# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/261 "2013-03-28T22:05:18Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Gah, I wish I could remember where I found it, but I read a list of quotes out there of things that Scalia has compared homosexuality to. The only one I remember, because it was called out as particularly insidious, was an implication that a gay relationship was of no more emotional or legal significance than that of roommates. > > Anyway, the quotes seemed to add up to a man who personally does not like homosexuality, to say the least. > > If I find it, I’ll point to it. 😛 Here you go [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/25/1766941/thirteen-offensive-things-justice-scalias-compared-to-homosexuality/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/25/1766941/thirteen-offensive-things-justice-scalias-compared-to-homosexuality/) ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/262 "2013-03-28T22:12:15Z")
Ah, thank you. Having the context certainly makes discussion/analysis a lot easier. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/263 "2013-03-28T22:16:21Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Here you go > > [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/25/1766941/thirteen-offensive-things-justice-scalias-compared-to-homosexuality/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/25/1766941/thirteen-offensive-things-justice-scalias-compared-to-homosexuality/) No, that is not a link to Romer, that is a link to what someone opines about what Scalia wrtoe in his Romer dissent. Just look up Romer and search for “roommate”. It is only in there once. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/264 "2013-03-28T22:21:09Z")
I’m not sure what you mean. The linked article links to Scalia’s dissent in Romer, and I find the quote exactly as quoted in that last bullet point in that dissent. ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/265 "2013-03-28T22:59:37Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. The linked article links to Scalia’s dissent in Romer, and I find the quote exactly as quoted in that last bullet point in that dissent. Wow..that is really a streach…here is that quote > [@](#): > > “The amendment prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more. It would not affect, for example, a requirement of state law that pensions be paid to all retiring state employees with a certain length of service; homosexual employees, as well as others, would be entitled to that benefit. But it would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.” And this is below the opinion of that pages author: > [@](#): > > For all his over the top rhetoric, Scalia’s cruelest dig on same-sex couples may be his most subtle. In a discussion about what the anti-gay Colorado amendment in Romer does and does not prohibit, Scalia suggests that the bond between two men or two women in a committed relationship is no greater than the bond between two “roommates” But that doesn’t follow at all, OK the first statement shows that he will be on the wrong side of history but he is saying that the law in Colorado would not allow survivor ship benefits to a gay couple unless it would also do so for roomates. This true, and part of the reason we want SSM legal, marriage is the contract that allows that survivor-ship benefit transfer, if they don’t allow SSM that right doesn’t exist. How the owner of that webpage decides that Scalia is talking about the bond between the humans is just silly and pretty darn close to pit worthy. Once again, Scalia is on the wrong side of history IMHO, but you really need to shove a lot of meaning into his words that just isn’t there to come to your cite’s conclusions. But this may also be a plus for my pro SSM side, he doesn’t like the “separate but equal” “special treatment” so hopefully he wants to get rid of that (aka civil unions) and allow full marriage. Can you see that? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/266 "2013-03-28T23:49:05Z")
Actually, I was not understanding **John Mace’s** actual, literal words. But I think I get what he was saying now. ---
**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, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/267 "2013-03-28T23:54:08Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. The linked article links to Scalia’s dissent in Romer, and I find the quote exactly as quoted in that last bullet point in that dissent. No, you’re right, it does have a quote, but not the whole decision. And the commentary is just wrong. Scalia is talking about the legal aspects, and says nothing about emotional attachment. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/268 "2013-03-28T23:56:23Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Putting aside my feelings about Scalia’s argument, I’d like to ask about rational basis here. > > If a California law had no rational basis in California, but a similar law might have had a rational basis somewhere else where circumstances are different, that can’t really justify upholding the California law, can it? > > Justice Ginsburg’s reply to Scalia at least seemed to suggest she felt the question was irrelevant given the state of same-sex adoptions in California. To survive rational basis review, a law must be _rationally related to a legitimate state interest_. The interest does not have to be the one (or any) that the legislature explicitly aimed to protect when they passed the law, just a legitimate interest that proponents can point to in court. To answer your question, it is plausible that one state could have a legitimate interest that another does not. For example, Alaska has a legitimate interest in protecting ocean fish stocks, while Indiana has no such interest. I am having a difficult time conceiving of any situation in which one state may have a legitimate interest in “preserving traditional marriage” that another jurisdiction would not share, but it’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/269 "2013-03-29T12:56:51Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > But this may also be a plus for my pro SSM side, he doesn’t like the “separate but equal” “special treatment” so hopefully he wants to get rid of that (aka civil unions) and allow full marriage. Can you see that? Not really. Remember that he (and Alito) are devout Catholics, and will not easily go against their church’s teachings. They’ll both find some way to avoid the question instead of applying EP. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/270 "2013-03-29T14:42:34Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Gah, I wish I could remember where I found it, but I read a list of quotes out there of things that Scalia has compared homosexuality to. The only one I remember, because it was called out as particularly insidious, was an implication that a gay relationship was of no more emotional or legal significance than that of roommates. > > Anyway, the quotes seemed to add up to a man who personally does not like homosexuality, to say the least. > > If I find it, I’ll point to it. 😛 Don’t forget to post examples of the other Justices as well, Kagan, etc, just for a more balanced and thorough examination of the possible biases of the court. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/271 "2013-03-29T14:52:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not really. Remember that he (and Alito) are devout Catholics, and will not easily go against their church’s teachings. They’ll both find some way to avoid the question instead of applying EP. You do realize that post was just showing how the owner o that webpage was creating their own narrative out of thin air right and not that I think it is likely. My “WAG” is just as and probably more valid than their claim. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/272 "2013-03-29T15:00:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think the idea that Scalia “hates gays” does not belong in reasoned debate about the subject because it’s so difficult to know such a thing. And we should consider that two people might have differing views about the law as it applies to gays without either of those people “hating” gays. We certainly expect our SCOTUS justices to put aside any person feelings they have about people or groups of people when applying the law. Aren’t judges, generally-speaking, supposed/expected to be able to put aside their personal biases when ruling on the facts of a case? It has been decided not to set aside the decision of Judge Walker, who originally struck down Prop 8, because it was assumed that he was able to put aside his personal bias (he’s gay and didn’t make that fact known to the litigants until after handing down his decision) ? \*The appeals court that overturned Proposition 8 on Tuesday also ruled that retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled against the 2008 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, was not obligated to step away from the case because he was in a long term same-sex relationship. The panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge James Ware, who refused to overturn Walker’s ruling on the grounds he failed to disclose his relationship, based the ruling on sound law and logic. The court cited Ware’s finding that it was unreasonable to presume a judge could not be unbiased simply because he or she might one day be affected by the ruling\*. > **[Archive blogs](https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/)** > > Los Angeles Times blogs that were published between 2006 and 2013. ---
**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 29, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/273 "2013-03-29T15:14:25Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Aren’t judges, generally-speaking, supposed/expected to be able to put aside their personal biases when ruling on the facts of a case? It has been decided not to set aside the decision of Judge Walker, who originally struck down Prop 8, because it was assumed that he was able to put aside his personal bias (he’s gay and didn’t make that fact known to the litigants until after handing down his decision) ? > > \*The appeals court that overturned Proposition 8 on Tuesday also ruled that retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled against the 2008 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, was not obligated to step away from the case because he was in a long term same-sex relationship. > > The panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge James Ware, who refused to overturn Walker’s ruling on the grounds he failed to disclose his relationship, based the ruling on sound law and logic. > > The court cited Ware’s finding that it was unreasonable to presume a judge could not be unbiased simply because he or she might one day be affected by the ruling\*. > > [Archive blogs](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-gay-judges-relationship-not-a-factor-court-rules.html) Certainly a justice’s political stance, either pro or anti-SSM, is potentially troublesome in such a case, and we must assume that they are able to put those feelings aside while presiding over a case. But it seems that some people here think that being personally pro-SSM is somehow correct, and so is not an issue, while being personally anti-SSM is wrong, and so creates a conflict. For instane, the RCC is staunchly anti-death penalty, and yet no one brings this up when Scalia must rule on that issue. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/274 "2013-03-29T15:19:17Z")
Yet \*more \*I’m-above-it-all both-sides-ism. :rolleyes: ---
**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 29, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/275 "2013-03-29T15:27:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yet \*more \*I’m-above-it-all both-sides-ism. :rolleyes: Is there something particular in my post that you’d like to point out is incorrect or are you just pouting because someone point out faulty logic in your argument. You doubt that Scalia can go against the RCC in this case because he’s a devout Catholic, and yet he certainly has done so in cased involving the death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/276 "2013-03-29T15:32:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > For instane, the RCC is staunchly anti-death penalty, and yet no one brings this up when Scalia must rule on that issue. Well, he’s also notoriously in favor of the death penalty (or at least not agreeing that there is any legal basis to forbid its application), and on record as saying that he thinks this is compatible with his Catholic faith. People do mention it from time to time. I think the interesting person to watch in this decision is Thomas. There’s a pretty good argument to be made in the DOMA case that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to overrule the states on what a marriage is. Thomas said in dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that while he didn’t think there was any Constitutional reason that a state couldn’t outlaw same-sex sexual behavior, he didn’t personally think that it was a good or useful thing for a state to do. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see him voting to strike down section 3 of DOMA on federalism grounds. On the other hand, that would pretty much inexorably lead to states being required to acknowledge other states’ SSMs, and that may not be a road he’s comfortable on. ---
**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 29, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/277 "2013-03-29T15:37:54Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > Well, he’s also notoriously in favor of the death penalty (or at least not agreeing that there is any legal basis to forbid its application), and on record as saying that he thinks this is compatible with his Catholic faith. People do mention it from time to time.. And that demonstrates that he is able to go against the explicit teachings of the Church when ruling as a justice. I’m sure he’s anti-flag burning, personally, and yet he also has no qualms ruling that flag burning is a protected form of speech. The idea that he is somehow beholden to the Church on the issue of SSM doesn’t make sense. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/278 "2013-03-29T16:10:31Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > I think the interesting person to watch in this decision is Thomas. There’s a pretty good argument to be made in the DOMA case that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to overrule the states on what a marriage is. Thomas said in dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that while he didn’t think there was any Constitutional reason that a state couldn’t outlaw same-sex sexual behavior, he didn’t personally think that it was a good or useful thing for a state to do. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see him voting to strike down section 3 of DOMA on federalism grounds. On the other hand, that would pretty much inexorably lead to states being required to acknowledge other states’ SSMs, and that may not be a road he’s comfortable on. That’s pretty much SOP for Justices who are ruling that a challenged statute passes rational basis scrutiny. “I think this is dumb, but it’s not our job to keep the legislatures from doing dumb things.” The dissents in Griswold are full of it, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/279 "2013-03-29T16:38:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Don’t forget to post examples of the other Justices as well, Kagan, etc, just for a more balanced and thorough examination of the possible biases of the court. If you can find any similar roundups, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/280 "2013-03-29T17:38:18Z")
They can be found easily at your favorite fair and balanced (and thorough) news source. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=15)