# Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936 "2013-03-25T18:12:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/201 "2013-03-28T03:08:01Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > Holy crap, **tim314**. > _Please_ stop replying to **doorhinge**. OK šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/202 "2013-03-28T04:02:23Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > Seems itā€™s (as always) about protecting ā€˜interestsā€™ (for whatever those may be). SSM in 50 states would be a horrific decision by the SCOTUS. > If they felt the public opinion of them was waning now, just wait till they unconstitutionally rule on what is primarily a moral matter first, political matter second. > > Yes, cause clearly, retaliation is always the solution. If Scalia feels free to cast the first stone, Iā€™ll cast The Second Stone. (And yes, thatā€™s what the handle means.) Scalia doesnā€™t behave like a judge, but as though he were law schoolā€™s version of Dick Cheney. He deserves no respect. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/203 "2013-03-28T04:35:03Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > ā€¦Also, contrary to your claim, Scaliaā€™s line of questioning wasnā€™t an attempt to ā€œelicit a specific or more direct response from the lawyersā€. He was very explicitly providing an argument he felt the lawyer should have made, and said essentially ā€œI donā€™t know why you arenā€™t saying thisā€. Supreme Court decisions have implications beyond the specific case being argued. The justices ask questions both to demonstrate a point/influence their colleages and to probe the consequences of ruling one way or another. The questions can help the justices decide how broad or narrow theyā€™d like the decision to be in addition to helping them decide whether or not to grant the petitionerā€™s requests. The Supreme Court is the ultimate appeals court. Their decisions can have wide ranging effects or be very narrow rulings. The Supreme Court isnā€™t last because they are right, they are right because they are last. Because of this, the Supremes ask many questions for many varied reasons. They could be making a point, trying to influence the other Justices, or probing the lawyers in order to search for possible consequences or unintended consequences of their impending decision. Scalia said he had no position on one issue and you convinced yourself it must mean that Scalia believes same sex couples are bad parents??? I recommend that you take **bienville** advice. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/204 "2013-03-28T04:41:36Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Article VI of the U.S. Cpmstitution is your answer. > > while SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutionally permissible, every Federal and AFAIK every State elected or high appointed official, whether legislative or executive, takes an oath to uphold ā€œthe law of the land,ā€ ā€œtje Constitution and laws,ā€ or similar wording. No ;egislator is supposed to vote for a law he believes to be unconstitutional; no executive official is supposed to enforce one which he believes to be unconstitutional. If, say, Oklahoma has somewhere in its musty session laws a requirement that all schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day, and some uberpatriotic group unearths that law, the State Education Department and any school district will be within its grounds to refuse to enforce it, as such a law was declared unconstitutional before Pearl Harbor. Would that work for the guy perfoming the marriages. If this clerk feel the law is unconstitutional can he say that and not marry gays? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/205 "2013-03-28T04:44:53Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > If Scalia feels free to cast the first stone, Iā€™ll cast The Second Stone. (And yes, thatā€™s what the handle means.) Scalia doesnā€™t behave like a judge, but as though he were law schoolā€™s version of Dick Cheney. He deserves no respect. Kagen and Kennedy were also asking questions. Maybe you should consider a third and fourth stone. How do you expect Supreme Court Justices clarify any issues they may have if you donā€™t want them asking questions in an attempt to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/206 "2013-03-28T04:46:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Would that work for the guy perfoming the marriages. If this clerk feel the law is unconstitutional can he say that and not marry gays? Of course. The 13th Amendment allows him to quit his job at any time. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/207 "2013-03-28T04:54:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Kagen and Kennedy were also asking questions. Maybe you should consider a third and fourth stone. How do you expect Supreme Court Justices clarify any issues they may have if you donā€™t want them asking questions in an attempt to do so? Scalia is trolling, not asking questions. Heā€™s deliberately being an ass. Thatā€™s one thing to do on the internet, but not really appropriate of a judge. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/208 "2013-03-28T05:22:25Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Scalia is trolling, not asking questions. Heā€™s deliberately being an ass. Thatā€™s one thing to do on the internet, but not really appropriate of a judge. Hahahaha. Supreme Court Justices are ā€œtrollingā€. Thatā€™s a good one. On a serious note, for all you ā€œknowā€, after becoming familiar with all of the previous court documents, the amicus curiae, the last two days of questioning, and the close door debate(s) with the other Justices, Scalia may rule in your favor. You shouldnā€™t give up so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/209 "2013-03-28T05:26:13Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Scalia is trolling, not asking questions. Heā€™s deliberately being an ass. Thatā€™s one thing to do on the internet, but not really appropriate of a judge. Different justices approach the law from different starting points, and some of us can appreciate that. If you have a specific quote that youā€™d like to put forward as ā€œtrollingā€, perhaps you should start a thread dedicated to that. Making a blanket statement as you have with absolutely no back-up argument is, well, underwhelming to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/210 "2013-03-28T06:35:28Z")
