# Supreme Court \[declines to hear\] same sex marriage cases.\[plus further developments (Ed.)\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544 "2014-10-06T13:50:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/381 "2015-02-02T12:16:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You will forever be known as the man of the washing machine analogy. I’m still trying to figure out what the point of that was supposed to be. My best guess, after filing it with the other SDMB analogy that will live forever, is “substituting a paper towel tube for a washing machine hose is a really bad idea”. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/382 "2015-02-02T12:23:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I slightly disagree. Reason can only work with the information it has. Fifty years ago, most non-experts had information from experts that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and so it’s not unreasonable for folks to trust those experts… But the “experts” themselves were driven by parochial prejudices. When I say that opposition has always been irrational, I mean for humans generally, not any subset in time and place. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/383 "2015-02-02T13:41:55Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But the “experts” themselves were driven by parochial prejudices. When I say that opposition has always been irrational, I mean for humans generally, not any subset in time and place. There’s an interesting underlying question: is it rational to trust experts? For most folk in the 1950s, say, they had very little information about homosexuality, and the information they had mainly came from professionals like psychologists (telling them that it was a mental illness) and religious leaders (telling them it was a sin). Certainly you can fault those professionals for irrational behavior, but I’m not sure it’s fair to fault the lay people. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/384 "2015-02-02T14:09:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Since SSM was only legal in one state a scant ten years ago, we don’t and can’t know if there is any harm from them; nor can we know if it has worked out. But that’s not how our system is supposed to work. You find harm and _then_ legislate against it, not the other way around. We can do it the other way around, of course (leaving constitutional limitations aside for a moment), but you have to admit that when we do so we are (generally) legislating based on irrational prejudice. > [@jtgain](#): > > If one wonders why SSM wasn’t legalized with _Loving_ and then finds the answer, the reason why those same arguments don’t apply to SSM become apparent. Because nobody in _Loving_ was challenging a ban on SSM, you mean? ---
**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:** [February 2, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/385 "2015-02-02T16:46:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Since SSM was only legal in one state a scant ten years ago, we don’t and can’t know if there is any harm from them; nor can we know if it has worked out. We also don’t know if these scientists and doctors are looking at moral harm as defined by voters or state legislators. A kid raised by a same sex couple is no more likely to shoot up a school than one raised by a traditional couple? Great. There are a million more metrics to look at. You can’t tell me that those smart guys have studied them all. But surely this is an impossible standard? I mean, we let heterosexuals marry and raise families if they are felons, junkies, mentally imbalanced, in extreme poverty, and any number of other disadvantages and ne’er do wells of every type, and many of them do an all right job. And in extreme cases the state will step in. Why shouldn’t we give SS couples the same benefit of the doubt? More importantly, how exactly are homosexual couples supposed to prove that their marriages are as good as straight couples’ if they’re not allowed to get married at all? (That’s some catch, that catch-22.) And even if they had worse “metrics” on average, why punish them collectively? Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for over 40 years before having the opportunity to marry - maybe we ought to make straight couples pass _that_ test. I still think that a state law that will recognize any marriage to a member of the opposite sex and no marriage to the same sex should be subject to intermediate scrutiny and would clearly fail that test. I suspect that the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court will not apply that standard though. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/386 "2015-02-02T18:23:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > > [@Trinopus](#): > > > > Again, how do you reconcile this with the equal protection clause? > > Unless it infringes on a protected class, laws are only evaluated for rational basis. Sexual orientation has not been found to be a protected class. Wait, you’re mixing up two different things here. The concept of a “protected class” does not apply to the equal protection clause. IANAL, but my understanding is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment talks about “any person,” while the civil rights laws are for protected classes. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/387 "2015-02-02T20:01:16Z")
He IAL. “Protected classes”\* are relevant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence because they determine the level of scrutiny involved. Classifications based on race, national origin and religion get strict scrutiny. Classifications based on gender and between marital and nonmarital children get intermediate scrutiny. Every other classification gets rational basis review. I’m grossly oversimplifying here but it is sufficient for our purposes to say that it’s very difficult to get a law subject to rational basis review overturned. SCOTUS has applied a slightly different formulation of rational basis to orientation classifications (sometimes called “rational basis with bite”) but it’s still pretty deferential. \*_Protected class_ is an awful, terrible term, and lawyers should stop using it. It implies that a particular _group_ may get special treatment under civil rights legislation or the 14th Amendment itself, which isn’t true. _Suspect classifications_ is a much more accurate term. Civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment are for everyone; they both prohibit discrimination against all persons. It’s just that some persons are more likely to be subject to impermissible discrimination. The only truly “protected classes” under federal civil rights legislation are the over-40 (Age Discrimination Act) and disabled (Americans with Disabilities Act), since that legislation does not similarly protect the other side. