Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[United Russian Soviet States]

They did not allow it. It was too radical back then.

And yet you claimed they did.

I never said they allowed it.

[The United Territories of Providence]

That's not true. It was southern democrats who threw a fit. Republicans supported civil rights legislation until the late 60's. It was conservatives who were fighting it, and they belonged to the Democratic Party. So....facts....please.

Apologies, social conservatives threw a fit.

To be fair to you though, because of Nixon's southern strategy...those social conservatives became the new Republicans.

[Moderate Republican]

Starting to develop some questions here, but I am admittedly less informed about process of the Supreme Court than I am Congress.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us ... ?referrer=

So in that link, it says the first two questions the Supreme Court set up for itself (which it says is uncommon):

"The court’s first question: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

The second: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”"

So clearly they are setting themselves up for at least the possibility of a 'halfy.' Hopefully that is Scalia and Alito giving Kennedy a way out if they convice him to take it, as opposed to Kennedy looking for a way to avoid overturning SSM bans..

Anyway, if the court answered no to the first and yes to the second, where would that leave the 18 states that overturned SSM bans last year through federal courts? Would the Supreme Court saying no to the first even if it said yes to the second automatically reverse those decisions?

Thought I'd re-ask in case it was missed at end of page last time.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And yet you claimed they did.

I never said they allowed it.

Pretty sure, not too long ago, you said legalizing SSM is putting the US on the path to the USSR since they supported SSM.

[New Frenco Empire]

I never said they allowed it.

Pretty sure, not too long ago, you said legalizing SSM is putting the US on the path to the USSR since they supported SSM.

To be fair, I think he said it was because they were the "first nation" to legalize homosexuality.

Which, of course, is still false on many levels.

[United Marxist Nations]

He can't because they didn't. In fact, homosexual activity was outlawed for most of the Soviet Union, since it was never really around for the LGBT rights movement; during that period, most Western medicine considered it a mental disease, while the USSR considered it bourgeois decadence.

You remind me of the kid in grade school who always had his hand up, waving frantically at the teacher because he knows the answer.

u wot m9

[Farnhamia]

You remind me of the kid in grade school who always had his hand up, waving frantically at the teacher because he knows the answer.

u wot m9

You've developed a habit of answering questions I put to other people. It's annoying. I know there are no private conversations in these threads but it's still annoying.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Starting to develop some questions here, but I am admittedly less informed about process of the Supreme Court than I am Congress.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us ... ?referrer=

So in that link, it says the first two questions the Supreme Court set up for itself (which it says is uncommon):

"The court’s first question: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

The second: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”"

So clearly they are setting themselves up for at least the possibility of a 'halfy.' Hopefully that is Scalia and Alito giving Kennedy a way out if they convice him to take it, as opposed to Kennedy looking for a way to avoid overturning SSM bans..

Anyway, if the court answered no to the first and yes to the second, where would that leave the 18 states that overturned SSM bans last year through federal courts? Would the Supreme Court saying no to the first even if it said yes to the second automatically reverse those decisions?

Thought I'd re-ask in case it was missed at end of page last time.

I'd think that no and yes would force the states with bans to recognize unions from other states, which means people can marry in other states and be residents of their home state and receive married benefits in their state.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

u wot m9

You've developed a habit of answering questions I put to other people. It's annoying. I know there are no private conversations in these threads but it's still annoying.

I fail to see how providing answers to asked questions is annoying.

[United Marxist Nations]

u wot m9

You've developed a habit of answering questions I put to other people. It's annoying. I know there are no private conversations in these threads but it's still annoying.

I assumed you were just asking for the information, not necessarily from that person.

[Salandriagado]

Putting this out there, wasn't marriage first explained/defined in the Bible?

No. Not by many, many thousands of years.

[Farnhamia]

Thought I'd re-ask in case it was missed at end of page last time.

