Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

Gay Marriage Appeals Turned Down!!!

My Geographic mind isn't up to par with most...
But am I right in thinking these States are close to each other?

Basically...

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Would this be a far right attempt at an appeal?

It takes just four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case, but it takes a majority of at least five for an eventual ruling. Monday's opaque order did not indicate how the justices voted on whether to hear the appeals.

So if 5 are right wing nutjobs it can rule against a Gay marriage...
I only say this because personal beliefs should not come into the Justice system...


I'm indifferent on Gay marriage, & probably will remain that way...


Where do couples who have already married stand if the appeals in other places come through?
Is their marriage null & void or will it stand as it would have been done at a time it was legal?


It's a touchy subject, let's not bash each other(pun definitely intended)

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I wish people would just "let it go".

Allow people to live as they wish, if they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

Simple.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I wish people would just "let it go".

Allow people to live as they wish, if they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

Simple.

That's unmitigated heresy....next you will say it's ok for people to marry their iguanas.

"let go"....pry my cold dead fingers!!!

The Supreme Court made its decision, it has decided not to grant centori or hear these particular cases. It does not want to, nor does it want to try to piece meal a decision. It has reviewed all of the cases, probably read through the briefs, and the arguments, and determined that this is not in the countries interest at this time frame to get involved. This is what many believed would happen.

There are many issues that surround same sex marriage, and these cases are not the ones to watch, they really do not matter. What needs to be looked at and this is what the Justices are waiting for, are those that are not exactly deciding same sex marriage, but cases around it. Like the Ohio case and the Alabama case, those are what the court is more willing to hear, to determine what all is in a marriage and how it effects the entire country.

What this is doing is by silence, rather than say anything, the US supreme court is letting the states and lower courts decide what is and is not valid in each of the states. Most of the courts are saying that there is no valid reason why there can not be same sex marriage, and that seems to be in unison. Only one court so far has weighed in and supported the ban against such.

The court is waiting and watching, and while it may not be heard now, what it is probably waiting on, is to hear all of the cases from all of the appeals courts all at once. Once those are all in, then it may chose to make one ruling, rather than a ruling on each individual case.

I think that what is going to happen is that the court is going to wait a year or 2 and see how the country goes and weight how many states allow for such and how many do not. If there comes a tipping point where it would be I would say 38 states say yes it is permissible, then that is when the court will issue a ruling one way or the other. Right now it is too few states that allow for such.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Would this be a far right attempt at an appeal?

All of the appeals to gay marriage are generated from the right-wing, so I'd say yes, these states have had their ban overturned and the right will continue to appeal, in the hopes of denying equal rights to gay people.

So if 5 are right wing nutjobs it can rule against a Gay marriage...

Only if they decide to hear it, which they have decided against. The ban is unconstitutional.

Where do couples who have already married stand if the appeals in other places come through?
Is their marriage null & void or will it stand as it would have been done at a time it was legal?

I'm only assuming that appeals in other states will be met with the same outcome that these 5 states were. THe SC simply will not hear the cases... The bans are unconstitutional, regardless of the state, so states must get rid of the ban, making gay marriage legal.

Best News of all:

Couples in six other states -- Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming -- also should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Woo-Hoo!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Interesting...
So can the Supreme Court rule a decision for the entire US rather than separate States who have their own Governing systems?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I wish people would just "let it go".

Allow people to live as they wish, if they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

Simple.

That's unmitigated heresy....next you will say it's ok for people to marry their iguanas.

"let go"....pry my cold dead fingers!!!

I don't understand your point as reading your thread history you are fairly open minded about this subject but yet when Beez makes a point about this particular subject (gay marriage) you have a dig at him?

The way I read Beezzers post was that he was talking about the gay marriage issue and not people going to bed with Iguanas???

I think you know him well enough to fully appreciate that he would not suggest that sort of thing? (Unless of course it was marriage between consenting Iguanas of course... or rabbits???)

Kindest respects

Rodinus

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So can the Supreme Court rule a decision for the entire US rather than separate States who have their own Governing systems?

That is how the Supreme Court functions. It if takes a case the ruling is then used as precedent for future rulings and to either repeal or uphold passed legislature. The ruling affects the entire country, not just the state where the appeal or law was generated.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thank you Augustus...
Ever helpful!

a reply to: Rodinus

I think he was joking Rod...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Rodinus

I think he was joking Rod...

Whoops...... Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have a crap sense of humour probably?

Sorrryyyyyyyyyyy Oolaru.... *looks around sheepishly before traipsing off dragging his feet behind himself*

Kindest respects

Rod

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Interesting...
So can the Supreme Court rule a decision for the entire US rather than separate States who have their own Governing systems?