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/388 "2015-02-02T20:37:11Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > My opposition to the idea that the Constitution demands that each state recognize SSM is not akin to racism, and such a scandalous charge and outrageous personal attack is unsupported by any evidence that you can provide. > > I am simply participating in a contemporaneous and popular debate which is an issue soon to be decided by the Supreme Court, and one that I have 4 votes secured for my side, and one that more than 30 states support via their state constitutions. I would sincerely hope and request that you could debate my arguments instead of attacking my personal character. > [@jtgain](#): > > So scientists and doctors agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Fine. That doesn’t mean that a state or its voters cannot believe that homosexuality is a moral harm. > [@jtgain](#): > > We also don’t know if these scientists and doctors are looking at moral harm as defined by voters or state legislators. Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. “Homosexuality is immoral and harmful,” is a legitimate argument that should be debated on it’s merits. “Opposition to homosexuality is bigoted,” is a scandalous and outrageous attack on your personal character. Yeah, that’s a fair standard. I can see why you like to use “smart” as a sneer word. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/389 "2015-02-02T20:47:45Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I really hope **jtgain** isn’t thinking that his arguments (and the vehemence thereof) in this thread are doing his reputation any good. Before he went batshit on marriage equality, I’d thought of him as a reasonable person. Now I…well, I can’t call him that, so I’ll refrain. Let’s keep the personal comments to a minimum, please. No more of such. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/390 "2015-02-02T21:00:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Have you seen the Jefferson-Hemmings marriage license or even the banns from his church? They opted for a [post mortem religious union](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemmings-baptized-married-mormon-church-154735300.html) only. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/391 "2015-02-02T23:30:07Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. > > “Homosexuality is immoral and harmful,” is a legitimate argument that should be debated on it’s merits. > > “Opposition to homosexuality is bigoted,” is a scandalous and outrageous attack on your personal character. Y’know what my favorite part about this? Opposition to homosexuality can be _cured_. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/392 "2015-02-03T01:04:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > . . . \*_Protected class_ is an awful, terrible term, and lawyers should stop using it. . . . Could be worse; wasn’t it also referred to as “Suspect class?” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/393 "2015-02-03T02:20:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Fair enough. However, I think my hyperbole in this matter doesn’t compare with that of my opponents. while it would not be my first thought on the matter, I suppose that I could be persuaded to agree with you that your hyperbole was an order of magnitude worse. 😉 ---
**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:** [February 3, 2015, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/394 "2015-02-03T14:15:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Could be worse; wasn’t it also referred to as “Suspect class?” Yes. But suspect _classification_ (or protected classification, for that matter) is a much more accurate term. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/395 "2015-02-03T15:04:14Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So scientists and doctors agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Fine. That doesn’t mean that a state or its voters cannot believe that homosexuality is a moral harm. Individual people can _believe_ anything they damn well please. The state, OTOH, can’t just go around _positing_ that X is morally harmful, therefore subject to legal sanction. Because X could be damn near _anything_. X could be dancing or card-playing or using certain curse words in public - and in fact _was_ those things in a goodly number of places in this country, within living memory. So the only reasonable solution is for the state to stay the hell out of questions of what’s _morally_ harmful, and address questions of _practical_ harm only. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/396 "2015-02-03T15:32:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > How can they do that without violating the equal protection clause? What prevents a legislature from declaring that possessing certain political views is “a moral harm?” How far do you want to take this interpretation? > > Again, how do you reconcile this with the equal protection clause? > > This is in regards to why gay rights were not recognized in earlier times. In those times, we (society, civilization, humanity) were ignorant of the nature of homosexuality. We’ve learned since then, and thus we can (and should, must, and shall!) revisit those old laws in light of new knowledge. > > You asked a specific question. I gave an answer. Society is in a better position to make a value judgement today than we were fifty years ago. That’s part of human progress, and how the democratic process works. We learn, and improve ourselves. > > Now: can you possibly tell me why gays should not have equal rights and protections? What is the basis for this antipathy? Have any existing gay marriages been shown to produce any harm to anyone? Uh, governments decide that possessing particular political views is a moral harm all the time, including our government. You cannot become a permanent resident of the United States if you’ve ever been a Communist, for example. (I _disagree_ with that, but unfortunately it happens to be the law). I don’t have a position on whether homosexual intercourse is immoral or not- maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, maybe certain sexual acts are immoral and others aren’t- but I doubt social science and/or human physiology can tell us much about the question one way or another. The moral status of homosexuality depends on your view about the purpose of sex, and that’s not a question that can be decided by the social sciences one way or another (though it may be informed by them). ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/397 "2015-02-03T16:26:52Z")
Breaking news in the Alabama case. The 11th Circuit has declined to extend the stay. Next stop is presumably SCOTUS and then weddings on Friday. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/398 "2015-02-09T13:51:43Z")
SCOTUS still hasn’t ruled on an Alabama stay, but Chief Justice Moore (Asshole) has [ordered state probate judges to refuse to issue licenses](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ala-chief-justice-tells-judges-refuse-gay-marriage-licenses/ar-AA98YCv) claiming that the Federal Judge has no authority to overrule Alabama law. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/399 "2015-02-09T14:00:07Z")
This will not end well for Judge Moore. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/400 "2015-02-09T14:12:19Z")
> [@CGav8r](#): > > This will not end well for Judge Moore. I think he wants that. I think the only reason he ran for his old job was to get thrown to the lions _again_, so he could command a better speaking fee at hate rallies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=21)