US Supreme Court to weigh Prop 8 Against 14th Amendment

[strawman]

12-144 Hollingsworth v. Perry

Question presented:

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question:

Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in this case.

There are two pretty big questions the supreme court is entertaining today (and we are ignoring for the moment the DOMA question to be argued tomorrow).

First, does the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution, which reads in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that this amendment discusses "life, liberty, and property" but the petition being discussed today only talks about the equal protection under the law.

Second, does the United States Constitution trump California's constitution in this case. The judicial power of the United States Government, as outlined in the US constitution, is limited, and most issues between states and their citizens are not governed by the federal government. Marriage is one issue which the federal government has typically ruled is governed by the states.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to open a whole can of worms. Putting aside, for the moment, the question of gay marriage, the Supreme court could rule on whether states are allowed to govern marriages within their own borders, or if the federal government is going to take that right and responsibility away from them and transfer that authority to the US government and congress.

Further, they have the opportunity to declare that LGBT citizens are a group to be protected from discrimination of any form, and put sexual orientation on the same footing as sex and race.

While the primary question, "Is defining marriage as between man and woman" is the trigger, there is going to be a chunk of argument devoted to state's rights, and the division between the US constitution and state autonomy. A number of states are going to argue against LGBT rights in defense of their overall state rights. It would be quite possible to see a gay marriage supporting state argue against gay marriage in this case simply to avoid having the right to define marriage taken away from them.

Further, if the federal government accepts the responsibility to define marriage for the entire US, many, many issues would suddenly move to the federal government that are currently dealt with by the states.

The Supreme Court, of late, has tended to issue very narrow rulings, and I expect this to be the case here.

I doubt that this ruling will affect many other states, and we will have to see several of these lawsuits decided at this level before a more general ruling is made.

Oral arguments are today (march 26th) and the ruling is expected in June. Expect much discussion and dissection of arguments over the next week. Most political folk right now are focused on the one "swing vote" in the Court, expecting that the other 8 justices will rule as they have in past similar cases. Thus the questions posed by Justice Anthony Kennedy are probably going to receive the most scrutiny as people attempt to understand how he might vote based on what questions he asks.

 

[Espy]

Interesting. I'll be following this.

 

[Dave]

Arguments are over. Now we wait for the ruling. Which will happen about June, the court says.

 

[Frank]

That was fast.

 

[Dave]

They only heard arguments for about an hour twenty minutes.

 

[strawman]

It was only scheduled for an hour, and is the time when the parties make a brief statement, and the justices ask questions, which takes up the majority of the time. The vast majority of the arguments and legal reasoning are contained in briefs and filings already and to be made. The oral arguments are really just a tiny part of the whole process.

 

[Gilgamesh]

To the death of bigotry and hatred. I look forward to hearing this outcome.

 

[Tress]

My main gripe about Prop. 8 is that it a simple majority was allowed to amend the state constitution, which normally requires a 2/3 majority in the state legislature. That should not be. Oh, and the fact that lobbying groups based outside of the state spent a ridiculous amount of money to affect the outcome.

You know, aside from that whole pesky discrimination thing.

 

[Bowielee]

Just a little personal anecdote. I was home visiting my mom over Christmas and we were watching my Big Bat Gypsy Wedding. Watching that show, it just occurred to me how ridiculous it is that THAT specticle is supposed to be sacred, whereas a loving couple who don't start fistfights with the priest are abhorant just because they both happen to have a dick or vagina.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Or worse:

(Granted that second couple wouldn't get an adoption granted either if someone were to actually visit their home, unless all they did was look at the family on paper. Still doesn't undermine the fact that the above part of the picture rings true).

 

[Terrik]

Or worse:

(Granted that second couple wouldn't get an adoption granted either if someone were to actually visit their home, unless all they did was look at the family on paper. Still doesn't undermine the fact that the above part of the picture rings true).

Which is why the picture would be so much more effective with the top portion alone. Hyperbole doesn't help anyone's case.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Which is why the picture would be so much more effective with the top portion alone. Hyperbole doesn't help anyone's case.

That's just it though, the couple below still has a better chance at an approved adoption. All it would take is one person who just looks at the family income/home ownership/other kids in school paperwork and boom, Accepted.

