Supreme Court may not rule this year on gay discrimination

[Craig234]

Here is a possible result of the current trials that anti-discrimination advocates are hoping will get the court to issue a Brown v. Board of education-like equality decree:

Prop 8: Because the State of California has declined to defend the proposition, the court may find the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case and dismiss it.

This would be a victory for anti-discrimination in that it would leave the ruling in place striking down the proposition, but it would not rule on discrimination.

Ironically, the CA Attorney General Election had the Democrat running on the position she won't defend it; her opponent said they would. That was intended to be the anti-discrimination position - but it may cause the issue not to get the ruling on the merits desired because she did not defend the proposition.

DOMA: DOMA is very likely going to be struck down. But it's possible only a minority of justices want to make that ruling on the basis of discrimination; swinger Kennedy is asking questions suggesting he supports the position that it should be struck down simply on states' rights grounds that the federal government is exceeding its constitutional powers by encroaching on the definition of marriage (that would also presumably prevent the federal government from passing an anti-discrimination law should it want to).

These positions are not for sure, but they are a decent chance of what will happen, where the court will not take a position on the highly-anticipated issue of equality.

It would leave states free to have discrimination in the law until another state has a challenge to such a law - which would reference the Prop 8 case - and wins their case.

 

[Craig234]

Without any responses, I'll add another comment:

If the court does go this way, it creates a problem of long-term inconsistencies between states with same-sex marriage and without; if you live in a state with it, you get federal benefits; if you live in a state without it, you don't. Even if you marry in a state with it and move to one without, you stop getting federal benefits.

That's just a huge mess and not a great solution by the court.

It might be useful for some of them as one fitting their ideology and letting them avoid the issue of discrimination being unconstitutional, but leaves problems.

 

[pauldun170]

Without any responses, I'll add another comment:
if you live in a state with it, you get federal benefits; if you live in a state without it, you don't. Even if you marry in a state with it and move to one without, you stop getting federal benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

If federal law specifically states I get a puppy, state law cannot say I am forbidden to get puppy.

 

[Craig234]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

If federal law specifically states I get a puppy, state law cannot say I am forbidden to get puppy.

Striking down DOMA isn't the federal law saying you get a puppy - it's striking down a law that says you can't have one.

You're right that it leaves the equal protection issue wide open, which is why I'm criticizing it. That'd be a future lawsuit.

The Court doesn't rule on equal protection just because it's violated by a state law.

It just rules on the suit in front of it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Just a quick note - I think some are overplaying their hand, here.

I've heard too many "Civil Rights" comparisons being used as leverage, by many uneducated people it seems. This puts pressure on the Court, and maybe the GOP. It may backfire.

Pick up a history book -- gays aren't anywhere near the neighborhood as blacks are in terms of discrimination and presecution. Frankly, it should be offensive to those who endured the racism and bigotry in this country for decades -- it belittles what blacks went through for gays act as if they're being persecuted. I don't think they really know what it is.

I've yet to see a "Striaghts" only restroom.... or gays being forced to give up their seats on crowded buses, or have a known hate group out lynching them and killing them without punishment... or an all "Straight" Jury aquitting straghts of their crimes against them.

There have been hate crimes against them, they have been treated unfairly, but to compare this to blacks being denied human rights is blatanty dishonest and asinine -- its no comparison.

It's one thing to want equal rights... it's another thing to act as if you're being persecuted.

 

[LumbergTech]

Just a quick note - I think some are overplaying their hand, here.

I've heard too many "Civil Rights" comparisons being used as leverage, by many uneducated people it seems. This puts pressure on the Court, and maybe the GOP. It may backfire.

Pick up a history book -- gays aren't anywhere near the neighborhood as blacks are in terms of discrimination and presecution. Frankly, it should be offensive to those who endured the racism and bigotry in this country for decades -- it belittles what blacks went through for gays act as if they're being persecuted. I don't think they really know what it is.

I've yet to see a "Striaghts" only restroom.... or gays being forced to give up their seats on crowded buses, or have a known hate group out lynching them and killing them without punishment... or an all "Straight" Jury aquitting straghts of their crimes against them.

