US Supreme Court to look at same-sex marriage

[sportage]

This is new...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58399094-90/court-marriage-sex-case.html.csp

Supreme court to look at Utah’s same-sex marriage case, 4 others

Courts » Supreme justices will convene privately Sept. 29 to look at five states’ cases and discuss which, if any, to take.

On Sept. 29, the U.S. Supreme Court announced, it will take its first look at five states’ same-sex marriage cases and discuss which — if any — the nine justices would take.

The high court, which will convene for a private conference before its session begins in October, distributed the seven gay marriage petitions it has received to the justices, according updated docket information Wednesday.

So should they (SCOTUS)? Would they?

It takes just 4 high justices for SCOTUS to agree to take the case.
But if they do not, then states like Utah will have no other recourse and SS marriage will be the law of their land.
As well as in every other state where the circuit courts has knocked down SS marriage bans.
All except for Louisiana where that ban was upheld and is heading to the 5th Circuit Court.
Where no doubt the Louisiana state ban will be knocked down as well in the 5th circuit court.

All I can say is, "if anyone objects to this union, let them speak now".
Because so far our circuit courts across the land have not objected at all.
.
.
.

 

[thraashman]

Uh oh, I think you just blew hard on your toaster call. Cue nehalem coming in here to say something extremely close-minded in 5 minutes.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's eventual. Every state will legally recognize same sex couples and give them the same rights and privileges as hetero couples. It won't be the downfall of civilization, it won't signal the end times, it will most likely lead to more tax revenues.

 

[Atreus21]

It's eventual. Every state will legally recognize same sex couples and give them the same rights and privileges as hetero couples. It won't be the downfall of civilization, it won't signal the end times, it will most likely lead to more tax revenues.

I don't suppose you remember the ERA.

 

[Retro Rob]

What's silly is that SCOTUS has to even hear this nonsense. It's only about tax-paying citizens getting the same treatment as other tax-paying citizens.

As long as you're a legal, working citizen, then no services available to other citizens should be unavailable to you, including legal recognition of marrige.

Why not just set that as a criteria and basically tell objectors that as long as folks are here legally and are paying their share of taxes, they're free to operate within the confines of law?

OTOH, if gays can't marry, then they are tax-exempt....period.

I think we'd get this sovled very quickly.

 

[trenchfoot]

What's silly is that SCOTUS has to even hear this nonsense. It's only about tax-paying citizens getting the same treatment as other tax-paying citizens.

As long as you're a legal, working citizen, then no services available to other citizens should be unavailable to you, including legal recognition of marrige.

Why not just set that as a criteria and basically tell objectors that as long as folks are here legally and are paying their share of taxes, they're free to operate within the confines of law?

OTOH, if gays can't marry, then they are tax-exempt....period.

I think we'd get this sovled very quickly.

I like your line of reasoning, in the sense that it leaves religion and its influences out of the equation, as well it should.

I have to wonder though, if the USSC is going to go the "slippery slope" route with this.

 

[alzan]

I like your line of reasoning, in the sense that it leaves religion and its influences out of the equation, as well it should.

I have to wonder though, if the USSC is going to go the "slippery slope" route with this.

IMO Scalia, Thomas and possibly Alito are the most likely.

 

[fskimospy]

IMO Scalia, Thomas and possibly Alito are the most likely.

I'm really looking forward to Scalia's enraged dissent. What a hack.

 

[alzan]

I'm really looking forward to Scalia's enraged dissent. What a hack.

I'm torn between looking forward to it and being disappointed by the likelihood of it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm torn between looking forward to it and being disappointed by the likelihood of it.

Well if it's a dissent you should be excited by the likelihood of it! I count the likelihood of Scalia coming down against same-sex marriage to be greater than 90%. Hell, he thought it was wrong that the court said you couldn't criminalize gay sex.

 

[Retro Rob]

I like your line of reasoning, in the sense that it leaves religion and its influences out of the equation, as well it should.

I have to wonder though, if the USSC is going to go the "slippery slope" route with this.

That is/was precisely my point...to keep the influence of religion out of it.

Now, don't get me wrong...I too have moral objections to gay marriage, but when we want to legislate morality, we run the real risk of dumb stuff like criminalizing drinking on Sundays, and other things that limit personal freedom.

They just can't legistate their set of morals, while not allowing others to do the same.

 

[nehalem256]

Now, don't get me wrong...I too have moral objections to gay marriage, but when we want to legislate morality, we run the real risk of dumb stuff like criminalizing drinking on Sundays, and other things that limit personal freedom.

Like dog fighting.

 

[alzan]

Well if it's a dissent you should be excited by the likelihood of it! I count the likelihood of Scalia coming down against same-sex marriage to be greater than 90%. Hell, he thought it was wrong that the court said you couldn't criminalize gay sex.

