BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[Mark 1911]

I find it slightly ironic that gay marriage is now legal in Indiana, only because the Republicans here fought so hard to renew a ban on it.

Otherwise, we could have been left out of this entire ordeal.

Am I wrong, or would it have not changed anything for us?

Without addressing the merits of the arguments, the Supreme Court let stand rulings that redefined marriage in five states: Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Six other states (Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming) will be bound by appellate court rulings that had the same effect.

Even had Indiana stayed out of the mix, looks like the end result would have been the same. But I applaud their effort.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Made no difference. Gay marriage was not legal here (had never been legal here) and a couple sued to get married here. Simple as that. New push had nothing to do with it.

Gotcha, it was the couple suing that involved us in today's decision (or lack of). Didn't consider that

 

[hornadylnl]

It's not clear, nor is it good judicial policy. Essentially, it makes opinions and whims the standard to measure the Constitutionality of a law rather than historical precedent. Again, it's not like the law can't be changed.

I'll ask it again because no one has answered. Why not use the amendatory or legislative process like was done for civil rights based on race?​ If these issues are equivalent....why are SSM advocates so afraid of the citizens? I guess if the citizens of a state...the people do not want gay marriage, that's not a viewpoint worth being "reserved" to the people or "retained" by the people. Some people's opinions are worth protecting, and others, not.....whoever gets the judicial sympathy, they're the special ones. Nice.

So how many decades was proper for blacks to gain their freedom via the legislature in this country? If you were a black slave in 1800, you'd be perfectly fine waiting until 1870 for the right to vote and even many more decades after that before you could ACTUALLY vote?

So you type here today saying you would say the same thing in 1800 that'd you say today. "I don't need freedom until Congress and the people find it in themselves to give it to me."

 

[HoughMade]

Now you are being silly.

Are you proposing we send Judge Posner back to 1800 in a time machine?

Slavery and ignoring rights based on race was always wrong, but it got changed through a war and amending the Constitution. It would have been great had it never been allowed and had the Constitution protected rights regardless of race from the beginning, but what happened, happened.

I say, let's abolish the elected legislatures and president and let the judges, appointed for life, make all the decisions....that's pretty much what you are advocating. You have that much confidence that the judges will see things your way? Have they always?

 

[hornadylnl]

Now you are being silly.

Are you proposing we send Judge Posner back to 1800 in a time machine?

Slavery and ignoring rights based on race was always wrong, but it got changed through a war and amending the Constitution. It would have been great had it never been allowed and had the Constitution protected rights regardless of race from the beginning, but what happened, happened.

I say, let's abolish the elected legislatures and president and let the judges, appointed for life, make all the decisions....that's pretty much what you are advocating. You have that much confidence that the judges will see things your way? Have they always?

You can't answer the question? Would you still have the same position if you were a black slave in 1800? You know damn well that you wouldn't. I haven't advocated for abolishing the elected legislatures and president and let the judges, appointed for life, make all the decisions.

I have no less confidence in the judges to act in the best interest of the American people than I do the American people and Congress. It was the American people and Congress who kept blacks chained for nearly 100 years and exerted institutionalized racism for another 100 years.

You have that much confidence that the American people and congress will see things your way? Have they always?

It is my belief that there are a large number of people in this country who have never held a minority opinion in their entire lives. Any issue you could think of, they could state their opinion and stick their finger in the air to measure the common political wind and it would never differ. Democracy or a representative republic is great if you're one of those guys. If not, I guess one must wait and suffer until he can change enough minds to change the law. You know, like a black slave in 1800. Until then, shut up, toil in the fields or take your beatings.

When the American people and congress decides to repeal the second amendment, you will sit in your corner and shut up just like you demand of the gay marriage proponents, right?

 

[Denny347]

By that analysis, whatever the judiciary does is always right. Is it?

No, but that is how our system works is it not? The system is working regardless of their decision. We may or may not like the decisions but that does not mean the process is wrong. I hate some of the decisions the local judges make on my cases (some are beyond ridiculous) but the process is still the best one I can find on this Earth. What else are you going to do about it?

 

[Trigger Time]

Well I'm glad to hear this. Congrats to all the couples who now are legally married and will be and share the same status as the test of us.
I love it when the constitution slaps politicians in the face and says "you can't do that!"

 

[Mark 1911]

When the SC refuses to hear the cases it means that the lower court rulings stand. In this case the lower courts ruled that same sex couples were not to be denied their Right to marry. The SC found no compelling argument against that and let the cases stand on their merit.

