Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage

[WinePusher]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

[McCulloch]

What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage?

God will send his wrath upon the Nation; parents will stop loving their children; you will be forced to abandon your religion; traditional marriage (one man and one woman) will be a thing of the past, a distant memory; somebody will want to marry their cat and someone else will argue in front of the courts for plural marriage.

Either that, or as in Canada, things will carry on about the same for most folks. Some gays will get married and the rest of us will get used to it.

What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage?

The ruling is only about the Constitutionality of the referendum against gay marriage. If the Court rules that the referendum is valid, then the battle becomes political: get enough support for the voters to overturn the referendum.

Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

I doubt that it will be settled in the USA any time soon. However, when it is finally settled, I bet that it is settled in favor of toleration and freedom rather than imposing a particular religious view on those who do not necessarily accept that theology.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

In the USA, I think this is just one of many gradual steps towards finally having equal rights for gay people. It will make acceptance of gay marriage more socially acceptable, and we will probably see more Americans like Rob Portman and WinePusher suddenly discover empathy and flip-flop on the issue. Others like John Boehner claim to have more unshakable religious convictions and may never come around, in which case it will simply be a matter of time until those like him are voted out of office or die off. But as it stands, this looks like one issue where America is on the way to catching up with the rest of the civilized world.

[charles_hamm]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

If it rules in favor it can do that 1 of 2 ways. First it can give a narrow ruling which says that the court will be making no decision and that would leave the lower courts ruling in place. This would be a ruling in favor of both sides. Other states could still make their own laws on the issue but courts could decide the constitutionality of the laws. Second it could simply say gay marriage is a right under the constitution. That would pit the states against the court on the issue and I don't see how the states would win until the next election. The main implication here is that churches may be forced to marry couples they otherwise would not which could violate the separation of church and state.

If the court rules against gay marriage it likely would just overturn the lower courts decision which means states would remain free to make their own laws on the issue. The only other ruling I could see is if the court says marriage is not a constitutionally protected right and is instead a tradition that the government has no authority over. This would be a stretch to me but it is possible (since some justices have hinted at this).

I believe the court will probably leave the lower courts ruling in place but will not say anything more and that will allow the states to keep making their own laws. More than one justice has already said that the court isn't really ready to take on this issue yet.

These are just my opinions. Take them for what they are worth.

[Goat]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

If it rules in favor it can do that 1 of 2 ways. First it can give a narrow ruling which says that the court will be making no decision and that would leave the lower courts ruling in place. This would be a ruling in favor of both sides. Other states could still make their own laws on the issue but courts could decide the constitutionality of the laws. Second it could simply say gay marriage is a right under the constitution. That would pit the states against the court on the issue and I don't see how the states would win until the next election. The main implication here is that churches may be forced to marry couples they otherwise would not which could violate the separation of church and state.

There is no case in the U.S. today where a church has to be forced to marry any couple. That is one big red herring.

[charles_hamm]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

If it rules in favor it can do that 1 of 2 ways. First it can give a narrow ruling which says that the court will be making no decision and that would leave the lower courts ruling in place. This would be a ruling in favor of both sides. Other states could still make their own laws on the issue but courts could decide the constitutionality of the laws. Second it could simply say gay marriage is a right under the constitution. That would pit the states against the court on the issue and I don't see how the states would win until the next election. The main implication here is that churches may be forced to marry couples they otherwise would not which could violate the separation of church and state.

There is no case in the U.S. today where a church has to be forced to marry any couple. That is one big red herring.

If you had read my comment you would have seen that I used the word may. That indicates it could happen, not that it has. If you put some thought into this it is easy to see where a gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses. The couple claims discrimination and possibly wins in court. That ruling could force churches to marry couples they may, here's that word again, otherwise not marry.

[Goat]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

If it rules in favor it can do that 1 of 2 ways. First it can give a narrow ruling which says that the court will be making no decision and that would leave the lower courts ruling in place. This would be a ruling in favor of both sides. Other states could still make their own laws on the issue but courts could decide the constitutionality of the laws. Second it could simply say gay marriage is a right under the constitution. That would pit the states against the court on the issue and I don't see how the states would win until the next election. The main implication here is that churches may be forced to marry couples they otherwise would not which could violate the separation of church and state.

