U.s. Supreme Court To Settle Same-Sex Marriage Issue ... Soon

[smac97]

Here: http://chicago.suntimes.com/nationworld/7/71/296319/justices-must-act-fast-gay-marriage-settled-june

Excerpts:
 

WASHINGTON — Time is running short for the Supreme Court to get same-sex marriage on its calendar if the justices want to tackle the issue before their current term ends in late June.

They might have to decide to jump in at their closed-door conference Friday if they want to resolve the legal debate over gay marriage in the next few months.

The justices would hear the case in April, the last month for oral arguments before the next term begins in October.

Written arguments already would have to be filed on a compressed schedule, though both sides are well versed in the issues after numerous rounds in the lower courts.

Until now, the court has managed both to contribute to a dramatic increase in the number of states that allow same-sex couples to marry and avoid settling the issue for the entire nation. Last week, Florida became the 36th state to issue licenses for same-sex unions.

It will be interesting to see the Court weigh in, particularly given A) prior SCOTUS decisions relating to the right to marry, and B) the standard legal test used to determine whether a purported un-enumerated but fundamental constitutional right, such as the "right" to same-sex marriage, exists (see here for more info).  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Okay, the anti-gay marriage crowd told me that if SSM becomes legal it would soon follow that I can marry my cat. Can we hurry that up? I am about to do my taxes and if I can solemnizing a marriage with my cat I can get a much bigger refund. C'mon guys.

Note to self: Also need to get a cat.

[Buckeye]

Okay, the anti-gay marriage crowd told me that if SSM becomes legal it would soon follow that I can marry my cat. Can we hurry that up? I am about to do my taxes and if I can solemnizing a marriage with my cat I can get a much bigger refund. C'mon guys.

Note to self: Also need to get a cat.

 

Based on some older sisters in my ward who I've helped move, trust me .... I can getz u a kat.

[The Nehor]

Based on some older sisters in my ward who I've helped move, trust me .... I can getz u a kat.

They shed though. Maybe I should just marry a fish? They die a lot though. Should probably marry a lot of them? What is the current position on polygamous fish marriage?

[carbon dioxide]

Okay, the anti-gay marriage crowd told me that if SSM becomes legal it would soon follow that I can marry my cat. Can we hurry that up? I am about to do my taxes and if I can solemnizing a marriage with my cat I can get a much bigger refund. C'mon guys.

Note to self: Also need to get a cat.

Equality for all.  That should include those who have an attraction to a different species.

[Buckeye]

They shed though. Maybe I should just marry a fish? They die a lot though. Should probably marry a lot of them? What is the current position on polygamous fish marriage?

 

Brother, if you're worried about side-effects, whatever you do, do not marry a woman.

[The Nehor]

Brother, if you're worried about side-effects, whatever you do, do not marry a woman.

Yeah, but they have more pros then cats and even fish so I am willing to take a few extra cons.

[Buckeye]

Yeah, but they have more pros then cats and even fish so I am willing to take a few extra cons.

 

As my awesome wife is prone to say (I swear this is true) ... Tru Dat !

[Ham Clam]

I feel like gay marriage is inevitable for the U.S. 

[Daniel2]

And the court granted review of all four states.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Looks like the hearing be in April, for a June decision.

Thank God. It's about time.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

And the court granted review of all four states.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Looks like the hearing be in April, for a June decision.

Thank God. It's about time.

 

Isn't June the traditional month for weddings?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Will the church ever have to allow gays to get married in the temple?

[DJBrown]

Will the church ever have to allow gays to get married in the temple?

 

I think the church would stop performing all sealings before doing that.

[ERayR]

I think the church would stop performing all sealings before doing that.

 

Marriages connected to sealings yes sealings no.  If it comes to that civil ceremony outside of temple with temple sealing to follow.  At present marriage is a governmental ordinance with legal ramifications.  Sealings are religious rites without governmental ramifications and as such can be restricted to members only.

[Bernard Gui]

It's a done deal. The vote will be 5/4 in favor of same-sex marriage. Next up is polygamy....the stage is being set

with at least 3 television series now featuring polygamists in a positive light. Pop media is the

most influential arbiter of moral and legal truth.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

Will the church ever have to allow gays to get married in the temple?

Not until the constitution is in shreds and the government is forcing churches to also perform baptisms. If it does happen I expect them to force a heterosexual marriage in the temple first. We are coming up on two centuries and no one has tried to do that yet.

[JLHPROF]

I feel like gay marriage is inevitable for the U.S. 

 

Most sin is inevitable...got to hit bottom as in the days of Noah, before we can be set in order, establish Zion, build the New Jerusalem and have Christ return ot our presence.

[The Nehor]

Most sin is inevitable...got to hit bottom as in the days of Noah, before we can be set in order, establish Zion, build the New Jerusalem and have Christ return ot our presence.

No we don't. We can establish Zion now. We just probably won't.

[cinepro]

Will the church ever have to allow gays to get married in the temple?

As as I can tell, they only allow it if they don't know about it.

Edited January 16, 2015 by cinepro

[Daniel2]

Eric Holder: Federal Government Will Back Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs At SCOTUS

"After the Justice Department's decision not to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court sent a powerful message that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This landmark decision marked a historic step toward equality for all American families.

"The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. As these cases proceed, the Department of Justice will remain committed to ensuring that the benefits of marriage are available as broadly as possible. And we will keep striving to secure equal treatment for all members of society—regardless of sexual orientation.

"As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love."

- Attorney General Eric Holder, via press release.