There have been hate crimes against them, they have been treated unfairly, but to compare this to blacks being denied human rights is blatanty dishonest and asinine -- its no comparison.

It's one thing to want equal rights... it's another thing to act as if you're being persecuted.

People can hide the fact that they are gay. Pretty difficult to pretend not to be black. You clearly have not done your research if you don't know about the horrible stuff that has been done to gays. Not having equal rights, especially the types of rights they are seeking, is persecution.

 

[Retro Rob]

People can hide the fact that they are gay. Pretty difficult to pretend not to be black. You clearly have not done your research if you don't know about the horrible stuff that has been done to gays. Not having equal rights, especially the types of rights they are seeking, is persecution.

Oh.. no doubt that horrible stuff have been done to gays. But to compare this with the centuries of slavery (which gays haven't been, as far as I know.... correct me if I am wrong), murder, rape, dehumanization.... there is no comparision.

 

[Eureka]

I have to agree with Rob M. It seems kind of cold-hearted, but the gay-rights movement is less about a basic right as it is more about quality of life.

Simply put, if we let the gay marriage issue slip a year, nobody is going to die, or go hungry, or be denied rights that any other individual would have. They can still vote, work, and breathe like every other person.

The black civil rights movement was major; it meant voting rights, working rights, education rights and public rights. In today's society, to be gay doesn't mean you give up any of those rights. You may be harassed about it, but that's something that can happen to anyone for anything.

The reason why it's going to be hard to do anything about DOMA is because it's not a basic living right. The rights they are asking for is about marriage, and more specifically, the tax and cost issues related to marriage. Giving those tax breaks and monetary benefits now runs into the issue that taxes are paid by everyone, so you have to tread carefully and not step on anyone's toes.

 

[JEDIYoda]

First DOMA is history that`s a given.....
Just look at the questions that were posed by the Supreme court,,,the hand writing is on the wall DOMA is history....

Yet I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will turn their backs on any sort of landmark decision concerning gay marriage. In fact I believe the supreme court will make that a state by state issue...after it nullifies the proposition 8 vote..

 

[werepossum]

I agree with Rob that the level of discrimination between blacks and gays is not even comparable. However, the principle is exactly the same, that government should not have the power to discriminate (treat individuals differently) without a compelling argument as to why that discrimination is necessary.

This issue is as close to having no down side as anything SCOTUS is likely to hear. Personally, I don't see why this is not a no-brainer, five minute debate in chamber.

 

[randomrogue]

So they can't get married. Is there anything else that they can't do? This is not even remotely in the same league as the civil rights movement of the 60's.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree with Rob that the level of discrimination between blacks and gays is not even comparable. However, the principle is exactly the same, that government should not have the power to discriminate (treat individuals differently) without a compelling argument as to why that discrimination is necessary.

This issue is as close to having no down side as anything SCOTUS is likely to hear. Personally, I don't see why this is not a no-brainer, five minute debate in chamber.

I don't want to overthink this -- this would be a no-brainer if people stop blowing it out of proportions.

If this was indeed presented to the Courts as comparable to the Civil Rights Movement -- which I doubt anyone we take seriously is proposing -- it should be thown out and left up to the States on those grounds.

That's why I say it could backfire. If I were in charge of this, and folks were arguing as if gays are being treated as sub-human and/or as blacks were, I'd laugh, then have them escorted out of the courtroom before tossing the case.

I'd be a more willing listener and more sympathetic if we just leave it to marriage and whether or not they should be denied it. But if we want to toss even interracial marriage into the debate (btw -- 70 something percent of Americans were against interracial Marriage) then I'd toss it out and leave it to the States.

EDIT:.. and those on the pro-traditional side of marriage need to stop acting as if this will spark Armageddon. True, I am for traditiona marriage, but I'm not going to marry a guy - nor are gay marriages gonna make my marriage any less than what it is now. You won't catch me casting a vote either way.

