The Supreme Court and same-sex marriage

IN 2004, the battle began ....

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and the news just broke. But it seems unlikely to me that the US Supreme Court would have taken up two key cases involving same-sex marraige just to rule narrowly on questions like standing. Which means at least four of the nine justices (and it could be a mix of liberal and conservative ones) think the Court should make a defining statement about marriage equality in the United States.

Courts are political. The Supreme Court is supremely political. That's just reality. And ever since Lawrence v. Texas, the Court has been moving toward full acceptance of LGBT people:

The Supreme Court invalidated the Texas law but also went further by explicitly overruling Bowers – the significance of which was not lost on dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, who presciently complained that the ruling "leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples." Indeed it does.

And it's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court could possibly, in 2012, make a broad statement against gay marriage. I just don't see it happening. I think Scalia will fulminate, but a majority of the Court will rule in the spring that lesbian and gay people have a fundamental right to marry.

You read it here first.

UPDATE: HuffPo's legal eagle disagrees with me, saying a pro-same-sex marriage ruling would be too "bold." I think he's wrong; the vast majority of Americans under 40 have no problem with same-sex marriage, and in a few years, anything other than a "bold" decision will look embarassingly dumb.


lillipublicans crowing proudly about how he was part of the movement which handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. The level of cognitive dissonance in his statement above is quite simply - staggering. And considering whom I'm writing about that's really saying something.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

Gore was the reason Gore lost.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

The duplicitous duo seem to be unable to speak the truth; it's a compulsion.

One at a time now.

Guest, if I want your opinion I'll give it to you... and here it is:

Gore lost because of Republican vote suppression and vote rigging criminality and because of a compliant pro-corporate press; waggish reporters and columnists who opted for eye-popping -- and friendly to their corporate masters -- waggishness over solid reporting. That's how the lie about Gore "inventing the internet" got to be so absurdly bandied about.

And you, Snapples, you silly clown. I know it must do your diseased heart some good to think you successfully trolled me, but regardless of what happened in your flyover state, as a California voter I can say I voted for Nader -- twice -- without anybody being able to say I cause a single electoral vote to go towards electing a Republican president.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

otherwise have gone to Gore AND you lived in a State like Florida, wisconsin and New Mexico, all of which were very close in 2000.

But I wouldn't feel so bad about it because it really shouldn't have mattered. With a candidate as bad as Bush, it took a Democrat of almost epic ineptitude to lose to him, but somehow Gore managed it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 9:34 am

obviously helped Bush..."

Okay, see? It's a response to a post in which I expressly stated that I am a California voter.

For me, on the morning of Nov. 7, 2000, it was only neccessary to consult the polls to feel sufficiently confident to vote my conscience and against the "status-duo."

But my Guest Troll here wordily allows that I might be one of the foolish would-be Gore voters that reactionary trolls like to talk about. This group is highly imaginary, but they like to keep the story alive because it tickles their sadism bones; by which I could simply refer to as "their bones."

The fact is that by far the greatest number of Nader voters were voters who wouldn't have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate -- or their local Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate either -- if Nader hadn't brought them to the polls. This especially true in Washington where Nader brought enough extra voters to the polls to turn the election for Maria Cantwell.

Anyhow, the troll here -- with that bit of concernery to the side -- goes on to baldly lie that Bush was a bad candidate... etc.

Bush was a wonderful candidate. Bush candidated much better than he presidented. (Only a troll will fail to see my lampoonery there.) Bush campaigned as a "uniter-not-a-divider" and then morphed into a rabid warmonger and class-warrior for the rich.

Not only that, but Bush's was helped along -- in both his candidacy as his presidency -- by a compliant corporate-friendly media; the same people who helped him start two unneccessary wars.

Gore would have likely been a better president than he was a campaigner -- though obviously I had and have no illusions -- because he is more of a thoughtful person than a showman; the opposite of clown Bush.

And Nader brought important issues to the fore

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 10:44 am

vulnerability on this issue.

Although of course some of us find a delicious irony in Lilli helping to elect Bush.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

This debate is all over but the shouting. And it's not about black and white or threesomes or anything else -- it's about age. Nobody under 30 cares who marries whom; most people under 40 don't, either. The demographics are only going in one direction, and it's inevitable that same-sex couples will be getting married if they want to in a matter of time.

Will there be a time when people in polyamorous relationships will get some sort of legal recognition? Probably. The world is changing, relationships are changing, definitions of family are changing, and the law wilol change with them.

The old-fashioned notions not just of marriage but of "what is a family" are being demolished by modern reality. Let's just accept that and move on.

Posted by tim on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

is correct. However, that does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 or rule that the DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against legally married gay couples. In the meantime, same sex couples who want to legally marry cannot do so in most of the United States and do not have equal civil rights as straight couples.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

than older people, that doesn't mean that eventually nobody will oppose it.

People routinely become more conservative as they get older, and lose their naive youthful idealism. So it's very possible that those 20-somethings who currently support gay marriage will grow into 60-somethings who oppose it.

I never voted Republican before Reagan, and I never voted Democrat after Reagan.

"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain".

Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 8:06 am

change your name from the generic "Guest" to "Heartless and Brainless,"
which would accurately describe your contributions here.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 8:33 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 9:30 am

requires no refutation.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 9:52 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

By the way, if you define ridicule as abuse, then I plead guilty to your accusation above.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 3:44 pm