The SC found no compelling argument despite 6000 years of history, sounds like the agenda of a few powerful men dictating against what the vast majority believes.

 

[HoughMade]

No, but that is how our system works is it not? The system is working regardless of their decision. We may or may not like the decisions but that does not mean the process is wrong. I hate some of the decisions the local judges make on my cases (some are beyond ridiculous) but the process is still the best one I can find on this Earth. What else are you going to do about it?

I never said the procedure was wrong. I said that the decision used a wrongheaded analysis, one that has become popular since the '60s. Again, the substance of the decision uses a subjective analysis that results in Constitutional rights being recognized (and possibly abolished) based upon the whim of the guy in the robe. Analyzing Constitutionally protected rights based upon historical precedent reduces (but does not eliminate) the effect of individual beliefs on law and ties legal decisions back to a more objective analysis....and does not usurp the legislative process.

And Hornadylnl, I answered your question, though your question was silly. No I would not have liked the lack of recognized rights in 1800, but that does not mean that the entire legal system needs to be chucked to get a result that is right. Rather, there is a procedure to change the Constitution and to recognize rights- it is called the making of amendments. You are advocating the elimination of the rule of law to get the "right" result. I do not accept that. Ultimately it took a war and amendments to make the necessary change. Do you think a judicial ruling in 1800 would have changed that? Be serious.

 

[mrjarrell]

The SC found no compelling argument despite 6000 years of history, sounds like the agenda of a few powerful men dictating against what the vast majority believes.

Shall I get you a butthurt form? The cases brought before the courts couldn't make their case, in anything like a rational manner, (as we saw from the earlier cases). "'Cause, our stoneage ancestors did it this way" is not a compelling argument. Neither is mythology. None of the opponents, including Indiana and Wisconsin, could make a cogent argument to uphold their discriminatory laws. So, justice prevailed and equal Rights wins the day.

 

[HoughMade]

Shall I get you a butthurt form? The cases brought before the courts couldn't make their case, in anything like a rational manner, (as we saw from the earlier cases). "'Cause, our stoneage ancestors did it this way" is not a compelling argument. Neither is mythology. None of the opponents, including Indiana and Wisconsin, could make a cogent argument to uphold their discriminatory laws. So, justice prevailed and equal Rights wins the day.

Why not rally support and pass new laws? Representative republic and democratic principles outdated?

Oh, that's right, the stupid "people" have to be shown the way by the enlightened ones.

 

[hornadylnl]

I never said the procedure was wrong. I said that the decision used a wrongheaded analysis, one that has become popular since the '60s. Again, the substance of the decision uses a subjective analysis that results in Constitutional rights being recognized (and possibly abolished) based upon the whim of the guy in the robe. Analyzing Constitutionally protected rights based upon historical precedent reduces (but does not eliminate) the effect of individual beliefs on law and ties legal decisions back to a more objective analysis....and does not usurp the legislative process.

And Hornadylnl, I answered your question, though your question was silly. No I would not have liked the lack of recognized rights in 1800, but that does not mean that the entire legal system needs to be chucked to get a result that is right. Rather, there is a procedure to change the Constitution and to recognize rights- it is called the making of amendments. You are advocating the elimination of the rule of law to get the "right" result. I do not accept that. Ultimately it took a war and amendments to make the necessary change. Do you think a judicial ruling in 1800 would have changed that? Be serious.

Again, you'd relegate yourself, your immediate family, and the next 5+ generations to slavery and institutionalized racism rather than let a guy in a robe grant your freedom.

I'm merely trying to paint the perspective of those who would let the courts grant them liberty.

Again, if the American people and congress amended the constitution to repeal the 2A, you'd gladly accept it and never allow the courts to overrule that amendment. By your own admission, this is a legal process and constitutional.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Again, you'd relegate yourself, your immediate family, and the next 5+ generations to slavery and institutionalized racism rather than let a guy in a robe grant your freedom.

I'm merely trying to paint the perspective of those who would let the courts grant them liberty.

Again, if the American people and congress amended the constitution to repeal the 2A, you'd gladly accept it and never allow the courts to overrule that amendment. By your own admission, this is a legal process and constitutional.

What legal standing would the courts have to over turn a bonafide amendment? That is absolutely the right way to go about changing what is and is not protected by the Constitution. If the 2A was passed out of congress and the requisite number of states ratified it, legally, the courts should follow it.

 

[hornadylnl]

What legal standing would the courts have to over turn a bonafide amendment? That is absolutely the right way to go about changing what is and is not protected by the Constitution. If the 2A was passed out of congress and the requisite number of states ratified it, legally, the courts should follow it.

