihood that they turn into tax burdens. But they have been chipping away at that for decades to the point that it is near useless for that. So government may need to get out anyway. But gays have been offered “civil unions” by both parties. That would have let everyone have their cake. But, as is typical with special interest groups, the gay marriage advocates won’t have that. They want “marriage”. It’s not clear if they just really love word, nanny government could give the acceptance their parents won’t, they want to insist on putting a thumb in the eye of the traditional and religious, or they like the attention. But for a group that once fought successfully to get government out of the bedroom, they seem to want to bring it back in with enthusiasm.
MechanicalBill on November 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM
You need to be praying for something else altogether patriot.
tom daschle concerned on November 26, 2012 at 12:55 AM
have a merry cruise on the good ship algore/titantic anti darwin
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 1:13 AM
cam2 !!! sex 101 male + female = baby. i know “public education” has shifted on this topic recently.
newrouter on November 26, 2012 at 1:17 AM
I’m not married myself, but don’t married couples pay taxes at a higher rate? Wouldn’t married lgtb couples then contribute more revenue?
RINOs are people too on November 26, 2012 at 1:41 AM
To be fair, “they” didn’t cave, one man named John Roberts caved.
xblade on November 26, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Racist.
xblade on November 26, 2012 at 3:29 AM
Well polygamy is far more traditional and biblical that monogamy…
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:11 AM
If you have to rely upon SCOTUS or the passing of laws to “win” cultural battles than you’ve already lost. Neither have much meaning when a majority or even a sizeable minority reject them. Win them over first and then the laws will follow.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:14 AM
As I understand it, Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment (to the CA constitution), and was thrown out for… violating the CA constitution.
If you see the problem, you’re with me in thinking this should be a no-brainer decision.
Atlas on November 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Uh…no. Proposition 8 has lost in Federal court not on the basis of violating the California Constitution, but the US Constitution. Specifically, the 14th Amendment was cited by both the district and appeals courts as where this state amendment ran afoul of. Now whether SCOTUS agrees remains to be seen.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:16 AM
Way to miss the point bucko.
Here’s what’s at stake: if the SCOTUS greenlights pervert ‘marriage’, it blows to hell all the state-level efforts to ban it, and the floodgates will be opened a la Roe, where one decision unleashed a tidal wave of wickedness. Get it now?
MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:19 AM
That’s simply not true. Putting aside the alleged inadequacies of civil unions, the GOP has fought efforts to enact them in just about every state where they have been proposed. Indeed, in most of the 32 states where amendments have passed the GOP and its soc-con allies have backed explicit prohibitions of not just same-sex marriage but also civil unions/DPs.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM
If you go to that horrifying display of sodomite depravity (and San Francisco tradition) known as the Folsom Street Fair, you can buy a “Baby Jesus butt plug” so I am guessing the answer is #3: they just like poking their collective thumb in the eye of religion.
Odysseus on November 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Back atcha. I understood your point, but you apparently missed mine. The very fact that you have to rely so heavily upon these is an indication that you are losing the cultural battle. I’m not suggesting giving up that effort, even though I strongly disagree with you and wouldn’t mind if you did, just that you fighting a losing war unless you change people’s hearts and minds on this matter. Until then you will be constantly putting out brush fires as they keep cropping up all over and they’ll eventually overrun you.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Yes, because we all know that gays are exactly alike and agree with everything another gay person does just because they are also gay. Why, it’s just like the liberal stereotype of troglodyte Christians that folks like Bill Maher just love to hype. Yep, there are no other Christians than these and everyone knows they are all the alike.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Slippery slope it is. And they don’t even see it, do they? Oh noes.
tommy71 on November 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM
They don’t see it? Just look at the liberal f*ckwit who spit on someone who dared to point out the end result of sanctioning perversion.
Though he is right about one thing, IMHO: if the SCOTUS is our last hope than we really have lost the battle, and now we’re relying on emergency measures.
MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »