US Supreme Court Takes on Gay Marriage Case

[Jacob]

Looks like Sheilbh and garbon's proverbial Fat Lady may be rehearsing her final perfomance. Or maybe not. How is this one going to go?

[Jacob]

... and link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gay-marriage-cases-to-be-heard-by-u-s-supreme-court-in-april-1.2913119

[11B4V]

As I said before, they're a'int no stopping it.

[CountDeMoney]

I am much more concerned about them taking away my health coverage.

[11B4V]

I am much more concerned about them taking away my health coverage.

I don't think the T-Baggers and GOPnards will be able to. In fact I say they wont.

[Jacob]

I am much more concerned about them taking away my health coverage.

Is there a decision coming up (and if so when), or is this "elections have consequences" fretting?

[11B4V]

I am much more concerned about them taking away my health coverage.

Is there a decision coming up (and if so when), or is this "elections have consequences" fretting?

GOP lamenting is all. It will cost the election in 2016.

[CountDeMoney]

Is there a decision coming up (and if so when), or is this "elections have consequences" fretting?

King v. Burwell, coming up on March 4.  Questions the issue of funding Obamacare with Federal subsidies in states without their own exchanges.  Yank the subsidies, people in those states will have to drop out of the ACA.  People drop out, healthcare prices will skyrocket in other states in response, forcing more people to drop out of the ACA.  It's the "death spiral" gambit.  Anything to prevent people in a modern and wealthy western nation from affordable and accessible healthcare.

[Jacob]

King v. Burwell, coming up on March 4.  Questions the issue of funding Obamacare with Federal subsidies in states without their own exchanges.  Yank the subsidies, people in those states will have to drop out of the ACA.  People drop out, healthcare prices will skyrocket in other states in response, forcing more people to drop out of the ACA.  It's the "death spiral" gambit.  Anything to prevent people in a modern and wealthy western nation from affordable and accessible healthcare.

Crossing fingers for you.

[garbon]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-supreme-court-has-been-preparing-the-country-for-marriag#.xrJP99620

The Supreme Court Has Been Preparing The Country For Marriage Equality

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it will be deciding the question of same-sex couples' marriage rights this year.

Left unsaid, however, was the fact that the outcome is almost certain: nationwide marriage equality by July of this year.

Since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on federal marriage recognition in 2013, the nation's lower courts have created significant momentum toward this moment.

But it is the Supreme Court's actions over the past 15 weeks, and the broad set of cases the court agreed on Friday to hear this spring, that makes the coming ruling practically preordained.

By issuing several orders in recent months allowing for more and more same-sex couples to be marrying in more and more states, the Supreme Court has made nationwide marriage equality a far less radical decision. It also has made it so that a decision upholding state marriage bans as constitutional would cause significant, difficult problems.

The Supreme Court has, in fact, played the key role in creating the national landscape that now exists: Same-sex couples are marrying in, at least parts of, 37 states and Washington, D.C.

On Oct. 5, 2014, that number was 19 states and D.C.

And though there have been no opinions explaining why the Supreme Court has done what it has done since then and though the decisions do not, technically, bind the court, there is at least a majority of the court comfortable creating this landscape, which would be difficult and extraordinarily painful to undo.

In that time, the Supreme Court's actions have directly or indirectly led to same-sex couples being allowed to marry in 14 of the additional states with same-sex couples marrying now.

The justices, on Oct. 6, 2014, denied five states' requests for the court to hear their cases and reverse the appeals court decisions that struck down marriage bans. That decision to deny those writs of certiorari meant same-sex couples began marrying in those states, as well as in six other states within those appeals court circuits.

Then, the Supreme Court refused to issue stays (or holds) of lower court rulings in Idaho and later Alaska while the states attempted to appeal the rulings. Those orders, which came with no reasoning, followed the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down Idaho and Nevada's bans. Because there already was an appeals court ruling in favor of marriage equality that applied to those states, the orders were seen as being similar to the court's Oct. 6 decision.