Iā€™m repeating what Rachel Maddow observed, and it seems correct. He says these outrageous things (comparing homosexuality to murder) to get a reaction. She was at the arguments, and he was apparently looking to the crowd in anticipation of the gasps. Iā€™ll say it if I want to, itā€™s not as if Iā€™m upsetting the decorum (or disrupting the process) of the courtroom like he is. He may very well rule ā€œin my favorā€ (whatever that is) but Iā€™m not going to hold my breath till Scalia turns blue, being a dick on the bench and in various speaking engagements is decidedly unjudicial. He is the worst justice in the history of the court, including McReynolds. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/211 "2013-03-28T06:49:26Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Iā€™m repeating what Rachel Maddow observed, and it seems correct. He says these outrageous things (comparing homosexuality to murder) to get a reaction. She was at the arguments, and he was apparently looking to the crowd in anticipation of the gasps. Iā€™ll say it if I want to, itā€™s not as if Iā€™m upsetting the decorum (or disrupting the process) of the courtroom like he is. He may very well rule ā€œin my favorā€ (whatever that is) but Iā€™m not going to hold my breath till Scalia turns blue, being a dick on the bench and in various speaking engagements is decidedly unjudicial. He is the worst justice in the history of the court, including McReynolds. You may want to reconsider using political pundits, who make their living by shocking and enraging their viewers/listeners as a reliable data source. Note, I am not anti pundit, their ability to drive ratings is amazing but they are paid to opine in an entertaining way. They are not subject matter experts or even journalists (in relation to their shows content). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/212 "2013-03-28T06:50:09Z")
To expand a little bit on the part of ā€œmaybe he will rule in your favorā€, I donā€™t have a side in the case, havenā€™t studied constitutional law for 25 years. Iā€™m in favor of gay marriage, and voted against Prop 8. Iā€™d like to see California put the issue on the ballot again, but I can see the point of ā€œyou canā€™t take away a right once granted.ā€ Personally, I donā€™t think rights are ever granted. They are struggled for an won. But that is beside the point. Iā€™m a bit uneasy with overturning the idiotic will of the people, if it is on solid grounds of equal dignity of people through the constitution. It is too easy to turn that edged weapon against the people. I think gay people should be able to call themselves married and have their partners in marriage get all the same legal rights, benefits and obligations as other married people. There is no logical reason not to. Yes, there are religious reasons not to, but Iā€™m not about to let other people force their religions on others if I can help it. Back in the 90s I was against gay marriage. But ā€œeww, Iā€™m an ignorant bigotā€ isnā€™t a logical reason, nor does it harm anyone what other people do with their lives in a marriage. So I changed my mind. DOMA is actually an interesting federalism question from a purely academic point of view. People have a fundamental right to travel and settle in whatever state they want to and states are supposed to give full faith and credit to the laws of other states. I donā€™t see how Congress can take that away, Congress has only the powers granted by the Constitution, and withholding full faith and credit on a case by case basis (ā€œewwā€) isnā€™t among those. On the other hand, while people in California are probably ready to do this, and other states, perhaps the people in Kansas would be positively unready and freaked. Not that that is legal grounds. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/213 "2013-03-28T06:55:41Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You may want to reconsider using political pundits, who make their living by shocking and enraging their viewers/listeners as a reliable data source. > > Note, I am not anti pundit, their ability to drive ratings is amazing but they are paid to opine in an entertaining way. They are not subject matter experts or even journalists (in relation to their shows content). I thought Maddowā€™s comments were very to the point. Iā€™ve followed Scaliaā€™s outrageous conduct for a quarter century, and this phrase absolutely describes it. Nor am I under the impression that I (or anybody else here) is any better than Maddow, who has just as much right to punditize as we do, or Mr. Limbaugh or someone else. When sheā€™s right, sheā€™s right, and Iā€™m not going to use her phrase without credit. She found the phrase I had been searching for a long time to find. I donā€™t watch her show, but I did see her interview on the Daily Show and thought her comments worthwhile. Scalia has ghastly behavior for a judge and always has. He makes inappropriate comments at public speaking events, hears the cases of his personal friends, and writes opinions that have quite a bit of venom in them. He makes Judge Judy seem merely rude and brusque by comparison. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/214 "2013-03-28T07:05:32Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I thought Maddowā€™s comments were very to the point. Iā€™ve followed Scaliaā€™s outrageous conduct for a quarter century, and this phrase absolutely describes it. Nor am I under the impression that I (or anybody else here) is any better than Maddow, who has just as much right to punditize as we do, or Mr. Limbaugh or someone else. When sheā€™s right, sheā€™s right, and Iā€™m not going to use her phrase without credit. She found the phrase I had been searching for a long time to find. I donā€™t watch her show, but I did see her interview on the Daily Show and thought her comments worthwhile. > > Scalia has ghastly behavior for a judge and always has. He makes inappropriate comments at public speaking events, hears the cases of his personal friends, and writes opinions that have quite a bit of venom in them. He makes Judge Judy seem merely rude and brusque by comparison. Have you ever considered that maybe he believe the things he says? I am not saying that is better but you are claiming he is saying them to get a rise out of people. If you have been noticing this for 25 years why donā€™t you consider that he may have poor social skills. Nothing, either the appeal to authority by saying you are just repeating what a pundit said nor this post suggests he was ā€œtrollingā€ Maddow, Limbah, G Gordon Liddy they ā€œtrollā€, thatā€™s how they make their living. He has nothing to gain by ā€œtrollingā€ so why make that charge vs. considering the obvious. He is an old homophobic man who was conservative beliefs and is outspoken. But I question your claim to have been watching him closely because he was downright tame during these hearings compared to his normal style. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/215 "2013-03-28T08:01:29Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > He may very well rule ā€œin my favorā€ (whatever that is) but Iā€™m not going to hold my breath till Scalia turns blue, being a dick on the bench and in various speaking engagements is decidedly unjudicial. He is the worst justice in the history of the court, including McReynolds. While I agree that Scalia is a partisan dick of the highest order, he at least seems to have the requisite level of knowledge and ability required to be an SC Justice, and even asking dickish questions can serve the wider interest of the court. I donā€™t know how anyone could call him the ā€œworst justice in the history of the courtā€ while Clarence ā€œSilent Clareā€ Thomas is sitting _right there_. ---
**Author:** ![kneegrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@kneegrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kneegrow)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/216 "2013-03-28T08:20:57Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > public opinion \*\*\*seems \*\*\*to be turning in favor of SSM > > So, what do you think? Seems? I really think you should edit ā€œseemsā€ out, when general polls are 58 percent in favor, 18-29 year olds are like 80 percent in favor. etc. Seniors might have anti-equality majority, but seniors die priddy soonā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![kneegrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@kneegrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kneegrow)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/217 "2013-03-28T08:25:11Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > And even outside of CA, its hardly true that making ā€œmarriage to include same-sex couples, you must ā€“ you must permit adoption by same-sex couplesā€. Well, it is in all the countries which have it, and it should be true. Same rights for everyone. If gays get marriage equality, they should have adoption rights. This is the only actual damage that non-gays can show, competition on the adoption markets. ---
**Author:** ![kneegrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@kneegrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kneegrow)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/218 "2013-03-28T08:36:00Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > So which is the correct paraphrase, > > ā€œIā€™m not saying gays are unfit to be parents, but they might be, and if they are, thatā€™s a reason for not allowing them to marry.ā€ > or > ā€œIā€™m not saying gays are unfit to be parents, but they might be, and since they might be thatā€™s a reason for not allowing them to marry.ā€ whatā€™s the difference between " \*\*\*if \*\*\*they are" and ā€œsince they \*\*\*might \*\*\*beā€?? I guess nothing. Both are speculative. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/219 "2013-03-28T08:47:44Z")
> [@kneegrow](#): > > whatā€™s the difference between > " \*\*\*if \*\*\*they are" and ā€œsince they \*\*\*might \*\*\*beā€?? I guess nothing. Both are speculative. In the first version, the reason is only valid if the detriment is shown to happen. In the second, the reason is considered valid unless the detriment is shown NOT to happen. Itā€™s a substantial shift of the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/220 "2013-03-28T13:07:19Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > That confused my husband too. (The only reason I wasnā€™t ā€˜confusedā€™ is because Iā€™m too ignorant to have even thought it though). > Anyway, hubby was confused because while it makes sense that the pro-gay side looks like the plaintiffs ā€“ they are not. The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case are the pro-Prop8 people. I guess the reason is because they are the ones appealing? > Anyway, this whole thing confused hubby because all the gnashing of teeth about standing. He was all, WTF? Of course the couples would have standing. He knows (and I didnā€™t) that standing only matters for the plaintiff. And the only group that could have questionable standing is the pro-Prop8 side. So he was confused too. > The answer is that the pro-Prop8 people are the plaintiffs. > > For DOMA, I assume the same reasoning holds. There was quite a bit of questioning regarding standing again, so I guess that means the pro-DOMA side is the plaintiff. My WAG is that it is because they are appealing the lower rulings against DOMA. This appears to have confused you even more than your husband. The plaintiffs in both cases are the pro-SSM/anti-Prop 8 and DOMA people. You may be getting hung up on who the _appellants_ are. The standing issue exists in the Prop 8 case because the proponents of the measure were substituted for the state as the defendants (because the governor and attorney general refused to defend the measure against the constitutional challenge). While California law apparently says the proponents have standing, itā€™s not clear that federal law does. There are no standing issues as to the plaintiffs in either case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=12)