 

[strawman]

All it would take is one person who just looks at the family income/home ownership/other kids in school paperwork and boom, Accepted.

Seems pretty obvious that you've never been through the adoption process, so why are you arguing about it? You could have left it at the first statement.

 

[Terrik]

That's just it though, the couple below still has a better chance at an approved adoption. All it would take is one person who just looks at the family income/home ownership/other kids in school paperwork and boom, Accepted.

Is that how it works? As far as I know, adoption procedures are fairly intensive, including home study and a court hearing with recommendation for or against based upon the home study findings.

That being said, I get the point, however the image above relies on exaggerated imagery and reinforcement of negative stereotypes that one has to wonder if the image has any use except to be shown to "the choir". It has little value in actually convincing or influencing others that didn't already fully support this position. The top portion alone is effective as it attacks no one and enforces positive values.

 

[strawman]

CORRECTION:

The second question addressed concerning article 3 does not refer to the state's rights vs federal rights, rather it refers to the fact that California has declined to defend proposition 8, but has permitted a special group of proponents to defend it where California chose not to.

The question, then, is that even though California's courts ruled that this group could present and defend prop 8 within the California judicial system, do they have any standing in the federal judicial system?

Article 3 is pretty clear about who can take a case to the supreme court, and who the court will hear. So the first part of the oral arguments was spent discussing whether this group had any right to defend prop 8 at all in the Supreme Court.

However, the case still may affect state's rights if the ruling chooses to certify gay marriage bans as discriminatory according to the fourteenth amendment, just not as directly as I had understood and explained it in my first post.

 

[Dave]

My brother: Married 3 times. 5 kids for whom he moved states and jobs to get out of paying child support. Fired from jobs because of drugs.

My friend "Tom": Been with the same man for about 30 years.

Guess which one can adopt? Guess which one is discriminated against? guess which one is "ruining the sanctity of marriage"?

If you don't want gays to marry and you are not gay, you are [redacted].

edit: Broke the rules. I apologize to stienman and gave myself a point.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Seems pretty obvious that you've never been through the adoption process, so why are you arguing about it? You could have left it at the first statement.

You're right, I'm exagerating a bit over a subject that I'm emotionally charged over. I retract that statement.

Yes it has value Terrik . Sometimes it takes shock images (even slightly tame ones) to get some people, who are not necessarily bad, but simply do not know really what the situation is, to understand better.

 

[strawman]

Yes it has value Terrik . Sometimes it takes shock images (even slightly tame ones) to get some people, who are not necessarily bad, but simply do not know really what the situation is, to understand better.

So you support the ban advocates use of disturbing anti-homosexual images in order to help these same people "understand" the situation better?

Hyperbole and showing one bad example on one side and one good example on the other side do nothing but widen the chasm between the two sides. It shouldn't be done by either side.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I love when Steinman posts 7,000 words about how he thinks different people don't deserve the same happinesses he enjoys

 

[Dave]

Love you too, Dave.[DOUBLEPOST=1364322160][/DOUBLEPOST]

So you support the ban advocates use of disturbing anti-homosexual images in order to help these same people "understand" the situation better?

Hyperbole and showing one bad example on one side and one good example on the other side do nothing but widen the chasm between the two sides. It shouldn't be done by either side.

I'm interested on your arguments against same sex marriage. Other than blatant discrimination, I can think of none. Marriage is NOT a religious institution, but one of equality. If your religion is against it, then that's perfectly fine - your church doesn't have to perform them.

 

[Ravenpoe]

As a single, straight man, I personally would like to see a ban on heterosexual marriage.

Where's the lobby for that?

 

[Dave]

I love when Steinman posts 7,000 words about how he thinks different people don't deserve the same happinesses he enjoys

Other than his taking offense to my statement, he's only been talking about the federal vs. state's rights, not same-sex marriage.

 

[Gilgamesh]

If your religion is against it, then that's perfectly fine - your church doesn't have to perform them.

I still find it amusing that anyone would even use the religion defense considering that less than a few decades ago, religion was still cool with slavery, and only changed it when the general public's view of that was negative. This is going to go the same route. Hell most religions still haven't accepted women as equal rights holders and still reprint their manuscript/books with passages condemning women to be little more than slaves themselves.

