Supreme Court will take on the Prop 8 case

LexiLupin

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/07/supreme-court-will-tackle-same-sex-marriage/

I'm a little scared, to be honest. 

Thoughts?

Jan8

LexiLupin:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/07/supreme-court-will-tackle-same-sex-marriage/

I'm a little scared, to be honest. 

Thoughts?

I agree with you.

chiualover

I am very curious to see what happens.

Worried that it won't go the right way.

And.....I have absolutely no predictions.

LexiLupin

chiualover:

I am very curious to see what happens.

Worried that it won't go the right way.

And.....I have absolutely no predictions.

I guess I just have a hard time seeing a "right" way here. It's going to be a mess either way. 

If they declare Prop 8 unconstitutional, states are going to go nuts (I still think we should just let some of them secede, personally...). A lot of states define marriage- will shooting down Prop 8 invalidate all other such statutes and amendments?

If they say it is constitutional, it paves the way for all sorts of shenanigans in states where gay marriage is already legal.

 

Obviously I'm in favor of the former option, but I really wish they'd have left this at the state level for now.

missymo

I am very, very optimistic.  It seems so obvious that the rights of the citizenry are being circumvented.  If the SCOTUS looks at it in a clear eyed, non-religious way, they have no choice but to deem DOMA unconstitutional.  The government needs to either get out of the marriage business (thus, making marriage obsolete for non-religious people and allowing two consenting adults of any gender to form a civil union), or they need to allow marriage for all.  Equal protection, yo.  

LexiLupin

But they aren't taking on DOMA, is the thing. They're deciding the constitutionality of Prop 8 in CA, and they're taking on a specific challenge from NY to a particular aspect of DOMA (regarding benefits, I believe), not DOMA itself.

 

missymo

LexiLupin:

But they aren't taking on DOMA, is the thing. They're deciding the constitutionality of Prop 8 in CA, and they're taking on a specific challenge from NY to a particular aspect of DOMA (regarding benefits, I believe), not DOMA itself.

 

oops! I must have misread. Sorry.  

ETA: After re-reading the linked article without distraction, I am confused as to your assertion they aren't taking on DOMA.  I don't doubt what you say is true, I'm just confused. 

The article states: "The Supreme Court is not just going to decide whether the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional...", and, "The court says it will hear two appeals: one involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state..."

Can they just find parts of DOMA unconstitutional, or if they find the any part of it unconstitutional, is the entire act itself deemed unconstitutional?  

I think that is where I'm confused.  I assumed that if the case attacks the benefits issue created by DOMA, it was attacking DOMA.  Thus, DOMA could be ruled unconstitutional. 

Please explain it to me! I'm obviously not well versed in this - I'd love to understand what's really going on here.  

CoffeeBeen

Oh man, I've sort of been following this case and I didn't really think they would take it up!  I'm optimistic because there is no legitimate reason to disallow gay marriage except that some bible passages can sometimes be interpreted as not approving - and I trust SCOTUS enough to not start using the bible as the law of our land.

  If they allow a popular vote to block the rights of a marginalized group then I will lose all faith in the supreme court.  I'm a big fan of seeing both sides of an issue, but after a lot of contemplation I don't think that there is any even relatively legitimate reason to ban gay marriage in the US.

 I'm a little surprised they're taking it up since they had so many issues with their Obamacare ruling being interpreted as an overly politicized court and stuff.   

LexiLupin

missymo:

LexiLupin:

But they aren't taking on DOMA, is the thing. They're deciding the constitutionality of Prop 8 in CA, and they're taking on a specific challenge from NY to a particular aspect of DOMA (regarding benefits, I believe), not DOMA itself.

oops! I must have misread. Sorry.  

ETA: After re-reading the linked article without distraction, I am confused as to your assertion they aren't taking on DOMA.  I don't doubt what you say is true, I'm just confused. 

The article states: "The Supreme Court is not just going to decide whether the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional...", and, "The court says it will hear two appeals: one involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state..."

Can they just find parts of DOMA unconstitutional, or if they find the any part of it unconstitutional, is the entire act itself deemed unconstitutional?  

I think that is where I'm confused.  I assumed that if the case attacks the benefits issue created by DOMA, it was attacking DOMA.  Thus, DOMA could be ruled unconstitutional. 

Please explain it to me! I'm obviously not well versed in this - I'd love to understand what's really going on here.  

It's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding... that article I posted in the OP does make it sound like they're debating the overall constitutionality of DOMA. I based my prior assumption on this article: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

which says, "The second case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions."

I read that as that they're specifically challenging the aspect relating to benefits for couples married in states where gay marriage is legal, not challenging the overall legitimacy of DOMA. I would think they can specifically shoot down (or uphold) that statute regarding benefits without making a ruling on the overall law.

Anyone here actually know anything about federal law and the SC?