U.S. Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

[Computron]

Audio and Transcript of Oral Argument

So the U.S. Supreme Court gets its chance to weigh in on the gay marriage debate in the States. Given the vast sea change in favor of gay marriage in the United States (58% of the population supports it now), it'll be interesting, from an academic standpoint to see what they do. (Obviously from a personal and human rights standpoint this isn't the time for games, and they should just do what is morally and legally right.)

Indications from oral argument, which should be taken with a monumental grain of salt, seem to be that the Court seems to "get" that the gay marriage opponents can't truly meet the legal burden to show it should remain outlawed. Saying procreation is why gay marriage should be illegal is a bit silly when we don't make people have fertility tests prior to getting a marriage license.

However they also don't necessarily seem willing to out and out say it should be legal in all 50 states via judicial fiat. They seem to be leaning towards invalidating California's ban, (and thereby banning any similar bans), and then letting things progress state by state as they have been for a while.

A dark horse result could be ruling that the people bringing the appeal (The opponents of gay marriage) do not have legal standing to bring said appeal. Back when this was at the Trial Court in California, the state actually refused to defend the gay marriage ban. Private groups raised money to hire attorneys to defend the statute instead. However, there is precedent that says that only states can officially defend state law, absent some authorizing statute that says otherwise.

In other words the Supreme Court could say "Well, you shouldn't be here anyways, appeal dismissed," and let the trial court ruling stand, which found that gay marriage should be legal in California.

Not sure what advantage that would give the Court, as while they would avoid having to make an immediate ruling on gay marriage itself, it would just set themselves up for a case in 2-3 years again, anyways.

As for myself, I think The Onion gets it right. http://www.theonion.com/articles/suprem ... res,31812/

[bumblemusprime]

First one is an interesting thought re: the fight to possibly come in states.

The rest are insanely bad, though. Who the [composite word including 'f*ck'] cares if you're on the same side as Karl Rove? And is marriage for gays really going to end sexual experimentation? People will [composite word including 'f*ck'], in strange ways, because they are people.

http://theweek.com/article/index/241903 ... y-marriage

[Shanti418]

But as they pointed out on the Colbert Report, the "give it to the States" approach, in the context of a federal tax system, is only going to punt the ball. You're gay, you get married in CA, you get rights, you file jointly, you move to Alabama, all of a sudden your federal rights and tax exemptions get taken away? It doesn't make sense, and that's going to be the next court battle if things here aren't ended decisively.