Same-sex marriage headed to the Supreme Court

I'm starting a new thread since the Arkansas one was getting pretty long.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/08/20/supreme-court-prevents-sex-marriages-virginia/
Today the Supreme Court placed a stay on the 4th Circuit ruling that struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. Without the stay, marriages would have begun at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Justice Roberts referred the matter to the entire court. The single-page order states that the stay will lift once the court either denies cert or renders a decision. Cases involving the bans in Utah and Oklahoma are also pending before the SCOTUS.

The 6th Circuit heard 6 cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee earlier this month. The 7th circuit will hear a case involving Indiana's ban on August 26. The 9th circuit will hear cases involving the bans in Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii on September 8.

Don't see how the court can possibly rule against same sex marriages by at least 5-4 votes with the current makeup.

I would be shocked if the ban on gay marriage survives. The liberals and Kennedy will vote to strike down the ban, and Chief Justice Roberts will join them. We'll see if any of the conservatives vote to put themselves on the "right side of history."

This is the endgame. My prediction? "Gay marriage" becomes "marriage" throughout the land by this time next year.

I have a hard time seeing Roberts ruling against bans on same sex marriage after voting to uphold DOMA.

Well, this should prove interesting.

Agree that Roberts will find in favor of marriage equality. I think the ruling will be 6-3.

From your lips to god's ears, sir.

There's a ban in Hawaii? You'd think they'd push for it, if only to boost the wedding/honeymoon industry.

Same sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2013. There was a lawsuit pending when the marriage equality bill passed. Hawaii is part of the 9th circuit, which moves at a glacial pace, so that's why it's taken so long to get to this point. That particular case will likely be dismissed as moot.

Oh, okay. I knew I'd heard of gay marriage being legalized in HI which is why it I was confused.

Not in my opinion. This is the opener. Once gay marriage is recognized simply as marriage (which, IMO, is as it should be), there will of course be no big fight about it any more. But that does not mean that the fight will be over; it will merely change issues. The next issue will be polygamy, polyandry, and all other forms of multiple marriage. If the "man" and "woman" part of "marriage is between one man and one woman" is struck down, why should the "one" part survive?

And personally, I can't think of any reason for which it should, provided all parties are consenting.

This.

I used to be all about polygamy because nearly all the examples include one guy with multiple wivesx but if he wanna deal with five mother in laws and five sets of birthdays and all five experience Shark Week at the same time...then fuck it, I ain't paying for it.

Might be a bitch for taxation, which is the only thing that would be a barrier however.

Can't find the old post where I said it before, but as long as they leave the kiddies out of it, let 'em go for it.
It just seems the fuckers that are into it for "religious grounds", also like 'em in the 12-14 range.
Makes 'em easier to brainwash, I guess.
Must be some insecure dickless muthafuckas.

The kicker to this is many of them cults begin kicking the boys out the community after they hit puberty to weed out the competition.

Kind of like hearing an hour ago that my uncle's wife's babydaddy died of the stroke and he gloated that "I was the one the kids grew up with" because it was less effort he had to make in his quest to turn a 'ho intp a housewife.

There is an actual reason why the number of people being married should remain constant. Along legal terms, and not religious mumbo jumbo, marriage is merely a legal contract. That contract is based on a two person contract. If one looks at things like business partnerships vs businesses with more than two owners you find a vast number of differences in how they are applied. In order to change marriage to a contract that would include more than 2 people you would have to rewrite large portions of marriage law completely. It is not like just adding some different pronouns and applying the same contract to same sex couples. You would actually have to address things like property dissemination for single person divorce or death between multiple legal partners. You would make a complete clusterfuck (worse than it is) with child custody. This is far different from a legal perspective of dealing with the system already in place or dealing with partners.

Where I do not truly care either way about a polygamist marriage, it creates a whole new section of legal problems over dealing with the already established partnerships, and I do not see many legislators wanting to jump that far into such a legal calamity. It is easy to deal with the love portion and argue that, but state recognized marriage has absolutely nothing to do with god or love. It ios more of a financial and legal contract designed to partner two individuals into what is a loosly written financial partnership like a business. In this case there is just so much more to a multiple person legal contract than a partnership that I doubt thwey will find reason to actually go through with it.

Even a plolygamist would probably find that a partnership does better when accompanies with a well written will and personal contracts than a rubber stamped government plan which might not take into account the different facets of a polygamist relationship.

I'm up for a couple of wives and husbands. I wonder if Natalie Portman is into that kind of thing...

I saw her first

You'll share, right?

That's what friends do!

I am not surprised to see the token Mormon endorse polygamy!

Tell him what else he'll be sharing. See if he still wants to share.

Members of the anti gay marriage group The National Organization For Marriage aren't very optimistic about their chances. One NOM leader expects that marriage equality will be the law of the land within a year.


http://www.towleroad.com/2014/08/no...will-be-nationwide-by-this-time-next-yea.html

Then he'll have no choice but to get gay married!

#DenobulanMarriage.

You raise some interesting points, but I'm not sure that polygamy takes the form you've described, so much as a series of bilateral agreements between an alpha partner and the harem.

Polygamy, as practiced by the church before it was outlawed, and practiced by the fringes afterward, were often fucked up arrangements, as noted previously in thread. And, as Anna mentioned, if someone really wants to deal with the logistics multiple partners and their parents/families, that's on them.

As long as it's consensual.

It's a minor plot point in Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, set in a post-apocalyptic society, but one of the tribes has a custom of forming trinities, consisting of either male/female/male or female/male/female combinations across different ages (elder/middle-aged/young). When one of the three dies, the survivors choose another partner to form a new trinity. That way no one needed to be alone.

It's the only thing about that novel that's stuck with me, but I wonder if it wouldn't be an interesting alternative lifestyle.

Geez, I read Dreamsnake like a thousand years ago. Didn't remember that detail, tho.

I probably read it at about the same time (it was released in 1978). The darnedest things stick in my memory...

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...s-judge-strikes-down-florida-gay-marriage-ban

A Federal district judge ruled against Florida's ban today. The decision is stayed. Several state court judges have also ruled against the ban recently. Those decisions are also stayed pending appeal.

Edit to add:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/21/colorado-wont-see-gay-marriage-yet/
A busy news day for same-sex marriage. In an unsurprising move, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to place a stay on a federal district judge's ruling that Colorado's ban in unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's actions yesterday. Marriages would have began statewide on Monday without the stay. There are also cases pending in Colorado state court at the moment.