Not disappointed in the sense that he'll be dissenting from a majority opinion that strikes down Utah's SSM ban, disappointed in the sense that I give him and other rabidly conservative justices credit that they'll be able to view this and other cases objectively and keeping their biases in check; unfortunately Scalia et al does seem particularly stubborn and I should rethink my willingness to give him undue credit.

Perhaps he was subjected to the desires of a pedophile priest as an altar boy; that would explain his desire to criminalize gay sex.

 

[alzan]

Like dog fighting.

I had a vision of you being torn up by a pitbull you were fighting.

And what a joyous vision it was.

 

[fskimospy]

Not disappointed in the sense that he'll be dissenting from a majority opinion that strikes down Utah's SSM ban, disappointed in the sense that I give him and other rabidly conservative justices credit that they'll be able to view this and other cases objectively and keeping their biases in check; unfortunately Scalia et al does seem particularly stubborn and I should rethink my willingness to give him undue credit.

Perhaps he was subjected to the desires of a pedophile priest as an altar boy; that would explain his desire to criminalize gay sex.

His ruling on the ACA was the point at which I realized he was a complete hack.

Scalia is the man who said that an individual who grew marijuana at home for his own use could still be regulated under the interstate commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

He then later said that the fact that all of us participate in a health care system that spans the entire country was not interstate commerce.

I found this law review article to encapsulate it pretty well:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/727/lr103n2koppelman.pdf

 

[thraashman]

His ruling on the ACA was the point at which I realized he was a complete hack.

Scalia is the man who said that an individual who grew marijuana at home for his own use could still be regulated under the interstate commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

He then later said that the fact that all of us participate in a health care system that spans the entire country was not interstate commerce.

I found this law review article to encapsulate it pretty well:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/727/lr103n2koppelman.pdf

Scalia is possibly the most incompetent and legally ignorant Supreme Court Justice in this country's history.

 

[zinfamous]

Uh oh, I think you just blew hard on your toaster call. Cue nehalem coming in here to say something extremely close-minded in 5 minutes.

well, 3 hours late. but whatever

Like dog fighting.

 

[squarecut1]

His ruling on the ACA was the point at which I realized he was a complete hack.

Took you a very long time.

 

[nehalem256]

Scalia is possibly the most incompetent and legally ignorant Supreme Court Justice in this country's history.

At least he didn't write a dissent predicated on Asian people not existing...

Or a majority opinion that claimed that something Congress repeatedly said was NOT a tax, actually was a tax.

 

[fskimospy]

Scalia is possibly the most incompetent and legally ignorant Supreme Court Justice in this country's history.

It has nothing to do with incompetence, it has to do with his coming to decisions that reflect the wishes of the Republican Party. Instead of just coming out and saying it he tries to cloak it in this pathetic, feigned grasp at first principles.

 

[Atreus21]

What's silly is that SCOTUS has to even hear this nonsense. It's only about tax-paying citizens getting the same treatment as other tax-paying citizens.

As long as you're a legal, working citizen, then no services available to other citizens should be unavailable to you, including legal recognition of marrige.

Why not just set that as a criteria and basically tell objectors that as long as folks are here legally and are paying their share of taxes, they're free to operate within the confines of law?

OTOH, if gays can't marry, then they are tax-exempt....period.

I think we'd get this sovled very quickly.

Should siblings be allowed to marry by this logic? Or a father and adult son?

 

[Retro Rob]

Should siblings be allowed to marry by this logic? Or a father and adult son?

I said "within the confines of the law". We should have unlimited freedom, granted, we don't break the law in the process.

That being said, I think it patently inhumane to collect an equal amount of taxes from working men and women, but saying some cannot utilize what other tax payers are free to utilize.

Do you see an issue with that?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So should they (SCOTUS)?

Yes. The court cases that are going on in the states are all based on constitutionality. We are getting a bunch of different courts saying different things about the same laws, and all basing it on what the Constitution says. It has become a craps shoot on which judge you get on if your state is able to have gay marriage or not. When lower courts can not definitively decide the intent of the constitution then is it SCOTUS's job to make a final decision. This is exactly what it is for.

Would they?

This I don't know. This court has been very shy about the issue, but as the states get different rulings it is starting to become a serious legal issue that they might finally need compelled to intercede on.

 

[Atreus21]

I said "within the confines of the law". We should have unlimited freedom, granted, we don't break the law in the process.

That being said, I think it patently inhumane to collect an equal amount of taxes from working men and women, but saying some cannot utilize what other tax payers are free to utilize.

Do you see an issue with that?

I do.

Whether or not something is legal is irrelevant in this context. The law is what you're trying to change.

If it's inhumane to deny gays what straight tax payers utilize, then on what basis do we deny it to anyone at all (sibling marriage, marriages between parents and children, marriages joining whole communes, etc.)?

 

[theeedude]

SCOTUS is behind the curve. This issue is already decided without them. But it will be fun to watch the right wing 5 have to decide between a decision they obviously resent, or looking completely out of touch with reality.