I'd think that no and yes would force the states with bans to recognize unions from other states, which means people can marry in other states and be residents of their home state and receive married benefits in their state.

And if that's the case, what's the point of maintaining a ban? The only possible reason for not allowing SSM, and I don't think it's a very reasonable one, is the cost to the state of providing those benefits. Once they have to do that, they may as well allow their own citizens to marry.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Again I'm for SSM, and it's hurting me to say this, but I also support a states right to say "no".
Maybe I need to get put of state more, but I'm surrounded by old money, old south, good ole boy, democrats with a hatred of African Americans (or any race other than white) and very isolationist attitudes. (Not my parents or grandparents thank God). So I couldn't tell my neighbors I took a black girl to prom or that I'm bisexual. While I see that this is wrong, i guess I'm just hoping that I wint see violence. These are very....strong willed people that have admitted to being part of pro segregation rallies and have said they'd sooner "shoot a hommo than see that bastard get married"

Equal protection of law means (or, rather at the moment, should mean) that they have no right to say no in this case. On your earlier (and rather irrelevant, but I'll humour you) point, I also see no reason to deny plural marriages to consenting adults. I may think it a bad idea to exercise such a right should it be recognized, but that's neither here nor there.

[United Russian Soviet States]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

[United Marxist Nations]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

The bulk GOP probably doesn't care enough to do that (especially since many hope to drop more archaic views like that to widen their electoral appeal), and the states would have to ratify the amendment.

[Moderate Republican]

I'd think that no and yes would force the states with bans to recognize unions from other states, which means people can marry in other states and be residents of their home state and receive married benefits in their state.

Yes for sure, so I suppose those states would go back to banning SSMs in their own states? Would that reverse all the SSMs done since the federal cases that legalized SSMs in those states?

I'd think that no and yes would force the states with bans to recognize unions from other states, which means people can marry in other states and be residents of their home state and receive married benefits in their state.

And if that's the case, what's the point of maintaining a ban? The only possible reason for not allowing SSM, and I don't think it's a very reasonable one, is the cost to the state of providing those benefits. Once they have to do that, they may as well allow their own citizens to marry.

Heh, especially since now in my home state of Missouri if you were SSMed in another state and moved to Missouri you are now permanently married for tax purposes, due to the fact our courts would not handle an SSM divorce and only recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

[United Russian Soviet States]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

An amendment could alter the 1st Amendment as well.

[New Frenco Empire]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

"Allowing other people to marry violates muh religious freedom!"

[Moderate Republican]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SSM, will Congress be able to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the decision since the GOP controls both houses?

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

If it is a constitutional amendment it can have a religious basis. The constitution couldn't be ruled unconstitutional.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd think that no and yes would force the states with bans to recognize unions from other states, which means people can marry in other states and be residents of their home state and receive married benefits in their state.

And if that's the case, what's the point of maintaining a ban? The only possible reason for not allowing SSM, and I don't think it's a very reasonable one, is the cost to the state of providing those benefits. Once they have to do that, they may as well allow their own citizens to marry.

You either overestimate human nature or think people opposed against it are looking at the costs to legalize marriage.

My hunch is more keeping a ban to show them who is boss and not "succumb to immorality".

Who are they? I dunno, but the state will show them how pure and mindful of family values they are

[Geilinor]

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

An amendment could alter the 1st Amendment as well.

3/4ths of the states would instantly reject that.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

An amendment could alter the 1st Amendment as well.

And that would most CERTAINLY never happen. Ever.

[United Marxist Nations]

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

An amendment could alter the 1st Amendment as well.

Which just about the whole country would be opposed to.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

That is not all it takes to pass an amendment. 3/4ths of the states also need to affirm it.

Besides, I fail to see how they can do such a thing without religious basis.

If it is a constitutional amendment it can have a religious basis. The constitution couldn't be ruled unconstitutional.

It would still viloate the Establishment Clause, as it would be placing one religion above others.