Its A Messy World: Gay Marriage Cases Likely To Be Messy

[Stone holm]

Its looking like the two Supreme Court cases, one on Prop 8 and one on DOMA, are likely to end in some very messy decisions. One potential scenario could be extremely confusing. Let me lay it out. There is a possibility that Prop 8 could get dismissed for lack of standing by the parties seeking to defend Prop 8 since it is unclear that they have standing under Federal Law. The impact of that would be to leave the lower Court decisions intact with the result that gay marriage would remain legal in California, but the decisions would not be binding upon the Courts in other Circuits. This could be followed by a plurality decision on DOMA. There is a possibility that Kennedy could vote to strike down DOMA not on an Equal Protection Clause basis, but upon a State's rights basis. The upshot of that would be that DOMA would get struck down, but it would be on a plurality basis because the right side of the Court would vote to uphold the law, and the left side would vote to strike it down, with Kennedy the maverick conservative's vote based on State's rights counting with the liberals to result in DOMA being struck down, but no clear precedent on the Constitutionality of gay marriage.

If this were to happen, one thing is certain -- the contention on this issue will continue. Is that good for the Church? Would it not be better if the case were clearly settled one way or the other on the issue?

PLEASE AVOID GOING OVERTLY POLITICAL ON THIS!

[Darren10]

If this were to happen, one thing is certain -- the contention on this issue will continue. Is that good for the Church? Would it not be better if the case were clearly settled one way or the other on the issue?

No matter what the decision it's going ot be messy and contentious. No contention is "good" for the Church but I don't think any of the court's decisions will affect the Church except that they declare that gay marriage is a constitutional right. That decision will be horrible and not "good" for the Church.

[Calm]

If this were to happen, one thing is certain -- the contention on this issue will continue. Is that good for the Church? Would it not be better if the case were clearly settled one way or the other on the issue?

PLEASE AVOID GOING OVERTLY POLITICAL ON THIS!

I don't think any decision will be good for the Church unless it includes legal protection for religious positions so churches can't be sued one way or the other. Edited March 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

I don't think any decision will be good for the Church unless it includes legal protection for religious positions so churches can't be sued one way or the other.

That's a near impossible ruling.

[wenglund]

I am not sure how a ruling of "lack of standing" would leave the rulings of the lower courts in force? Why wouldn't the SCOTUS ruling of "lack of standing" not apply to the lower courts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 27, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

I am not sure how a ruling of "lack of standing" would leave the rulings of the lower courts in force? Why wouldn't the SCOTUS ruling of "lack of standing" not apply to the lower courts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Because the opponents clearly had standing to bring their original challenge because they had been denied marriage licenses, etc. The proponents lost below and they are the ones who did not have standing to pursue an appeal of those rulings. There isn't any question about the result if the Court finds they had a lack of standing. That ruling would only affect California and would not constitute a binding decision on other jurisdictions. The brief that POTUS filed would have provided another exit. But neither the liberals nor the conservatives liked it so it was dead on arrival. What POTUS argued was the approach that has been successful in several states, but clearly has other implications once you get to the SCOTUS level. Their argument was that if a state had foreclosed all the secular arguments by having adopted legislation granting gay rights to everything associated with marriage except the label, then they had to also grant the label. The problem with that argument at this level is that every state that had treated gays well would be forced to grant them marriage rights and every state that had treated them poorly would not. The conservatives didn't like that because it would convert civil unions in several states to marriage. The liberals didn't like it because it would encourage states that hadn't granted gays rights like in the Deep South to continue to deny them and perhaps cause some states to repeal them. So that option isn't going anywhere.

[Skylla]

We have too many same sex marriage threads.

Skylla