[USU78]

Here: http://chicago.suntimes.com/nationworld/7/71/296319/justices-must-act-fast-gay-marriage-settled-june

Excerpts:

 

It will be interesting to see the Court weigh in, particularly given A) prior SCOTUS decisions relating to the right to marry, and B) the standard legal test used to determine whether a purported un-enumerated but fundamental constitutional right, such as the "right" to same-sex marriage, exists (see here for more info).  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

Well . . . the judiciary created a helluva mess.

 

It's about time somebody cleaned it up.

[Daniel2]

Here is one liberal-leaning legal analysis being offered up on a pro-LGBT blog on the topic:

As widely expected, the Supreme Court decided to hear four marriage equality cases out of the Sixth Circuit. Cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee will be consolidated into one omnibus marriage hearing over 2 1/2 hours. With the order issued today, the briefing schedule has the parties' briefs due between February and April. That means that the Court could issue a decision by the end of June 2015.

Unlike the last time the Court heard a case challenging a state ban on marriage equality (the Prop 8 case), the Court does not appear likely to sidestep the central issue. The "questions presented" for the hearing are as follows:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2. Does the Fourteenth 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?

These are the legal questions at the heart of the marriage equality movement. They should be squarely addressed in this case.

This post begins a series of analyses and reports on the case, which will be rolled out as the case unfolds over the next couple of months.

For now,the first of several initial considerations as we take the next step in this journey.

This was expected.

Although the Supreme Court does nothave to hear cases when there are conflicting opinions from federal appellate courts, circuit splits, as they are called, are among the most common reasons why the justices agree to take a case. The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits all held that bans on gays marrying violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a rambling, off-topic opinion, held that the Constitution does not prevent states from banning gays from marrying. In reality, the Sixth Circuit didn't even say that: Judge Sutton's opinion, as I argued here, essentially abdicated the judiciary's role as he threw up his hands in the face of a majority of state voters who had once supported a ban on the freedom to marry.

What's more, Justice Ginsburg had telegraphed this publicly. Justifying the Court's refusal to hear cases coming out of the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, the leader of the Court's progressive wing stated that the Court only gets involved when it has to. She suggested that we "pay attention to the Sixth Circuit," which ultimately gave her the invitation she wanted.

The Court has already tipped its hat which way it's leaning.

We cannot be sure how the justices will rule. No one can. But several pieces of evidence suggest that the Court is leaning in the direction of recognizing a nation wide freedom to marry. Let's review the evidence:

1. The Court let stand pro-equality decisions in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, eventually bringing marriage equality to states like Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, Montana, and Idaho. Of course, allowing lower court decisions to stand without review does not necessarily mean a majority of the Supreme Court would have sided the same way, but it does mean that there were 6 justices who did not want to take the case (you need 4 to grant a petition). So, in addition to the liberal justices not wanting to rock the boat, two conservatives had to agree to see marriage equality come to a wide swath of the country. It seems manifestly unlikely that the Court would let thousands of gay couples marry and then, several months later, take it all back.

2. The Court rejected a petition to extend the stay holding back Florida's marriage equality order. As I argued here, this was an important step because it was the first time the Supreme Court had allowed marriage equality to go into effect in a jurisdiction beyond those covered by pro-marriage equality decisions from a federal appellate court. The Eleventh Circuit remains silent on the matter. To allow marriage freedom without a covering appellate court decision is even more a signal of where the Court is headed.

3. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote and although none of his LGBT rights opinions -- including Romer, and Windsor -- are explicitly pro-marriage equality, a reasonable interpretation of those opinions is that Kennedy has taken the slow, scenic route to marriage. First, he started with recognizing that gay persons are a protected class under the Constitution and, as such, they deserve certain rights against discrimination (Romer). Then he held that those rights extend to gay persons' intimate associations, or the rights to decide with whom to express love (Lawrence). Finally, he decided that the federal government had no legitimate reason to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples (Windsor). In deciding Windsor, not only did Justice Kennedy destroy all the arguments justifying the Defense of Marriage Act, but he also eviscerated the arguments propping up any remaining state bans on the freedom to marry. We know what comes next.

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/01/scotusari1.html

Smac, given your legal degree and conservative leanings, I'd be interested in your thoughts and predictions on how the court will and should rule.

Will you share them with us?

Edited January 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I don't see how the court can reject the 14th Amendment.

 

I'm fine with the Church telling me how to go to Heaven, but not telling me I must go to jail.

[smac97]

Here is one liberal-leaning legal analysis being offered up on a pro-LGBT blog on the topic:

Smac, given your legal degree and conservative leanings, I'd be interested in your thoughts and predictions on how the court will and should rule.

Will you share them with us?

 

I'm not really inclined to share my thoughts at this time.  There are other attorneys on the board, tho.  Maybe one of them will provide an analysis.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[tonie]

As to the 14th Amendment and marriage licenes:

 

No the 14th Amendment does not require the issuance of marriage licenses, the State has no interest (other than revenue) for issue marriage licenses. All sorts of relationships will occur without the issuance of a license; and restricting licenses does not prevent relationships which the state will license.

 

However, because the state and Federal Government, has injected itself into the marriage business; then Yes, the 14th Amendment requires the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples.  It has been shown over and over again, that the state lacks sufficient legal reasoning for denying same-sex couples a marriage license.

 

Does the 14th amendment require recognition of same-sex marriage, Yes, for the same reason that state lack legally sufficient reasoning for denying recognition. I would also suggest that the Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution requires recognition of such marriages.

 

 

States have the right to define marriage within Constitutional bounds.