SCOTUS to Take Up Gay Marriage

[m52nickerson]

6-3 with the court striking down the law.  I think Roberts knows this is the right thing to do and will not want his court looked at in the future as a road block.  That being said I think the decision will be written in a way that will allow states to decide on the definition of marriage.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.

Unlikely. Kennedy has written opinions favoring gay rights. (He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for instance.)

True, but that one and Romer were heard when Stevens was on the Court, and as senior associate justice he assigned the writing of the majority opinion if the Chief Justice was not in the majority--thus he would promise them to Kennedy, while Rehnquist and Roberts wouldn't. Right now Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are all senior to Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan--the only way to have one of the latter four assigning the majority opinion is if Alito, and only Alito, sided with them in a 5-4 decision.

As for the Court making it illegal over the whole country, perhaps not, but I wouldn't put it past Scalia to try (or at the least write it in such a way that lower courts would have to point to it as precedent in striking down other attempts at legalizing gay marriage, perhaps by pointing out why the "you can't take away rights once given" argument that the Ninth Circuit used doesn't hold water).

Well the Christian Legal Society decision was a pro-gay decision and while it wasn't written by Kennedy it was at least written by Ginsberg who is also LGBT-friendly. At any rate, regardless of who issues the opinion I predict a 5-4 decision in our favor.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

6-3 with the court striking down the law.  I think Roberts knows this is the right thing to do and will not want his court looked at in the future as a road block.  That being said I think the decision will be written in a way that will allow states to decide on the definition of marriage.

Just to be different I'll say they will legalize it nationwide. If Kennedy is the LGBT ally he's shown himself to be in the past then he will be in the majority striking down Prop 8 and DOMA. And since they theoretically have the votes necessary (four liberals and a swing vote) they won't have to water down the decision in order to pressure people like Roberts to side with them.

[cheese007]

I was surprised they took up Prop 8. Usually they don't take up such narrowly defined decisions unless they either want to A. overturn them or B. expand them. Why would they bother wasting their time taking up a case that applies, in essence, to one state? If they were interested in keeping the scope the same they probably would have waited for further legal challenges in the same vein.

[dpareja]

I was surprised they took up Prop 8. Usually they don't take up such narrowly defined decisions unless they either want to A. overturn them or B. expand them. Why would they bother wasting their time taking up a case that applies, in essence, to one state? If they were interested in keeping the scope the same they probably would have waited for further legal challenges in the same vein.

Well, keep in mind that only four judges need to agree to hear a case (this prevents a majority from dictating the court's docket). So by taking up such a narrowly defined decision, said four might think that it probably limits the potential damage while still allowing the greatest scope for expansion.

I still wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy stops short of actual gay marriage.

And whatever happens, I'm almost looking forward to what is sure to be an amusing (depending on one's sense of humour) Scalia opinion.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Well, NOM offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.

[Cerim Treascair]

My bet's riding on a 6-3 as well, in favor of striking down DOMA and Prop 8.

[Dakota Bob]

Well, NOM offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.

I just cannot take that organizations name seriously. nom nom nom nom.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Well, NOM offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.

I just cannot take that organizations name seriously. nom nom nom nom.

I just can't take that organization seriously, period.

[Alehksunos]

I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."

...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.

[Lt. Fred]

Same reason a pollution deregulation bill is called the Clean Air Act, or the repeal of the constitution is called the PATRIOT act. Always call something its opposite, that way your opposition will be too angry to respond effectively.

[clockworkgirl21]

On the other hand, SCOTUS could follow the logic of the California judge who first struck down Prop 8, which is that denying rights to gay couples is bullshit, and therefore make gay marriage the law of the land.

The fundies' reactions would be PRICELESS.

That's too awesome to happen, at least for another half decade.

But in the meantime, I will feast on this: http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?182511-Supreme-Court-to-hear-gay-marriage-cases

Yum yum yum! Not much yet, but this is a nice appetizer:

It's such a sad world we live in when God's Word is totally ignored by everybody.

[dpareja]

I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."

...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.

Well, it's a defence of marriage as it was understood by the bipartisan majority that passed it.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."

...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.

I've always referred to it as the Defense Against Marriage Act (DAMA).

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The Progressive has a nice article on why the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage. Worth the read.