IN ban on gay marriage thrown out by US fed court

[southsider2k5]

Just happened.

[MEANS]

bout time.

[StrangeSox]

I said it after the last wave, but with all of the federal circuit courts ruling the same way so far, I wonder if SCOTUS will ever even take it up. If all of the courts are just applying Windsor and doing so in the same manner, there's not really much more for SCOTUS to say.

[Balta1701]

I said it after the last wave, but with all of the federal circuit courts ruling the same way so far, I wonder if SCOTUS will ever even take it up. If all of the courts are just applying Windsor and doing so in the same manner, there's not really much more for SCOTUS to say.

Utah's overturning today just was the first time a federal appeals court to rule in favor of marriage equality since the Prop 10 case last year.

[StrangeSox]

Utah's overturning today just was the first time a federal appeals court to rule in favor of marriage equality since the Prop 10 case last year.

Yeah, so far it's still mostly been at the district level and it's working its way through the appeals courts. My mistake. Still, if the string of rulings holds at the appellate level, there won't be much for SCOTUS to say.

[StrangeSox]

Also, the decision was effectively immediately with no stay entered and couples have already begun marrying:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...-sex-marriages/

[Balta1701]

Yeah, so far it's still mostly been at the district level and it's working its way through the appeals courts. My mistake. Still, if the string of rulings holds at the appellate level, there won't be much for SCOTUS to say.

The question is, will Anthony Kennedy be willing to go so far as to follow all these rulings or will he attempt to come up with some crazy nonsensical middle ground?

[Balta1701]

Also, the decision was effectively immediately with no stay entered and couples have already begun marrying:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...-sex-marriages/

I'm casually watching the Facebook feed of one of my cousins (I think that's what she counts as. Cousin in law maybe) who's been living with her gf for like 5 years now.

[StrangeSox]

The question is, will Anthony Kennedy be willing to go so far as to follow all these rulings or will he attempt to come up with some crazy nonsensical middle ground?

 

I've read a couple of the opinions and analysis of them, and it seems like he'd have to undermine his own ruling in Windsor to do so at this point.

[southsider2k5]

Also, the decision was effectively immediately with no stay entered and couples have already begun marrying:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...-sex-marriages/

 

About half of a dozen counties were expressly told they could not deny licenses. The rest of them are waiting for the state to change the rules for issuing licenses to be able to do so. Right now the form has a check box for one male and one female. Alteration of that, or filling it out with anything but could result in the clerk going to jail. I have been in contact with our local clerks office through out the day. It has been pretty interesting to see it in action.

[greg775]

I wonder what the rate of gay divorce is compared to hetero divorce. Just wondering, more of a sociological question.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wonder what the rate of gay divorce is compared to hetero divorce. Just wondering, more of a sociological question.

I wouldn't think there was enough meaningful data yet to draw any conclusions. But my complete and total guess is they end up being very similar.

 

[EvilMonkey]

They can sure be just as bitter (ie Johnny Weir), if not worse.

[Balta1701]

I'm casually watching the Facebook feed of one of my cousins (I think that's what she counts as. Cousin in law maybe) who's been living with her gf for like 5 years now.

They just posted a picture holding a marriage certificate

[cabiness42]

Chicago Federal Appeals Court just ruled that gay marriage bans in IN and WI are unconstitutional.

[Balta1701]

Chicago Federal Appeals Court just ruled that gay marriage bans in IN and WI are unconstitutional.

The thing that actually matters at this point is having appeals courts uphold them. If every single case is ruled the same way, there's no disagreement and so the Court might just bypass. The one that got upheld yesterday is actually more important at this point.

[cabiness42]

The thing that actually matters at this point is having appeals courts uphold them. If every single case is ruled the same way, there's no disagreement and so the Court might just bypass. The one that got upheld yesterday is actually more important at this point.

 

One got upheld yesterday? I guess I missed that.