Oh and I'll happily call anyone who identifies as part of a group trying to -Defend Traditional Marriage- a bigot. Allowing gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples does absolutely nothing at all in any way to the hetero couple's marriage. It's still as -sacred- as it ever was.

 

[strawman]

I'm interested on your arguments against same sex marriage.

The last few times I've done this dance on the forum I've discovered that no one here is really interested in understanding this position, so much as they are interested in defending their own position and framing those that believe otherwise as bigots and homophobes.

I've long since given up participating in those arguments, which is why I'm so far just sticking to reporting on the supreme court events, as this may well be our generation's Roe v. Wade. I see this as a possible watershed event depending on just how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in its ruling, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

If you want to learn reasons why one might choose to ask that society define marriage as between a man and a woman, there are countless web resources for you to research and learn.

 

[Tress]

... because you spend so much time trying to understand why almost everyone else here supports same-sex marriage? Right.

 

[Gilgamesh]

If you want to learn reasons why one might choose to ask that society define marriage as between a man and a woman, there are countless web resources for you to research and learn.

Personally? I've tried to do this. There is no reason, scientific or religious that holds any water on the subject. I've tried to find any hope of there being a reason where I go -Hmm, I didn't consider that, maybe it's not so cut and dry-, honestly there wasn't a single one.

... because you spend so much time trying to understand why almost everyone else here supports same-sex marriage? Right.

Those who use religion as their reason don't have to try, the book they cherry pick their beliefs out of gives them that barrier (I'm not talking about @Steinman here, just religious people who use that defense in general)

Personally I really like having @Steinman around. He gives views on subjects such as Politics and Gay Marriage that I'm on the complete opposite side of the board on. However he never does it in a disrespectful or rude way, I learn alot reading his views, especially back during the election.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't see how these people don't realize they're on the wrong side of history. Their grandkids are going to be ashamed of them.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'd like to see a poster that says "Defend Traditional Marriage" and then has an old gay couple insulting each other from across the room, as they both mostly ignore each other.

 

[Tress]

Those who use religion as their reason don't have to try, the book they cherry pick their beliefs out of gives them that barrier (I'm not talking about @Steinman here, just religious people who use that defense in general)

Personally I really like having @Steinman around. He gives views on subjects such as Politics and Gay Marriage that I'm on the complete opposite side of the board on. However he never does it in a disrespectful or rude way, I learn alot reading his views, especially back during the election.

I like Steinman, and I really think he adds a lot to our discussions around here too. But I don't agree with the implication that he keeps an open mind and looks at every issue from every angle, while the rest of us troglodytes grunt and fling poo at anything different from our own thoughts.

 

[Dave]

I flung poo.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

But I don't agree with the implication that he keeps an open mind and looks at every issue from every angle, while the rest of us troglodytes grunt and fling poo at anything different from our own thoughts.

quality over quantity

 

[strawman]

I like Steinman, and I really think he adds a lot to our discussions around here too. But I don't agree with the implication that he keeps an open mind and looks at every issue from every angle, while the rest of us troglodytes grunt and fling poo at anything different from our own thoughts.

It is not my intention to imply anything of the sort, and I'm sorry for giving that impression. One of the reasons I hang around here is the level of understanding, intelligence, and mutual respect in the face of disagreement. I will try to do better at phrasing my posts so they don't leave such implications, but I'm honestly only recently becoming aware of the degree of my conceit, so it will take some time for me to understand it, nevermind alter my perspective so it isn't such an issue in the future.

Also, please don't stop flinging poo. The odd combination of weirdness and intelligence is what attracts me. Not a big fan of all-poo-all-the-time forums, nor uber-intelectual forums.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I flung poo.

We've been burned by your projectile excrement stories before, Dave. No one's buying it now.

 

[Cheesy1]

We've been burned by your projectile excrement stories before, Dave. No one's buying it now.

 

[blotsfan]

I think States rights are overrated. If the States are enforcing a law that is blatantly wrong, they lose their right to decide on that matter. And I don't think that means the federal government has to take on responsibilities. They can still have the States be in charge of the marriage bureaucracy, but they all have to do it for gay couples. now