There is no case in the U.S. today where a church has to be forced to marry any couple. That is one big red herring.

If you had read my comment you would have seen that I used the word may. That indicates it could happen, not that it has. If you put some thought into this it is easy to see where a gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses. The couple claims discrimination and possibly wins in court. That ruling could force churches to marry couples they may, here's that word again, otherwise not marry.

Well, no, it couldn't. That would be unconstitutional. So, yes, it's a red herring.

[charles_hamm]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

If it rules in favor it can do that 1 of 2 ways. First it can give a narrow ruling which says that the court will be making no decision and that would leave the lower courts ruling in place. This would be a ruling in favor of both sides. Other states could still make their own laws on the issue but courts could decide the constitutionality of the laws. Second it could simply say gay marriage is a right under the constitution. That would pit the states against the court on the issue and I don't see how the states would win until the next election. The main implication here is that churches may be forced to marry couples they otherwise would not which could violate the separation of church and state.

There is no case in the U.S. today where a church has to be forced to marry any couple. That is one big red herring.

If you had read my comment you would have seen that I used the word may. That indicates it could happen, not that it has. If you put some thought into this it is easy to see where a gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses. The couple claims discrimination and possibly wins in court. That ruling could force churches to marry couples they may, here's that word again, otherwise not marry.

Well, no, it couldn't. That would be unconstitutional. So, yes, it's a red herring.

So then you are saying a church can tell the Supreme Court to shove it because they are not going to follow the courts ruling. While that would be awesome to see should gay marriage become legal, we have already via Obamacare that religious beliefs take a backseat when the government is involved. Look at the Catholic church and birth control issues caused by Obamacare.

[Darias]

If you had read my comment you would have seen that I used the word may. That indicates it could happen, not that it has. If you put some thought into this it is easy to see where a gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses. The couple claims discrimination and possibly wins in court. That ruling could force churches to marry couples they may, here's that word again, otherwise not marry.

Last time I checked, the US government hasn't forced the Westboro Baptist to change their convictions regarding gay marriage. This is as it should be. Also I believe this church remains tax exempt -- as all religious organizations or none should be.

Churches can and do discriminate all the time and no one sues them because people can teach and do whatever they want on their own property so long as they're not hurting anyone or breaking the law.

The argument that gays should not have the same rights we do, and that we should retain special privilege just in case one couple sues a church is ludicrous. If they did, they would lose. If you don't like a church you don't have to go.

Churches are not governments and they don't represent all of us, this is why no one cares what they teach or what symbols they put up on their property. This is why people can sue governments for not honoring their rights as read in the Constitution but people will be less successful suing a church they are offended by.

If I was gay, the last thing I would want to do is go have a wedding in a church -- much less in one led by a pastor that didn't want me to marry.

Your only argument is withholding equal rights under the law for everyone for the sake of a possibility that isn't even likely to work. The way churches teach nowadays, even if it was even remotely possible for a gay couple to want to get married in a bigoted church and then sue and magically win -- I'd like to think every fire brand in the country would do anything they could to be as anti-gay as possible -- I seriously doubt everyone would tell their congregation to tread softly because we might lose in the courtroom.

This is all insanely hypocritical -- "better not let the gays have rights cuz then ours might be taken away." Equal rights does not mean that the church has to surrender their rights for the gays to enjoy.

People aren't just going to suddenly come down with a case of man-fever either. It's the same lack of logic that surrounds the debate on drugs "if they legalize pot, everyone will smoke it." -- except it's even worse than that because at least doing drugs is a choice.

There's no reason on god's green earth why everyone shouldn't be equal under the law -- even if we all agree that some laws (such as mandatory taxation) are not ideal.... no one likes the idea that certain people should have more or less rights than others.

This thread is the rough equivalent of "better not let them negros and ladyfolk vote, or dey be usurpin the country!"

[bluethread]

A church wedding has no legal standing. It is the marrage license that is being contested. A private chapel business might be effected, but voluntary services that are not held out to the public in general are not subject to fair trade practices. However, as with the boy scout case, a church wedding that effects one's carrier and business opportunities could possibly be challenged.