Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for about 80 minutes in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is the lawsuit regarding California's Proposition 8. Two gay couples brought suit on the grounds that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Since the State of California refuses to defend Proposition 8, opponents of gay marriage sought to enforce it in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Generally, citizens do not have legal standing to enforce laws with which they agree. Several justices expressed doubt that gay marriage opponents have standing in this case.
"I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that," said Chief Justice John Roberts.
"I just wonder if this case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
"Why is taking a case now the answer?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Addressing the merits of the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on the "imminent injury" to children in California.
"There’s some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."
Justices Alito and Kennedy raised the possibility that the court is moving too fast to address whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito.
On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, "How does this cause and effect work?"
On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children."
Yeah, I’m with you.
Hopefully that will be the way SC rulings go.
I suppose even FR basically agrees that gay marriage just isn't a very compelling topic outside of a certain minority percentage of religious evangelists.
Says to me that either FR is going back to its original 'Get your filthy government hands out of our lives' roots or that everyone's posting somewhere else.
We are in the heated battle of a culture war. No time to preach to the choir.
“We are in the heated battle of a culture war”
You’re right. It’s called The People versus Sodom and Gomorrah.
Justices should ask each side to describe how their marriage is consummated.
Transcript & audio for today’s arguments are available at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307
I haven’t posted on this today because it is a waste of breath. I figure the court will cancel the DOMA. That will legalize gay marriage in Kalifornia.
They will punt the whole issue back to the states and leave it to the voters on whether they want gay marriage.
In otherwards, the case they heard yesterday they will punt it back to the states.
The case they heard today, they will cancel the Defense of marriage Act.
This will give the court a away out. At the same time it will also push forward the gay marriage agenda.
I guess they will leave it to voters. With the left running things, it will only be a matter of time until gay marriage is okay everywhere. However, since there would not be a precedent set by the court in a federal way, it will differ from Roe V Wade in the respect that if the public ever wanted to end gay marriage, they could do it at the ballot box.
I am not for gay marriage. I am saddened by how far the US has fallen.
Thank You.
I was going to create a second thread for today’s arguments, but when I looked at the number of posts, I simply asked the mods to change the title for me. Two threads would have been overkill.
IMHO if they toss out DOMA then they effectively disenfranchise voters represented at the federal level BECAUSE DOMA imposes nothing upon the states. As well. as such IMHO setting aside DOMA requires something more than the false premise of protecting states rights. That dog won't hunt...
I’d say they’re correct. I don’t see DOMA being upheld. IMO, the only uncertainty left is whether they will overturn all federal rulings on Prop. 8 or not. I can’t even speculate on that one.
Isn’t DOMA permitted under Congress’ Art 4 s.1 power to make rules governing Full Faith and Credit?
Actually, let me speculate further. If SCOTUS believes that same-sex couples meet the legal definition of a “suspect” class, to which Cooper referred yesterday, then I expect them to grant standing in both cases and overturn DOMA and Prop 8. If they believe that this issue is too hot right now and should be left to the states, I expect them to grant standing in DOMA and overturn it and deny standing to Prop. 8 in the entire federal system.
Percent chances? I have no idea.
IMHO it could be argued that to effectively assure Full faith and credit is given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state THAT the definition of a public act e.g. marriage must be uniformly defined and understood.
I know the arguments. All I am saying is what I think the court will do. If they make gay marriage the law of the land as they did with Roe, they will cause a continual roil of the population.
They will punt the 1st case back to Kalifornia, at which the 9th circuit decision will stand, but they will kill DOMA, opening a door for a vote on the issue in states.
Remember when Obozocare was going to SCOTUS? The left kept prattling about the integrity of the Court. They are going to kick this sucker back to the states and leave us to duke it out.
This whole thing is going to become another mess when a gay couple try to divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage.
What a mess, but the left will then say we need a consistent law because it ain’t those poor gay couple’s fault they live somewhere else than they did when they got married.
This whole thing is going to be nothing other than SCOTUS saving face.
Alito, too...
Kennedy and Roberts = big question mark
If they do punt back to the states, it makes no sense to me to leave the federal rulings in place on Prop. 8. They almost have to overturn those and leave the CA State Supreme Court ruling in place. It’s illogical to say that this issue should be decided by the states and then leave in place any federal ruling that overturned a state’s (CA) supreme court on the matter.
But IANAL ... and didn’t think it was logical to consider the individual mandate as a tax. So, what do I know?
Exactly right...
since this jug-earred jerk face has been in office, the Constitution has been shredded...from immigration policy, to defending DOMA, to Obozocare, to gun running,to voting rights,... you name it.
Why oh why would the Obambot SCOTUS be inclined to uphold the Constitution at this juncture?
You post simply said nobody had any faith any more.
Not even at the integrity of the supposedly independent SCOTUS.
A sorry state we have.
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.