And all gun owners wil sit quietly by and accept it? Or will they take it to the public, courts or anyone who might listen to overturn it like dare I say, the gay marriage proponents?

 

[hornadylnl]

Didn't congress pass the affordable care act and weren't it opponents looking to the courts to overturn it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And all gun owners wil sit quietly by and accept it? Or will they take it to the public, courts or anyone who might listen to overturn it like dare I say, the gay marriage proponents?

Once the amendment has been ratified, you'd be screwed. The keeping and bearing of arms would no longer be a Constitutionally protected right. What people would do, I don't know. But if the Constitution is the law of the land and we're to be a nation of laws, then you'd have to respect it. Besides, if it ever got to the point you could get all those state legislatures to ratify it, it would have to be politically popular--a very popular idea.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Meh, I stand by my word choice.

50 years ago, homosexuality was "weird." These days, it's far more accepted.

There's been an effort to destigmatize pedophilia in the recent past, as well. I hate to see the day it's brought up at the SCOTUS level.

Why shouldn't a 13 year old girl be able to marry a 25 year old man, MrJarrel? Age is just a number.

Although I agree with your point, I feel bound to point out that it is (and has been in the past) possible that a 13 year old girl can marry a 25 year old man. As it happens, our 26 year old Operations Sergeant went home to Kentucky (I believe) on leave and came back with a 13 year old bride, whom he promptly enrolled in Middle School. This happened in 1978. Also, my 23 year old "best man" at my wedding in 1972 came back from home leave with a 15 year old (pregnant) bride. In both cases parental consent (or perhaps coercion) was involved.

However, more to your point, NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) has renewed pushing for legitimacy for their perversion. I wonder if they will have to stand in line behind the polyamorysts and the polyandrysts for their "rights" to marry whomever they please. Or perhaps the bestialists will get ahead of them, and I wonder, will PETA support "bestial matrimony" or oppose it?

 

[mrjarrell]

Didn't congress pass the affordable care act and weren't it opponents looking to the courts to overturn it?

Bu-bu-but-but...that's different!

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like the government of Indiana has accepted the inevitable. Maybe now they'll actually spend some time on important matters.

IndyPolitics.Org ? Long: Marriage Amendment Fight Over

From Sen. Long:

“It is surprising, given the importance of this issue to our society, that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to take up this matter, but instead to rely upon lower court rulings. That being said, the Court appears to have sent a message that if they ultimately do hear these cases, they will support these lower court rulings, and find that same-sex marriage is on equal footing with traditional marriage. Today’s decision opens the door for the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to lift the stay of its prior ruling on same-sex marriage in Indiana, and to order our county clerks to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Because the U.S. Constitution is supreme to all state constitutions when it comes to a conflict between them, the effort to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman would appear to be over unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its decision and ultimately takes up the matter in the future to overturn the current decision by the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit concerning Indiana law. Given today’s ruling, that appears unlikely.”

And from the governor:

I will always believe in the importance of traditional marriage and I will always abide by the rule of law. While it is disappointing to many that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear arguments on this important issue, under our system of government, people are free to disagree with court decisions but we are not free to disobey them. Hoosiers may be assured that I and my administration will uphold the rulings of our federal courts concerning marriage in the policies and practices of our state. As Governor of all the people of Indiana I am confident that Hoosiers will continue to demonstrate the civility for which we are known and respect the beliefs of all people in our state.”
​

Traditional marriage? Hm. My guess is they have no idea what that quaint little phrase means when you take in the history of humanity.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Although I agree with your point, I feel bound to point out that it is (and has been in the past) possible that a 13 year old girl can marry a 25 year old man. As it happens, our 26 year old Operations Sergeant went home to Kentucky (I believe) on leave and came back with a 13 year old bride, whom he promptly enrolled in Middle School. This happened in 1978. Also, my 23 year old "best man" at my wedding in 1972 came back from home leave with a 15 year old (pregnant) bride. In both cases parental consent (or perhaps coercion) was involved.

However, more to your point, NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) has renewed pushing for legitimacy for their perversion. I wonder if they will have to stand in line behind the polyamorysts and the polyandrysts for their "rights" to marry whomever they please. Or perhaps the bestialists will get ahead of them, and I wonder, will PETA support "bestial matrimony" or oppose it?

As I said elsewhere, logically speaking if the people and the states don't have the right to recognize one form of marriage, they cannot refuse to recognize any imaginable form of marriage. All combinations and permutations must be on the table for consideration.