Specifically, if states are making laws that deny equal protection to specific citizens, the Supreme Court can cite the 14th amendment and strike the state's law down.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, if a state makes a law that denies any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under their marriage laws, the SC can overturn it. That's what we see happening in state after state. Their bans are found to be unconstitutional.

In short --- the SC said, the lower courts made the right decision.

There is no reason for them to get involved at this time.

I strongly oppose gay marriage. There - I said it so flame me all you want. Even so, I would be happy to "just let it go" and let people do what they want in their own lives if they would just leave me alone. Most gay people are happy to just live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone. I have no problem with them. My problem is with the small percentage that just have to keep pushing the issue into every corner of life. If I don't want to make a cake for a gay person or photograph their wedding I should have the right to refuse without being sued or fined. If I want to attend a church that doesn't allow gay marriage I should be able to do that without any conflict.

You liberals are constantly harping about letting people "live their lives any way they want to" but that apparently only applies to people who want to live their life the way YOU would have them live. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?

This may be the 10th round knockout for gay rights advocates in the U.S., because if the court was going to eventually rule against gay marriage I don't think they'd allow hundreds or thousands to go through now only to be disallowed later.

Gay marriage in the states now seems a done deal, except for the eventual paperwork (and this should also be the sign for other federal judges to overturn bans in the states they decide over). I didn't read the thread posts, so apologies if my post repeats others. Just saw the OP and is the first I've heard this news, good news for human rights and equality.

a reply to: itguysrule

No one can force a cake maker, photographer, or especially religious institution to do gay weddings or gay anything for that matter. It's their loss on the money.


Eta: okay, I did a cursory google search. Benevolent sums it up best when it deals with businesses and state's anti-discrimination laws for service. Businesses are not exempt due to an owners religious belief. Yet.

Also, the guy in Colorado that wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple baked a wedding cake FOR TWO DOGS and didn't think twice.

a reply to: the owlbear

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there have been numerous examples in the news recently of businesses being sued and fined many thousands of dollars for politely refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Photographers have been sued and fined for the same thing. It's not going to be very long until churches will be told they have to perform gay weddings or lose their tax exempt status.

Now if a doctor or hospital refused to give life saving care I could see that as a problem. But using the court system to force someone to bake a cake for you or to take photographs of your wedding is just plain "in your face" aggressive activism.

originally posted by: itguysrule
If I don't want to make a cake for a gay person or photograph their wedding I should have the right to refuse without being sued or fined. If I want to attend a church that doesn't allow gay marriage I should be able to do that without any conflict.

These are two different situations. The first depends on the secular business law of the state and we all have to follow the law. If I own a business, I have to follow the state's business laws. If that includes a non-discrimination law, I (or you) must follow it. Would you prefer a situation where religious people don't have to obey the law?

The second is a religious institution and churches cannot legally be forced to marry gay couples. So, chances are, you will always be able to find a church that doesn't marry gays.

Unfortunately for you, some churches are willingly deciding to marry gay couples, so in 10 years, you may have a hard time finding a local church that refuses to marry them, but it won't be because of the liberals pushing it, it will be because of the church deciding to be inclusive.

You liberals are constantly harping about letting people "live their lives any way they want to" but that apparently only applies to people who want to live their life the way YOU would have them live. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?

No, I don't see hypocrisy. For one thing, I don't think people should live their lives "any way they want to". I do believe that laws are necessary in a society to keep the order. I think EVERYONE (including religious folks) should be bound by the laws of their state and country. Where's the hypocrisy?

originally posted by: itguysrule
Unfortunately, there have been numerous examples in the news recently of businesses being sued and fined many thousands of dollars for politely refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Do you think businesses should be exempt from the business laws of the state? NO ONE can force you to make a cake for anyone, but if you own a business and break the law, you can be sued or fined.

Should a restaurant owner be exempt from health and cleanliness practices outlined in the law because they don't believe in them?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Would this be a far right attempt at an appeal?

A couple of ways to look at it..

this puts the conservative court in an awkward position...Options as follows:

(1) Choose to hear the appeals looking to overturn States decisions to allow gay marriage.
Then
(a) Rule in favor of Appeal...championing conservative views, but also at the same time championing big government stomping on/over-turning states rights and big government in the bedroom, so to speak.

(b) Rule against the appeal, thus legalizing Gay Marriage at the national level and slapping their conservative supporters in the face.

(2) Choose not hear the appeal...Which allows them to not rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Gay Marriage at the federal level, neither coming out for it or against it.

They chose the safest path. gay marriage is the pivot point where the Evangelical movement Meets politics/the far right.

True conservatism (absent the Christian right) would dictate small government and states rights.

Christian right conservatism looks for big government when their world view might be legislated at the Federal level.

And the Gay Marriage debate is the best example of where that paradox must be reconciled...in this case the Supreme Court just ducked.