The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman.
One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Another case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions.
The court’s move comes against the backdrop of a rapid shift in public attitudes about same-sex marriage, with recent polls indicating that a majority of Americans support allowing such unions. After last month’s elections, the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage increased by half, to nine.
The court’s docket is now crowded with cases about the meaning of equality, with the new cases joining ones on affirmative action in higher education and the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Decisions in all of those cases are expected by June.
Everybody from the left that I have heard weigh in on this seems to be very confident that the courts will decide to strike down DOMA, and there is a rational part of me that agrees that they will, especially considering the fact that virtually NO issue has seen such a dramatic change in public opinion before.
 |
| Source |
THAT does not exactly fill me with confidence.
Anybody want to talk me down?
First, the purpose of the SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of an issue, based on the known or interpolated intents of the founding fathers. The fact that more and more this is not the case is what bothers ME.
ReplyDeleteSecond, public opinion is not SUPPOSED to play a part in their decisions, so the graph showing the shifting of that is nice, but should not play a part in their decision. It merely adds fuel to the idea that this issue will not be the problem in the future that it currently is. (But it would FANTASTIC if both cases ended in a positive decision for the LGBT community!)
Third, since this is a republic and the job of government is to protect the INDIVIDUALS against the suppression of the masses, DOMA should never have been offered, let alone passed. It is a case of legislating discrimination. (Thank you Ultra-right for the screw job.)
Fourth, since discrimination is obviously the opposite of equality, this technically should never even be a question. (Thank you Ultra-right for the screw job.)
Finally, the primary driving force behind all these anti-LGBT laws and actions is religious. This being a secular country, that particular reasoning should have been ignored. (Thank you Ultra-right for the screw job - AGAIN!)
Yes, there are a ton of issues I have glossed over, but the basic premise is my point. Please, no nit-picking. And yes, I understand that the extreme politicalization of SCOTUS is due to the confirmation process being mostly now a case of "whose side are you own". (Thank you Ultra-right for the screw job!)
Wish I could...but as I am from Michigan where insanity is running rampant at the moment, all I can see them doing is getting their revenge for not getting their man in the white house.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I want to have faith in the Court, that fork in the road that they should have steered left, they went right off the cliff on Citizens United.
ReplyDeleteSomething that will never leave your mind.
It was only because of Roberts that Obamacare survived and he got 'beat up' at the time for his written opinion by his own party. Will he be the one this time and be willing to withstand that treatment again -- Who knows.
Those constant references from the many Rethug Senators that they don't want 'liberal activist' judges when it comes to appointing and confirming a candidate -- Really?? What do call what we have: 'Rethug activist judges'.
I'm nervous as all hell on this as the Court's actions have been so right-wing 'activist' during this administration.
I'm wondering if Roberts has signaled his concern for himself and his court being on the right side of history. That would suggest he would support gay rights, and we already know that the conservative judges are all for states' right (don't we?)
ReplyDeleteI would like to say I think the Supreme Court will follow what is undoubtedly Constitutional: the right of all to be treated equally under the law. But these are wingers. The gods alone know how their brains work.
ReplyDelete"Another case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions."
ReplyDeleteYOU have to read and see the photos about this case http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/2012/12/07/edie-windsor-and-thea-spyers-long-engagement-and-short-marriage/1754911/
What a love story! And Windsor is such a classy lady.
I'm always worried about this extremely activist court. I'm a little anxious about why they took the Prop 8 case-- the most recent ruling on that was tailored very narrowly to California, where the right to marry was taken AWAY, rather than to a case where the right to marry was given.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm sort of hopeful. I think that Chief Justice Roberts does want to be, as someone up above said, on the "right side of history" on this issue. He's a conservative but of a different generation than the rest of the dinosaurs. I know people are talking about Kennedy being the swing vote, but I won't be surprised if it turns out that Roberts also supports gay marriage and ends up writing the opinion.
We might know more about the justices' thoughts after oral arguments.
As I see it, the New York case hinges on the constitutionality of DOMA, and will have a hard time standing up under scrutiny. If Article IV is applied, DOMA cannot stand. SCOTUS is not, as an earlier commenter pointed out, supposed to consider public opinion, but to review case law and the Constitution. If public opinion were a legitimate deciding factor, Brown v. Board of Education would not have changed a thing.
ReplyDelete