 

[chucky2]

The only reason gay "marriage" is being linked to the same thing as the black movement of interracial marriage is so those supporting the gay cause can extract as much shame political capital from it as possible. Nothing more. It's a club the gay supporters use to club people who chose not to think critically about an argument into agreeing the issues are the same, so as to gain support for their cause.

It's wrong of course...but when has that stopped anyone with a political/social agenda?

Chuck

P.S. Plus, it lets the gays and gay supporters feel special, like they're taking beatings, getting sprayed with firehoses, etc. and as such is used to ruffle up their base. It's a win-win for them to use the false comparison, so why not?

 

[zinfamous]

Just a quick note - I think some are overplaying their hand, here.

I've heard too many "Civil Rights" comparisons being used as leverage, by many uneducated people it seems. This puts pressure on the Court, and maybe the GOP. It may backfire.

Pick up a history book -- gays aren't anywhere near the neighborhood as blacks are in terms of discrimination and presecution. Frankly, it should be offensive to those who endured the racism and bigotry in this country for decades -- it belittles what blacks went through for gays act as if they're being persecuted. I don't think they really know what it is.

I've yet to see a "Striaghts" only restroom.... or gays being forced to give up their seats on crowded buses, or have a known hate group out lynching them and killing them without punishment... or an all "Straight" Jury aquitting straghts of their crimes against them.

There have been hate crimes against them, they have been treated unfairly, but to compare this to blacks being denied human rights is blatanty dishonest and asinine -- its no comparison.

It's one thing to want equal rights... it's another thing to act as if you're being persecuted.

Matthew Shepard probably never would have considered himself persecuted....

Hitler and Stalin didn't just exterminate jews and the wealthy, you know

you are making a rather obvious fallacy--simply because the details of persecution aren't always the same, or in as great a volume, that doesn't make the persecution non-existent.

You say that "they can hide." ...Um, why the fuck should they have to hide?

 

[Retro Rob]

Matthew Shepard probably never would have considered himself persecuted....

Hitler and Stalin didn't just exterminate jews and the wealthy, you know

you are making a rather obvious fallacy--simply because the details of persecution aren't always the same, or in as great a volume, that doesn't make the persecution non-existent.

You say that "they can hide." ...Um, why the fuck should they have to hide?

LumbergTech said "they can hide"... not me. Get your quotes right.

The fallacy lies in you suggesting that being denied legal marriage recongnition is tantamount to being ensalved, lynched, and segregated - that's what this is about... not the other stuff you mentioned.

 

[fskimospy]

The only reason gay "marriage" is being linked to the same thing as the black movement of interracial marriage is so those supporting the gay cause can extract as much shame political capital from it as possible. Nothing more. It's a club the gay supporters use to club people who chose not to think critically about an argument into agreeing the issues are the same, so as to gain support for their cause.

It's wrong of course...but when has that stopped anyone with a political/social agenda?

Chuck

P.S. Plus, it lets the gays and gay supporters feel special, like they're taking beatings, getting sprayed with firehoses, etc. and as such is used to ruffle up their base. It's a win-win for them to use the false comparison, so why not?

The interracial marriage comparison is perfectly valid. It is the most recent time people have been prohibited from marrying based on an intrinsic quality.

And you think gay people don't take beatings? Where exactly do you think the term gay bashing came from?

 

[Retro Rob]

The interracial marriage comparison is perfectly valid. It is the most recent time people have been prohibited from marrying based on an intrinsic quality.

And you think gay people don't take beatings? Where exactly do you think the term gay bashing came from?

Actually, I'm even willing to grant the interracial marriage comparisons, personally. But the majority didn't decide that outcome... that's where it breaks down.

It's not like upholding a ban on interracial marriage would have prevented blacks from marrying... so the cases aren't really equal.

 

[zinfamous]

LumbergTech said "they can hide"... not me. Get your quotes right.

The fallacy lies in you suggesting that being denied legal marriage recongnition is tantamount to being ensalved, lynched, and segregated - that's what this is about... not the other stuff you mentioned.

civil rights is civil rights.

The Civil Rights Movement refers to a specific time period.