[StrangeSox]

One got upheld yesterday? I guess I missed that.

yes, Louisiana's got upheld by a district court yesterday. It's expected to get upheld on appeal as well by the 5th Circuit which is apparently very conservative friendly right now, at least as far as I've heard. It's the first federal ruling since Windsor to uphold a ban. More than 20 other courts have ruled against such bans since Windsor.

[cabiness42]

yes, Louisiana's got upheld by a district court yesterday. It's expected to get upheld on appeal as well by the 5th Circuit which is apparently very conservative friendly right now, at least as far as I've heard. It's the first federal ruling since Windsor to uphold a ban. More than 20 other courts have ruled against such bans since Windsor.

 

Yeah, 5th district is very conservative friendly.

[Jenksismyhero]

His reasoning was a good one IMO and perhaps a key angle for the conservative members of SCOTUS to strike down the bans - marriage isn't a fundamental right, so the burden on the state to justify its legislation is evaluated on a rational basis standard, not strict scrutiny. If true, and if the court agrees that marriage is meant for 2 opposite sex couples propagating for the future of our country, then they can ban it. Not sure that's a real solid argument in 2014 when there are all sorts of marriages, good and bad, with kids and without kids.

 

I do think, though, that SCOTUS is going to have to rule that if marriage is a fundamental right, then there really should be no rules on marriage whatsoever. Multiple partners, incest, etc. Those are all based on social mores, just like gay marriage.

[StrangeSox]

If true, and if the court agrees that marriage is meant for 2 opposite sex couples propagating for the future of our country, then they can ban it. Not sure that's a real solid argument in 2014 when there are all sorts of marriages, good and bad, with kids and without kids.

 

It hasn't been a real solid argument for a while now, having been explicitly rejected by every lower court that has been presented with it.

 

edit: it was literally laughed out of the supreme court during oral arguments in the Prop 8 case

 

KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, "Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of 55." Would that be constitutional?

COOPER: No, Your Honor. It would not be constitutional.

 

KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think. You know? If you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in protecting procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

 

COOPER: You, you, Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple — are infertile.

 

(Laughter from the gallery.)

 

KAGAN (interjecting): No really, because the couple — I can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

 

even if they say that marriage is for the propagation of children, they're still on very shaky logical ground. There are all sorts of benefits, privileges and obligations that come with marriage that are unrelated to child rearing. There are couples who cannot have their own biological children or simply choose not to. Others choose to adopt, including gay parents. Many children are also born and raised outside of wedlock. Either way, you can't ever get back around to the conclusion that gay couples should be excluded.

Edited September 4, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

It hasn't been a real solid argument for a while now, having been explicitly rejected by every lower court that has been presented with it.

 

None of those opinions matter when the issue ultimately gets decided by SCOTUS. They just need one angle to decide the case. You can bet that's going to be the angle of the conservative judges - that's not a fundamental right, it's a social issue, let the people decide, not courts.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the opinion overturning the WI and IN bans, written by Posner (full ruling at bottom of article):

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/wisco...tutiona#1hj1d9c

 

His ruling is basically a direct rebuttal of the "marriage is for biological parents' procreation" argument.

Edited September 4, 2014 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

Here's the opinion overturning the WI and IN bans, written by Posner (full ruling at bottom of article):

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/wisco...tutiona#1hj1d9c

 

His ruling is basically a direct rebuttal of the "marriage is for biological parents' procreation" argument.

 

Posner destroyed the WI and IN attorneys defending their bans: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/extern..._08_26_2014.mp3

[southsider2k5]

The social defense for anti gay marriage is a terrible one. In a party that prides itself on protecting individual freedoms, they should be looking at the fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except the people getting it. This isn't like legalizing drugs, where there can be secondary consequences for things like insurance costs or running into DWI's for those who aren't partaking.

 

It is also flat out hypocrisy. If the family institution is so important, how come these same people aren't fighting for a constitutional amendment against divorce, or against children out of wedlock? Way more families are destroyed by divorce, and single parent family parenting, than anything else in marriage. If you want to follow the bible, follow the bible. Don't just follow the parts that get you votes, hypocrite.