|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 6, 2009 3:01:07 GMT -5
That would depend on how the Supreme Court worded their ruling, if there ever is one. Provided it does come before them they could simply rule on the narrow merits of the case and overturn Prop. 8 without mandateing countrywide change. They have done similar rulings in the past that were on the face of them nonsensical, but no one ever said the law had to be logical. With the current make up of the court I would be looking for as narrow a ruling as was possible and not some wholesale sweeping proclamation overturning all anti-same sex marriage laws. Well, I don't really expect a sweeping proclomation either. But if they validate prop 8 as shit because it hinders rights or whatever to people, that's kind of a blatant ruling that everyone can use. The only way it can't is if they find something legally wrong with how the law came into effect. Hence why i think the SCOTUS really won't get involved with this, pretty much any ruling in favor of gays will echo across the US |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 6, 2009 11:28:13 GMT -5
That would depend on how the Supreme Court worded their ruling, if there ever is one. Provided it does come before them they could simply rule on the narrow merits of the case and overturn Prop. 8 without mandateing countrywide change. They have done similar rulings in the past that were on the face of them nonsensical, but no one ever said the law had to be logical. With the current make up of the court I would be looking for as narrow a ruling as was possible and not some wholesale sweeping proclamation overturning all anti-same sex marriage laws. ...you're right, that doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 6, 2009 11:34:12 GMT -5
Well, if the SCOTUS rules that "equal protection under the law" applies to gay marriages (which it should), the ramifications will be quick and probably massive -- if I understand it right, that means that gay couples can go to a marriage friendly state, get married, come back to their original unfriendly state and still federally qualify for all the rights that other married people enjoy -- like inheritance, taxes, the right to be considered a "spouse" so you get health insurance benefits, etc. Because states can't ignore federal law no matter how much they want to. If it's a federal ruling, the states can make whatever idiotic statement they want to about gay marriage and it won't matter -- federal law trumps state law, and gay couples can quickly overwhelm a state ruling just by getting married in a friendly state.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
I think it would be awesome, if it worked out that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by David D.G. on Jul 6, 2009 11:41:35 GMT -5
Well, if the SCOTUS rules that "equal protection under the law" applies to gay marriages (which it should), the ramifications will be quick and probably massive -- if I understand it right, that means that gay couples can go to a marriage friendly state, get married, come back to their original unfriendly state and still federally qualify for all the rights that other married people enjoy -- like inheritance, taxes, the right to be considered a "spouse" so you get health insurance benefits, etc. Because states can't ignore federal law no matter how much they want to. If it's a federal ruling, the states can make whatever idiotic statement they want to about gay marriage and it won't matter -- federal law trumps state law, and gay couples can quickly overwhelm a state ruling just by getting married in a friendly state. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. I think it would be awesome, if it worked out that way. I agree completely. However, I expect the Supreme Court to respond to this case with all the enthusiasm of a nudist handling radioactive sewage. I'll be shocked if they actually tackle it and rule on it at all. ~David D.G. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 6, 2009 12:04:56 GMT -5
I agree completely. However, I expect the Supreme Court to respond to this case with all the enthusiasm of a nudist handling radioactive sewage. I'll be shocked if they actually tackle it and rule on it at all. ~David D.G. I would expect them to try and find some way to wiggle around the central issue if at all possible and see if they can find an error with the procedure that brought about prop 8, rather than deal with what the proposition was about... if they touch it. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 6, 2009 13:52:27 GMT -5
Well, again, though, I think we're back to how the lawsuit is being presented to the SCOTUS, which I'm still not sure about. If it's being presented as an equal protection under the law thing, that's one thing. If it's presented as somehow Prop 8 is illegal because of voting regulations or somesuch, then yeah -- the actual issue at the heart of everything won't be touched.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 6, 2009 20:26:39 GMT -5
Well, if the SCOTUS rules that "equal protection under the law" applies to gay marriages (which it should), the ramifications will be quick and probably massive -- if I understand it right, that means that gay couples can go to a marriage friendly state, get married, come back to their original unfriendly state and still federally qualify for all the rights that other married people enjoy -- like inheritance, taxes, the right to be considered a "spouse" so you get health insurance benefits, etc. Because states can't ignore federal law no matter how much they want to. If it's a federal ruling, the states can make whatever idiotic statement they want to about gay marriage and it won't matter -- federal law trumps state law, and gay couples can quickly overwhelm a state ruling just by getting married in a friendly state. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. I think it would be awesome, if it worked out that way. I'd suggest everyone here that lives in Texas get out now. The fundie state reaction will be swift and ugly |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 7, 2009 9:55:23 GMT -5
And illegal, and will land them in the penitentiary.
I don't think statements like that really help anything. It's like when people were freaking out about Obama being assassinated pre-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 7, 2009 10:55:24 GMT -5
And illegal, and will land them in the penitentiary. I don't think statements like that really help anything. It's like when people were freaking out about Obama being assassinated pre-election. Or my grandfather's insistence on us leaving for Michigan if Obama lost, since the blacks would start rioting. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 7, 2009 12:22:32 GMT -5
They have enough to strike down Prop 8:
-Loving v. Virginia
-Reitman v. Mulkey
-Romer v. Evans
-Lawrence v. Texas
|
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Jul 7, 2009 13:19:32 GMT -5
They have enough to strike down Prop 8: - Loving v. Virginia- Reitman v. Mulkey- Romer v. Evans- Lawrence v. TexasYou left out the most important thing, which they may or may not have: - the fuckin' balls to enact such a sweeping social reform |
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Jul 7, 2009 15:20:41 GMT -5
We Texan's hate gays, no one denies that. However its dwarfed by our love of the death penalty. The rednecks can bitch and whine, but the moment they go for their guns we warm up the electric chair and fry some bigots.
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 7, 2009 19:44:16 GMT -5
And illegal, and will land them in the penitentiary. I don't think statements like that really help anything. It's like when people were freaking out about Obama being assassinated pre-election. Or my grandfather's insistence on us leaving for Michigan if Obama lost, since the blacks would start rioting. LOL. Um, he does know there are blacks in Michigan, doesn't he? |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 7, 2009 19:47:18 GMT -5
Or my grandfather's insistence on us leaving for Michigan if Obama lost, since the blacks would start rioting. LOL. Um, he does know there are blacks in Michigan, doesn't he? Yeah, like five of 'em  |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 7, 2009 19:49:40 GMT -5
LOL. What part of Michigan have you been to? |
|
