I was talking about gay marriage, not homosexual sex
Yes, I know you are now. So, can you walk us through the steps to illegality?
Also, note that your original post referred to the 50s, when gay sex was illegal in many states. The idea of SSM wasn’t even in the realm of possibility then.
I think the constant hyping of how there’s no way gay marriage would be set back 50 years betrays a lack of imagination. The Supremes can rule broadly or narrowly, they’ve used that power to restrain rulings before, like Bush vs. Gore. It does not take a large stretch of the imagination to think that some of the crazier people on the court, Scalia and Thomas, would try to find some way to define marriage broadly while also making it unconstitutional for gays. If they ruled that there is no constitutional right to marry by upholding Prop 8, and doing so broadly, they can strike a blow against the tide of public opinion that is turning against the anti-forces. Each election cycle since about 10 years ago there has been votes and legal rulings regarding gay marriage. I can see if the Supremes took the bigoted route, that those people would be bolstered and run a bunch of anti-gay laws onto the books, and this time the lower courts wouldn’t be able to simply rule those laws to be crap
That makes no sense. There is an ever-increasing support for SSM over time. A SCOTUS ruling wouldn’t switch anyone back to being anti-SSM (if any, it would a tiny percent). There was a time when SSM never got a favorable nod at the ballot box. Now it’s becoming routine.
Further, the Supremes cannot rule “broadly” such that existing pro-SSM laws are struck down. That’s just not the way it works. But… let’s pretend for a minute they could. What are the feds going to do to states that allow SSM? Send in the national guard and shut down courthouses so they can’t give out marriage licenses?
I think at this point we can say you’re just unwilling to admit that you’re wrong.
I didn’t say support from SSM wouldn’t increase, I specifically talked about laws and bills being passed. Unfortunately, lots of statehouses are dominated by right wing extremists. If the USSC rules their way, I can see a rush to legitimize homophobia before the shift swings back. What you’re essentially saying is that only public opinions matter, and that no ruling by the USSC is going to make it any worse for gays. In fact a ruling against them will set the movement back for years. Ever since Prop 8 was put on trial, there’s been a lot of us pro-gay marriage supporters who fears that the lawyers might have overreached and put it in the court’s hands too soon
You’re unaware that court opinions can be tailored broadly or narrowly? Wow, ok then, I guess there’s no use arguing with you
To a point. You theory is way beyond it.
No, I am saying that it can’t be compared to the 50s, and nothing you’ve added since supports that it can.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course they can rule broadly. But they can’t rule outside the scope of the case. By your logic they could use this case to outlaw abortion!
This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen from the Onion.
Well, it’s a red letter day when I agree with John Mace: I don’t see how you get from that ruling to that conclusion.
A ruling of that nature would open the door to legislation in some states to ban gay marriage, but only in some states. Other states would retain it. California would become a battleground state, and we’d be seeing competing state constitutional amendments from now till forever.
The ruling itself would not have the effect you describe. It would simply open the door to state-by-state legislative wrangling.
I suppose it is just barely possible – within the realm of imagination, although totally unrealistic in practice – that the court could say, “Gay marriage violates the principle of equal justice, and is therefore not to be recognized.” That would have the effect you describe. It’s also a ten-million to one long shot.
Not only that, but it would have no enforcement mechanism. No one would recognize the Court’s authority to issue such an edict. They might as well say that this case forces them to ban abortion, flag burning, and integrated schools. Whites marrying blacks? In your dreams, bitches!
Between the legislature legalizing it, the referendum illegalizing it and then the court cases going every which way, I sort of lost track of the back-and-forth. Can gays get married in CA now?
(my heterosexual wedding was kind of a pain to plan, must be doubly annoying being a gay couple in CA and trying to plan your wedding around what sort of mood you think Justice Kennedy will be in next session).
Sorry, but your analogy is not on point. The marijuana prohibition would apply to everyone who moved from State A, where possession is allowed, to State B, where possession is prohibited. The prohibition would apply to all citizens equally.
The marriage rights in State A would only be recognized by State B when the partners meet standards set by State B. In other words, State B would be granting rights to one class or group of people and denying it to another based on an arbitrary set of standards.
Clearly the two situations are not at all the same.
In Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy makes it clear a good part of his distaste for the Colorado law had to do with the majority acting against a group because of a trait they possess that may not be popular. Proposition 8 is rooted in the same dislike or animus toward a specific group of people and there is no clear state interest in doing so.
If SCOTUS upholds the Ninth Circuit in striking down Prop 8 and upholds the Second Circuit decision regarding DOMA then something more than just a state privilege would be involved. The Second Circuit decision held that the definition of marriage found in Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Upholding that decision would grant Federal recognition to SSM. I don’t see how the court could issue a ruling saying a specific group of people can have rights taken away from them simply based on the state where they reside, particularly once the Federal government has recognized the existence of those rights.
This was the point I attempted (poorly apparently) to make in my previous post. I think given these circumstances the Court has to either deny SSM outright or find it is a fundamental right that applies to all 50 states. Anything short of that would create a confusing and unworkable patchwork with a fundamental right being recognized by the Federal government based on where someone lives.
You are assuming the result. If the Court holds that SSM is a fundamental right, then you are correct. If it holds SSM a state privilege, then the “confusing” patchwork of laws are no different than possessing fireworks in different states.
But then you are aghast and say “How can marriage be like possessing fireworks?” That’s because you have already answered the question that SSM is a fundamental right.
The Court could give intermediate scrutiny, or the Kennedy-created “rational basis with teeth.” There are many ways that the Court could craft a rule that would allow SSM in states that pass it, mandate its recognition by the feds, but allow states who don’t want it to continue to prohibit it..
About that “how can a state not recognize a marriage that is legal in another state” - that is the case today in some states with non-SSM marriage. Some states recognize first-cousin marriages. Other states do not recognize them, even if the couple was married in a state where it was legal.
Are you sure about that? My understanding was that although only certain states allow first-cousin marriage, those marriages (once performed) were valid in all states.
No. We have civil unions, but not marriage. Prop 8 was the voter approved constitutional change that ended the court ordered legalization of SSM.
Sometimes I wish we had “nicely reasoned” and “thanks for the facts” buttons for posts. I’m learning a lot on this thread; thanks everyone.
I also (on other threads) sometimes want to hit the “what are you, a fricking moron?” button that my better self is glad we don’t have.
Perhaps relevant regarding Justice Scalia’s thoughts on the matter:
[QUOTE=Justice Scalia]
Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.
[/QUOTE]
It’s been a while since I read Lawrence, but I seem to recall his argument being structured as a slippery slope rather than a reductio…
Thanks. I thought maybe they’d become legal again when the lower courts had overturned Prop 8, but I guess they imposed a stay pending appeal.
I dunno. I have a hard time seeing how the Feds and/or the CA State Constitution would need a rational basis to ban same-sex marriage but, say, Oklahoma doesn’t.
That argument doesn’t even make any sense. Sodomy laws were not malum in se.
edit: Scalia’s argument, that is.