Posted on 07/09/2014 8:19:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Suddenly it's a possibility that experts are contemplating: marriage equality could be the law of the land all across the United States within one year.
On Wednesday, Utah asked the Supreme Court to resolve its dispute with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which two weeks ago became the first U.S. circuit court to declare that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court is likely to accept the case. With lawsuits piling up, and gay marriage on an undefeated legal streak since the Court axed the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, the justices may plausibly hear the case in next term and decide it by June 2015.
"I think the Court will take the case. Since [U.S. v.] Windsor, all of the lower courts that have ruled have struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriages," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. "Perhaps without a split in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will wait. My prediction, though, is that the Court knows the issue needs to be resolved and will take it."
And if the Court does hear the case, all eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, not simply because he's the traditional swing vote, but because he has written all three decisions in Supreme Court history that advanced gay rights.
"I also predict that the five justices in the majority in Windsor will be the majority to declare unconstitutional laws that deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians," Chemerinsky said.
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who's respected by conservative legal luminaries, also suggested Kennedy may continue his gay rights streak.
"I would think the Court is likely to take a case in the Fall, though they may wait to see if a real split emerges. Whenever they do take such a case I would not be surprised to see Kennedy cast the deciding vote in favor of gay marriage," Adler said in an email.
In the DOMA case, Kennedy said the federal government may not deny equal benefits to married same-sex couples but didn't address the question of whether state bans on gay marriage were constitutional. Lower court judges widely cited the reasoning in Kennedy's decision, concluding that laws against marriage equality -- like DOMA -- are motivated by a desire to harm gays and lesbians and thus impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court typically resolves national disputes on major issues, especially when the lower courts split. In this case, there may not be a split; if so the Court could choose to wait, experts said. But eventually the widespread view among court watchers is that the lawsuits will keep coming and, in order to avoid chaos and confusion while rulings are on hold pending appeal, the Supreme Court will opt to settle the matter.
Currently 31 states prohibit same-sex marriage, a number that has been dropping.
At least four justices have to vote to take a case in order for the Supreme Court to do so, which could happen as early as this fall.
Here comes fecal marriage, courtesy of the kritarchy!
I’m calling B.S. on the article’s title - it’s not marriage equality. It’s special rights.
If homos wanna create a right to marry each other, they can amend the Constitution to say so.
The American people may not understand what they have done, but they voted for this policy over various election cycles even when they rejected specific referenda on the issue. I also believe that a clear majority favors this policy.
Once there’s a liberal majority on the SCOTUS, all conscience provisions for churches will disappear and all churches will be required to perform SSMs, or be sued out of existence. (Muslims will get the usual waiver of course).
Isn’t it FABULOUS!!!! Little Sally and Billy will never have a mother (or father if their “parents” are lesbians). How great is that?! /s
Simply abolish the income tax deduction for partners and dependents.
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; / To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! / And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? / Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.This is what these activist judges that ram this down the country’s throat are in for.
— Isaiah 10:1-4
America crosses this line, embracing such depravity and evil, there will truly be no country that I see left worth fighting for. No reason to be ‘invested’ in any way towards its future, its well-being, its very existence.
I’ll be supporting secession 100% at that point.
Homosexuals cannot consummate their “marriages”, because what they call sex involves the digestive system.
There are clearly five votes on the court in favor of homosexual marriage. Its just a matter of time.
But it remains that, regardless of pro-gay interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment (14A) by institutionally indoctrinated judges, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. And both the Supreme Court and John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that 14A applies only constitutionally enumerated protections to the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So it would take an amendment to the Constitution to protect gay "rights" like gay marriage.
For what it's worth, I agree with the article's predictions-- the Court will almost certainly grant cert. this year, and I'd personally bet even money (but no more than that) on a 5-4 decision in favor of gay marriage.
Oh, I believe it. I have a homo relative who is already gloating/spiking the ball, claiming that he and his “partner of eight years” will be taking off from work for the last week of June 2015 (which I think is the soonest we’ll see a ruling). They’ll be the freaks on TV at city hall..
Thank God I only see them at weddings/funerals.
Don’t blame the gays and lesbians. Blame the straight people who support gay marriage. Disavow friends and disown family. It’s time to pick a side.
It isn’t equality.
Unfortunately, both of those quotes refer to the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “equal protection” clause. So, they don’t necessarily constrain judges from ruling for same-sex marriage on “equal protection” grounds.
Not that it matters - a judge who wants to rule in favor of same-sex marriage will find a way to do it, regardless of the history and Constitutional language.
I’m thinking it will be 6-3, with Roberts joining Kennedy and the Liberal wing.
The question now for me is how Conservatives manage the aftermath of such a decision. The Left has clearly laid out their intent to position Conservatives as the new version of the Klan. Do we respond by refusing to accept and continuing to actively fight legal gay marriage, or do we transition to protecting the rights of those who oppose it on moral grounds (Christian bakers, photographers) to live their beliefs.
“If homos wanna create a right to marry each other, they can amend the Constitution to say so.”
One of two of these processes need to take place prior to the start of the next term of the SCOTUS.
1. Amend the US Constitution to state that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
2. Impeach Obama and Biden, and then impeach the four or five pro gay marriage members of the SCOTUS and replace them with Christian Pro Family Conservatives.
Don't agree, even if I thought it would accomplish something. I suggest boycotting, to the best of our ability, the companies that support this. Here is the HRC buyer's guide, so you know who to patronize and who to avoid.
Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.