But then, on Dec. 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a stay during Florida's appeal of the federal marriage case challenging its ban. In Florida, unlike in any of the other states where the justices allowed same-sex couples to begin marrying, the appeals court for that circuit had not ruled on the issue.

This decision by a majority of the justices to allow same-sex couples to marry while appeals are ongoing — and before the Supreme Court has resolved the issue itself — means that a majority of the court is comfortable with that reality becoming the default.

More than that, the decision to allow same-sex couples to marry before the Supreme Court has decided the issue creates more legitimacy for an eventual decision striking down the bans by increasing the number of states where same-sex couples already can marry. At this point, a decision striking down such bans nationwide only changes the situation in 15 states. Before the justices started down this path on Oct. 6, 2014, it would have meant changing the law of more than 30 states.

Additionally though, and perhaps making the outcome of this spring's Supreme Court showdown even more certain, the Supreme Court would be opening up an unprecedented mess if it upheld the bans now as being constitutional.

If the justices rule that Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee's bans are constitutional, that means that questions are going to be raised — and litigation is going to be filed — over the legitimacy of the now-closed cases in which review was denied in October 2014. In fact, the same thing would happen as to any state in which marriage equality was the result of a court decision that the ban was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

More striking, there would be questions raised — as already have been raised in Michigan — about the validity of marriages entered into by same-sex couples during the times when the respective state bans were declared unconstitutional.

It is almost incomprehensible to imagine the majority that created this landscape would turn around and force the rest of the country to take these painful steps to tear it apart.

But all actions suggest there is a majority of the court that does not wish to see that and plans, after April's arguments, to craft a ruling striking down those remaining bans and bringing nationwide uniformity to the issue.

The clearest indication that the court seeks uniformity: They took cases involving both marriage itself and recognition of same-sex couples' marriages entered into out-of-state.

Although some have suggested that this means the court could consider ruling in favor of same-sex couples on the recognition issue while deciding against them on the marriage issue, such a decision would still create complex problems in states where same-sex couples have legally married. Taking both issues is an "all in" approach that will require an "all in" decision.

The past 15 weeks have shown, time and time again, that a majority of the Supreme Court is not only ready for, but has been preparing the country for, a decision enforcing nationwide protection of same-sex couples' right to marry.

[Martinus]

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares'
NEWS • Our Annual Year 2013 • Cooperation • Supreme Court • News • ISSUE 49•13 • Mar 26, 2013

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

"Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples' right to marry in California. "Why are we even seriously discussing this?"

"Does anyone else up here care about this?" Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, "No," "Nah," and "I also don't care about this." "Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?"

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a "no-brainer," members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, "What are you even talking about?" while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, "You got to be fucking kidding me," under his breath.

"I have to interject, Mr. Cooper," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. "Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you're a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time."

"Should gay marriage be legal?" Ginsburg continued. "Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?"

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be "downright silly" for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"I'm a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I'm looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law," Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. "So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God's green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I'm saying is, who the fuck are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?"

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it's just "common goddamn sense," and then addressed gay men and women directly.

"Get married, don't get married, do whatever you want," Roberts said. "It's the opinion of this court that we don't give two shits what you do."

"C'mon, let's go get some food," added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

[Martinus]

But seriously, option no. 3 would be inconsistent with the DOMA ruling. So it will be either 1 or 2, but with strong leaning towards 1 (Scalia has already said that this will be the consequence of the DOMA ruling, anyway).

[Eddie Teach]

GOP lamenting is all. It will cost the election in 2016.

Will cost who the election?

Anyway, I don't think the howls will be as loud as they could be. I mean, who on the American right wants to be more like Russia? 

[Martinus]

GOP lamenting is all. It will cost the election in 2016.

Will cost who the election?

Anyway, I don't think the howls will be as loud as they could be. I mean, who on the American right wants to be more like Russia? 

I thought many Republicans had a boner for Putin.

[Eddie Teach]

I went to Raz's favorite site and could find no evidence of that. I did find an article calling Putin a gangster, and one about Sarah Palin calling him a "silly little man".