Interestingly, one of the Judges (Helene White) is a Democrat nominated by W as part of a larger compromise so two true GOP judges need to flip.
Sure, but since they denied cert before, I think we already know which direction they were leaning. If they wanted to forbid same sex marriage, they needed to take it.
It’s difficult to know why they denied cert. It could be that neither side felt like they had the votes. Kennedy is the wild card. That said, if they end up upholding the decision of the 6th, what does that mean for the States where SSM became legal via Circuit Court decisions over the last year? It will be a mess.
[QUOTE=hajario;17880851. That said, if they end up upholding the decision of the 6th, what does that mean for the States where SSM became legal via Circuit Court decisions over the last year? It will be a mess.[/QUOTE]
It stops being legal in those states.
I actually have a friend who I’ve known for about 15 years who used to be an attorney here in Nashville and a few years ago was put on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Obama. I’ve only seen her a couple of times since she was sworn in, however.
She wasn’t on the panel, but if the case goes en banc I’d expect her to vote for reversal. She once gave me the impression that the judges on that court don’t get along very well, but naturally did not get into specifics.
But, you know, sometimes you have to go for broke. The signs look good and the issue can be resolved once and for all.
It would be both extremely cruel to thousands of couples and a bureaucratic nightmare - what about couples who currently get married in, say, Oklahoma and have subsequently moved to New York or other jurisdiction where SSM is not in legal question? Would they still be married? What about the people who file joint tax returns for tax year 2014, since no decision from the Supreme Court will happen until next year, will the IRS have to chase down and fine all these people? And we’re not just talking forced divorce - will the states revoke the adoptions of one of the parents in gay marriages where unmarried couples are not allowed to jointly adopt?
Kennedy will not do that to all these people, I’m relatively confident of that. But I’m not confident of what he might do. If he’s inclined to split the baby, what he could do is rule that the states have to recognize SSMs from other states, and validly conducted ones from their own state while court-ordered, but do not have to issue new ones of their own because federalism. This would have the effect of continuing to confuse the legal standard around SSM (allowing de facto SSM in every state while being totally unclear as to the rationale why) and upsetting every side of the issue, which makes me think it’s a very real possibility.
You may be right and then the fight would be elections state by state to fix the constitutions. It could take decades for the last hold outs.
I think that the specter of Loving looms large. It was a unanimous decision. I don’t have those same hopes for SSM but my prediction is that Kennedy and Roberts join the usual liberals when this thing ends.
Given the language contained in Roberts’ dissent in Windsor, I am curious as to why you think he would join a decision expanding any recognition of same-sex relationships. My guess is that it goes 5-4 whichever way it goes.
In a bit of good news, a Federal judge just overturned the SSM ban for the entire state of Missouri. It was stayed indefinitely pending appeal however.
It may depend on the state. When California passed Proposition 8, it was challenged in state court as violating the state’s Constitution, and the court ruled, “No, Proposition 8 is valid; however, any same-sex marriages conducted in California prior to its enactment must still be recognized, and never mind that California’s Constitution now specifically says that they’re not.”
I wonder what the thinking would have been had it been some sort of gun ban - probably along the lines of, “A ban on guns is in accordance with the state Constitution, and no, just because you had the right to own a gun up to this point does not mean you still have the right to own that gun.”
Given this development is it possible/likely/unlikely that the Supreme Court takes it up this term? Can the states in the 4th Circuit, say, apply for a stay based upon this new development?
SCOTUS created a nightmare here. I think that all posters here agree, even if we disagree with what the result should be, the Supreme Court needs to put an end to these hundreds of cases asking the same question.
The pro-SSM sides have all agreed to fast track their request to SCOTUS, the first of which will probably arrive by the end of next week. I am sure that they were well prepared for this eventuality so the paper work must have been 90% their already. SCOTUS can do whatever the hell they want but it’s very likely that it will be heard this term and we will know the final result in June 2015.
SSM ban struck down in South Carolina (stayed until 11/20). SC was the last hold out in the 4th Circuit.
Yes and as goes KS, so will go SC.
KS was appealed to SCOTUS and they haven’t answered yet. Before the decision in the 6th which created a split, it would have been a no brainer like we saw with ID. Now it’s not so clear. They may keep the stays until SCOTUS decides once and for all. The circuits for both of those states (as well as MT which hasn’t gotten as far yet) have made their decisions and it’s the law of the land within them.
Why is the government so keen on not allowing gay marriage? What do they get out of not allowing it? Is it to keep a tight leash on the US citizens? Are they afraid that the whole United States will go gay and our numbers will diminish? All I’ve ever heard or read is that they won’t do it not as to why, but I want to know why?
The only reason I can think of is that all the people who allow or disallow the legalization of gay marriage are all homophobes. That we need to wait till they all die and get replaced by the younger and more rational generation.
So if anyone knows the “why” please tell me.
btw im not gay just an equalist.
It’s not “the government”. It’s certain groups of people.
They’ll hide behind bullshitty things like “the will of the majority is being abridged” or “it’s a tradition that we need to keep” or “it’s enshrined in the law” or whatever but it all boils down to tiny minded, nasty bigotry. Luckily the founders of this nation were well aware of problems that could be caused by the tyranny of the majority and that’s where the courts need to step in at times. In future decades, these individuals will be laughed at and mocked for the poor excuses of humanity that they are and it will be well deserved.
SCOTUS denied the stay and marriages can begin in all of KS. Four votes were needed to keep the stay in place and there were only two (Scalia and Thomas).
Strange stuff. You have Roberts and Alito on record opposing constitutional recognition of SSM, but they seem happy to allow it to continue (at least in circuits that have approved it).
I still can’t imagine that the Court will allow SSM to be legal/illegal depending on what federal circuit a person lives.