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

[angelus7988]

So why will Kagan recuse herself this time?

[brittlesmile]

I don't really understand the practical workings of recusal & when exactly someone chooses to recuse themeselves but it seems like it's based on her involvement in a DoMA case while she was Soliciter General?

EDIT: Actually, I checked up on it, and it seems like they decided to hear a DoMA case that Kagan wasn't involved in, so she won't be recusing herself.

[angelus7988]

Good. It's felt like Kagan was about as useful as a Blue Dog Democrat, with how she seemed to be recusing herself from cases like it was going out of style.

[thenakedcat]

As annoying as it has been to be missing her vote on some of the key issues that have come up lately, her rationale for recusing herself (worked on one side or the other while Solicitor General) has been pretty strong. Part of the reason Obama picked her is that she's relatively young and will have decades on the bench ahead of her. Better that she sit out a few cases now than have the verdicts in those cases challenged down the road because she wasn't careful enough to avoid appearing biased.

[lizzy_someone]

HOW any judge worth their salt can consider the appealers' (sorry, I don't have a great command of technical legal terms) claim to have standing with a straight face is beyond me. (Also, how does this article not even bring up the standing issue?)

Also, fuck this, we ALREADY WON THIS CASE TWO YEARS AGO. We won it TWICE. The fact that this is still tied up in the courts at all is a victory on the part of the homophobes. Before anyone gets too excited, keep in mind that what's happening right now is exactly what the homophobes wantConsoling myself with a few thoughts: 1) Kennedy on Romer v. Evans, 2) Roberts on ACA, 3) RIDICULOUSLY BLATANT LACK OF STANDING IMO, and 4) as someone on Prop 8 Trial Tracker pointed out (which is a maddening organization but one I can't seem to give up), it's increasingly obvious which direction this whole issue is headed, and Roberts will have an eye toward how he'll end up looking in the history books

[screamingintune]

I have all these hopes that Roberts will turn into a Souter

[thenakedcat]

Kennedy also wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, so I think you have reason to hope. The Prop 8 case especially looks promising, since the court can decide it narrowly on the "no take-backsies" principle and punt the larger issue down the road again.

[amyura]

Call me cynical, but why don't we just ask Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts NOW how they plan to vote? We already know how the other seven are going to rule.

[lizzy_someone]

lol, I wish! I'm tired of waiting!

[thesilverymoon]

lmao that would be nice. Would certainly save everyone a lot of time and stress.

[trivalent]

Well how they're going to vote could change between now and June 2013.

[caterfree10]

WAIT A GODDAMN MINUTE, why aren't BOTH provisions of DOMA being challenged? The latter provision is also unconstitutional because it violates the Full Faith and Trust clause! Why isn't that being challenged alongside the first?

And the whole "They can't procreate, therefore they should be treated differently!" argument continues to baffle me. Like, my aunt on my mom's side was married and had no children and neither has my aunt on my dad's side though she's still married to her husband. What the fuck makes them so damn special over same gender couples? And that's not even touching how there are some same gender couples who *can* reproduce bc transfolk exist too. :V

[hllangel]

Actually, it doesn't necessarily: marriage is a status, not a full and final judgment on the merits in court. There's currently a lot of debate about whether or not full faith and credit applies to marriage.

[caterfree10]

But the way I always understood it, no matter what state you got married in, it'd always be recognized - even if it was two 16yos who went to another state to get married and said marriage would still be recognized thanks to the Full Faith and Trust clause. I just don't get why that wouldn't be covered for same gender couples too.

[hllangel]

That's the way it generally works, and they're called "celebration laws" - ie, a state will recognize a marriage that is valid in it's state of celebration. But that's each state's choice, not an overarching federal policy.

Until DOMA there was no federal definition of marriage at all, including which marriages each state may or may not recognize as valid. Loving was a mandate for States to issue interracial licenses, but didn't touch federal policy at all. DOMA was a gay-panic reaction to states possibly having to recognize valid same-sex marriages coming out of Hawaii (even though that never happened).

States like TX didn't even like the IDEA that they'd have to recognize same sex marriages celebrated elsewhere. Unfortunately, because marriage is a status and not a judgment, states already had the option to ignore out of state licenses.

[zinnia_rose]

I am really scared about this. :-/ A good result would be amazing, but a bad result will set us back SO far and just be all-around horrible. I feel sick imagining the increased violence and homophobia that a bad ruling could bring.

[bushy_brow]

I feel sick imagining the increased violence and homophobia that a bad ruling could bring.

Yeah, but a good ruling would probably do the same thing, so. :-/

[zinnia_rose]

Yeah, very true. I was thinking that a bad ruling would give assholes even more ammunition (not that they really need it) for their asshattery -- "see, even the SCOTUS thinks gay people are gross!!"

[bushy_brow]

Yeah, I think they'd be HAPPY with a bad ruling and gloat, whereas a bad good ruling might lead to more hate crimes. IDK. Somehow I'm not really optimistic either way, yanno?

Edit: wrong word