United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Back PRIORS AND PRECEDENT Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Big Day At The Supreme Court
Source:
FiveThirtyEight
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ ... -big-day-at-the-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Oliver Roeder
Post Date: 2015-04-29 12:33:58 by Jameson
Keywords: SCOTUS, Marraige, 538
Views: 27402
Comments: 119
The question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage will finally have its day in court this week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral argument in a quartet of cases on this subject. If the court reverses lower court rulings that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, it could mean that every state would have to honor such marriages performed in other states, and could require every state to permit them. A decision is expected this summer, most likely in late June. In this edition of Priors and Precedent, we’ll dig into some data and two sources of predictions for this landmark case. First, some background.
The Case
The petitioners are 12 couples and two widowers from states that bar same-sex marriage. A recent profile by NPR dubbed them “‘accidental activists,’ meaning they filed lawsuits not to further a cause but because of the way the bans affected their lives.”
The challenge to the bans, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually four cases rolled into one.1 The court consolidated them and limited its consideration to these two questions:
Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
The first is called the “marriage” question, the second the “recognition” question. The court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the former and an hour of argument on the latter. Civics refresher: The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights under its “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the answer to the second is irrelevant, of course.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 76.
#2. To: Jameson (#0)
Why two people? Why not three?
That is not the question being decided, is it?
Should be. It's just a matter of time before it comes up. If marriage is not just one man - one woman, then why limit the number to two?
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony?? That is where this is all heading no matter how much the homos and APA protest or deny it, all they know is how to lie. Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with? (So that means all this hubub over fag marriage is for 100,000 people or so who want to feel good about themselves even though they shouldn't). There are already 36 states who are being forced to accept this bullschitt so why aren't they running en masse to those states to get hitched? (HINT, HINT Homosexuality isn't about love)...
Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.
Strangely, neither are fetuses or 8-month old preborn according to SCOTUS But I digress -- aren't sexual relations and "marriage" becoming loosely based more "consent" rather than age, gender, or...species? Since all it takes is one single insane, subversive judge (as in the farcical Chimpanzee case) to re-interpret either "person-hood" OR "consent" as legit mitigating issues, the language, society's "norms" (and laws) are completely at the whim of an insane judiciary. This same insane judiciary often defers to the insane American Psychiatric Association as *its* moral/legal arbiter. And we wonder how we've gotten to this point?? In the immoral words of Coach Vince Lombardi (prowling the sidelines, witnessing absolute chaos), "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??!?) The judiciary should now be considered subversive Trojan Horse activists with axes to grind with their own clinical psychological problems. They are a dangerous liability America can no longer afford.
#89. To: Liberator, nolu chan, CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, rlk, A K A Stone (#76)
Now now liberator, perhaps the NY SC justice was persuaded by an expert witness:
Grab, grab, grab!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?"
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
Why two people? Why not three?
#4. To: Jameson (#3)
"That is not the question being decided, is it?"
#38. To: misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#4)
(Edited)
#41. To: CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#38)
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony
#76. To: nolu chan, CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, rlk, A K A Stone (#41)
Cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.
Replies to Comment # 76. Since all it takes is one single insane, subversive judge (as in the farcical Chimpanzee case) to re-interpret either "person-hood" OR "consent" as legit mitigating issues, the language, society's "norms" (and laws) are completely at the whim of an insane judiciary. This same insane judiciary often defers to the insane American Psychiatric Association as *its* moral/legal arbiter.
#114. To: Liberator (#76)
And we wonder how we've gotten to this point?? In the immoral words of Coach Vince Lombardi (prowling the sidelines, witnessing absolute chaos), "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??!?)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 76.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]