Why do you choose to confuse issues?

separate but equal also applies. Do you honestly think that the recognition of marriage is nothing more than a proxy honor? Do you believe that the federal government recognizes benefits and responsibilities of married couples on the same terms as they do unmarried, or civil union couples?

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, I'm even willing to grant the interracial marriage comparisons, personally. But the majority didn't decide that outcome... that's where it breaks down.

It's not like upholding a ban on interracial marriage would have prevented blacks from marrying... so the cases aren't really equal.

Gay people aren't prevented from marrying either, they just aren't allowed to marry the person of their choice.

Also, what do you mean "the majority" didn't decide? Fun fact, interracial marriage had majority opposition in the US until the 1980s.

 

[Retro Rob]

civil rights is civil rights.

The Civil Rights Movement refers to a specific time period.

Why do you choose to confuse issues?

separate but equal also applies. Do you honestly think that the recognition of marriage is nothing more than a proxy honor? Do you believe that the federal government recognizes benefits and responsibilities of married couples on the same terms as they do unmarried, or civil union couples?

Gay couples can still enjoy the same freedoms without legal recognition of marriage -- blacks could not enjoy any freedoms because of their skin tone.

How many gays can't vote, earn a fair wage, can't use the same bathrooms as straights?

It's mind-shrinkingly ignorant to suggest this is an equal comparison.

 

[Retro Rob]

Gay people aren't prevented from marrying either, they just aren't allowed to marry the person of their choice.

True.

Also, what do you mean "the majority" didn't decide? Fun fact, interracial marriage had majority opposition in the US until the 1980s.

that's my point. If the majority ruled, interracial marriage may still be banned in some states. SCOTUS didn't allow the majority to rule. I said that in comparison to those who say the majority should rule as regards SSM because this is about the "power of the people and not the people in power".

The point is that if this stayed the case, we'd still have marriage discrimination based on race in some places.

 

[zinfamous]

Gay couples can still enjoy the same freedoms without legal recognition of marriage -- blacks could not enjoy any freedoms because of their skin tone.

utter lies.

until you you recognize that married couples enjoy greater federal status simply by virtue of being married, you will never be a valid party to this discussion.

It is a simple matter of fact that the classification of federally recognized marriage creates these distinctions, which are a rather certain violation of the constitutional protection of an individual's civil rights. You can believe that these differences do not exist, but they are in fact inventions of your own stubborn mindset.

Not sure why you seem to think the history of lynching is not only part of this discussion, but some valid qualifier to define "a right."

--civil rights
--The Civil Rights Movement.

can you figure that out yet, or do I have to keep repeating it?

 

[Retro Rob]

utter lies.

until you you recognize that married couples enjoy greater federal status simply by virtue of being married, you will never be a valid party to this discussion.

Federal status? Of course... but that wasn't what I was contending. I wasn't forming a debate over gay marriage/straight marriage. Of course the unequality is there. You're changing my whole arguement .... it was about blacks rights v gay rights. If you understand this, you'd stop the dumb comparision.

It is a simple matter of fact that the classification of federally recognized marriage creates these distinctions, which are a rather certain violation of the constitutional protection of an individual's civil rights. You can believe that these differences do not exist, but they are in fact inventions of your own stubborn mindset

See above.

Not sure why you seem to think the history of lynching is not only part of this discussion, but some valid qualifier to define "a right.

--civil rights
--The Civil Rights Movement.

can you figure that out yet, or do I have to keep repeating it?

If you learn to follow the focus of my initial contention, then you'd not need to repeat yourself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The best analogy for gay marriage is not slavery, but the interracial marriage debate of about 50 years ago. The issues are all the same, and the opposition based on the same biases and (poor) arguments.

 

[Retro Rob]

The best analogy for gay marriage is not slavery, but the interracial marriage debate of about 50 years ago. The issues are all the same, and the opposition based on the same biases and (poor) arguments.

I agree.

I was pointing out how many, and even one in this thread, don't mind interjecting how blacks were discriminated against way back when to form an argument for SSM.

I'm not saying that gays aren't discriminated against -- but NOT to the degree blacks generally were in nearly every facet of life.