Legalizing same-sex marriage: Domino effect?

Current thinking is that Justice Kennedy is solid on same-sex marriage, hence, the Supreme Court will probably take up and affirm these cases next term.

 

Mass weddings creep me out.

But then, so does line dancing.

 

I have no relevant input to this thread. I'm just stoked that equality has come home to Indiana.
For the moment, at least.

 

Well, bugger. Never mind.
Progress comes slowly to our backward, hate-mongering state.

 

Now that an Appeals Court has agreed with lower courts on the unconstitutionality of gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, those states have filed petitions with the Supreme Court, presumable with the arguments they will pursue to justify the bans.

Now that is some creative thinking!

 

The first Monday in October always brings a surprise or two when the Supreme Court lists the cases it won' hear in the coming term.

And the Court said NO to the five states where the Appeals Court struck down their gay marriage bans.

The question remains if the Court will take up any gay marriage case or keep punting.

 

Getting closer to the Supreme Court finally resolving the issue...with an increasing likelihood of a favorable ruling.

 

The Court decided today to take it on this term and I agree that Kennedy will be the affirming vote.

 

First off, I strongly favor marriage equality. That having been said, I have mixed feelings on this being ruled on in this way by the supreme court.

On the one hand, this really is fundamentally an issue of civil rights, and as such, it may be applicable for the court to offer an immediate and definitive opinion along constitutional lines.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the repercussions of the Rowe V. Wade decision. The most immediate impact was obviously the legalization of abortion. But a less-intended consequence was the creation of an immediate backlash against the ruling. The pro-life movement had a grand insult to rally around, and galvanize their position. Meanwhile, the pro-choice movement didn't have much left to fight for, and consequently has remained far less passionate at the grass roots level, or unified in their position.

The supreme court ruling in Rowe v. Wade settled the matter once and for all in a way that largely slammed the door on any kind of further dialogue or consensus to emerge over time. Since the ruling, the debate has been largely monopolized by the more extreme proponents on other side, while those with more moderating views have been pushed aside. The upshot has been the political reality surrounding the abortion debate from 1973 right up the the present day.

I wonder if such a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage might not elicit a similar backlash. In the longview of history, things seem to be moving toward a more universal acceptance of gay marriage, a trend that is sure to continue with the generational shift in the coming years. I wonder how much stronger a national commitment to equal marriage rights would be if we allowed to continue to come about through the messy process of political consensus and the gradual adoption by states on their own timetable.

Again this is looking at the issue from a macro level. I understand that there are people with far more immediate needs of medical rights, adoption rights, inheritance and taxation, or even green card issues where taking the long view is not a practical reality.

Anyway, just throwing it out there.

 

I do understand your concerns @weezer.
However what the anti-abortion crew have been doing is to nibble around the edges of the law.
Sure abortion is legal but we're going to legislate the facilities that do the procedures out of existence.
Sure it's legal but w\e're going to make the process so onerous that woman will have to drive 100 miles, spend a couple of days in a hotel, notify the father, and get a totally unnecessary vaginal probe ultrasound before they can have one.

I suppose there might be ways to do that with marriage equality, I'm just not sure what they are.
The 'businesses can discriminate against the gay" laws haven't gone over very well.
That's it that I can think of.

 

I guess I'm not advocating a particular position here so much as thinking out loud and working through this in my own head...

to respond directly to your point @redraven, I think your example underscores what I am talking about. The Rowe v. Wade ruling has left all the political initiative with the pro-life side of the debate. They can consistently rally their base around these limited initiatives that seek to nibble away at the decision. By contrast, the pro-choice movement is always on the defensive. You tend to see people on the pro-choice side of the debate come together and organize in opposition to whatever the right is proposing. As a consequence, the right tends to control the debate and set out the agenda over which the argument will occur. The left is always on the defensive. When a given threat subsides, the pro-life movement tends to disperse (at the grass roots level), while the right remains firmly organized and looking for the next battle to fight.
--- merged: Jan 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM ---
One of the great things I see happening is a mass acceptance blossoming around the country for marriage equality, not just in liberal strongholds like vermont, but in places you wouldn't expect, like Iowa. Sure there have been setbacks (prop 8), but the tide is moving strongly in the opposite direction. As recently as the 1990's, this would have seemed extremely unlikely. But without any major national event to change american perspective, popular opinion has been moving ever more toward acceptance on this issue.

I wonder if it isn't better to let it continue to blossom. There will always be a reaction from the losing side. But a supreme court decision can offer them the satisfaction of believing their viewpoint was tyrannically snuffed out by a 5-4 decision. Giving states the opportunity to "choose" marriage equality for themselves gives them a chance to join the bandwagon when they are ready, and ultimately celebrate their arrival to the movement.

 

I do agree with you.
The whole 'tyrants in black robes' thing has been a favorite of the right wing for a long time.
The whole idea that rights are not something that can be voted on completely escapes them.
And just because I can't see what laws they can come up with doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of ways they can damage marriage equality (Hobby Lobby anyone).
But they are the only way to mediate the disparity between the rulings by the two lower courts so we are stuck with it.

 

Last I heard it was 35 states having legalized it, but now I gather it's 36 as of mid-January... Looking better every day!

36 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 14 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org

 

This is an interesting article arguing that having the Supreme Court settle marriage equality will be good for the GOP.
By taking care of the question well before the election it will mean they don't have to talk about it and can move on to other things.
Since the party is seen as being on the wrong side of this, it's just one more thing they can shed and be done with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/us/politics/marriage-case-offers-gop-political-cover.html

 

And here comes the push back.
State Rep. Sally Kern has introduced three bills to protect Oklahoma from the ghey.

State Rep. Sally Kern files three bills targeting gays - News - TulsaWorld

I like how they feel the need to explain what LGBT stand for.
The paying parent for conversion therapy bill is creepy as hell considering that some states have made it illegal and one group even apologized for doing it before they broke up.
I don't think any of these 'bills' will survive the courts.
What I would love to see is a law that says a legislator who proposes stupid laws like this has to pay out of their pocket for the legal costs when the state has to defend them.

 

well, then there's that...

 

Oh stop it with the 'I told you so'.

 

it really wasn't an I told you so... It is a kind of backlash. But is is also the kind of thing a supreme court decision that legitimizes same-sex marriage would override.

 

There was meant to be a face on that.

I knew there would be a backlash but this is so childish and downright mean spirited I'm kind of amazed.