Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage

[emptysilentlife]

The court's decision to hear challenges to both California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act could lead to a series of historic rulings.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up the explosive issue of same-sex marriage, thrusting itself into a policy debate that has divided federal and state governments and courts, as well

Comments

[mollywobbles867]

I'm scared.

[crossfire]

YOU GUYS I AM SO EXCITED A BUNCH OF OLD STRAIGHT PEOPLE GET TO DECIDE ON MY RIGHTS I COULD JUST FLIP TABLES

[alryssa]

ISN'T THIS AWESOME

IT'S JUST WHAT I WANTED FOR SOLSTICE

[trivalent]

I remember when I was younger wondering/fantasizing that David Souter was sekritly gay and thus if it came up, there'd be ONE OOOONE non-straight person. Of course, he's retired now.

[thenakedcat]

If it makes you feel any better, I think there's at least a chance Elena Kagan is bi or lesbian? And even if she's not, the scrutiny she's received as a woman who has opted not to marry or have children might give her a lot of sympathy towards other people who have been shafted by society's expectations about family and sexuality.

[twirly]

I am nervous, scared and hopeful.

Also feeling sick after reading some comments on a local news stations post about it, bringing back a lot of bad memories of my coming out, uggh.

[coyotesuspect]

I ran through the current justices in my head when I read this, and damn I always forget Breyer.

So I know Kennedy's considered the wild card, but I kind of think Roberts might want to be remembered kindly by history/actually do his job. Or maybe I'm just overly hopeful based on his Obamacare vote. :C

[agentsculder]

I think you're right about Roberts. I think he does want to be on right side of history, so there's a good shot there could be a 6-3 ruling on the case. For me, the scary part is that this could be a VERY complex decision. We could get a majority that agrees that the judge's decision is correct, but only as it applies in CA, and then get a majority that also affirms that marriage equality is not a right on the federal level.

But honestly, I think there are five solid votes to uphold the CA judge's decision. It's really the federal question that I'm not so sure about. But the fact that now marriage equality now polls at greater than 50% may help sway Roberts.

[amyura]

Do you think Kennedy is a solid vote, though? I still think of him as the swing vote.

Ginsburg (damn I love her!), Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are obviously solid yesses; Scalia (hate him to the same degree or more that I love Ginsburg), Alito, and Clarence "I'll have what Scalia's having" Thomas are all solid nos.

[lizzy_someone]

idk, I used to think there was no way the current bench would rule for gay marriage, but after I read up more on Kennedy's ruling history I felt a lot more confident in him (and I am usually the resident cynic when it comes to queer rights).

[kitanabychoice]

Those opposing same-sex marriage argue that it has no home inside the Constitution. They say gay couples can't procreate, so they can be treated differently.

Um, what the fuck is THIS. So what about sterile men and women? They can be treated differently too because they can't procreate? Fucking assholes, man.

[amyura]

And old people.

[kitanabychoice]

Yes, thank you.

[moonshaz]

SERIOUSLY.

If procreation is REALLY the only basis for same-sex marriage being illegal, then when are they going to start outlawing marriages that include individuals who are known to be sterile and/or postmenopausal women?

And since most of the time people don't know they're infertile till they try to get pregnant and it doesn't happen--when are they going to start dissolving marriages once people find out AFTER the fact that they can't "procreate"?

The answers to the above are NEVER and NEVER, of course. Which just goes to show what an incredibly specious and disingenuous argument that is.