Same-Sex Marriage And The Supreme Court: The Possible Outcomes

Times Square Gossip ^ | April 17, 2013 | Brian Woodward

[honestabe010]

There are seven distinct ways the court could rule:

If the merits are reached (meaning that the court decides the case meets the constitutional requirements to be adjudicated and a ruling released):

The Nationwide Solutions:

1) The court could rule that Proposition 8 is constitutional. This would allow states to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

2) The court could rule that it is a violation of the equal protections act of the 14th amendment to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. This would essentially legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

The 8 state solution:

3) This is what is promoted by the Obama Administration as represented by his Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. The Court could decide that if a state has decided that gay couples may engage in civil unions, and consequently that they are afforded most of the rights that opposite-sex married couples are that there is no rational reason to deny such couples the status of marriage. The court would find that such statutes were unconstitutional because they were designed to denigrate and disgrace such couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The California Only Solution

4) This would be a ruling that applied only to California. It would state that once it grants the right to marry to same-sex couples it cannot revoke that right, which is what Proposition 8 did.

If the case does not reach the merits:

5) Defendants lack standing: The court could determine that the defendants of proposition 8 do not have standing under Article 3 of the Constitution. If they vote that way, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which found Proposition 8 invalid will be nullified. However, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 would stand...

[alloysteel]

Nobody has ever forbidden the homosexual male or lesbian female from getting married, as they always had the option of entering a sham marriage with a person of the opposite sex. It could be possible, in a complicated way, for two (or more) such couples to enter in an unofficial arrangement by which the official marriage stands, and the benefits may be shared privately. In fact, this may actually be the circumstances in an unknown number of instances already.

Understandably, there is huge potential for this arrangement to blow up in any number of ways, but it does provide a sort of safety valve for that other problem of same-sex couple connections.

Respectability.

Because open same-sex couples still lack the respectability the community bestows upon conventionally defined marriage, which is between one man and one woman. Marriage vows can and have been widely disregarded among certain strata of the community, and for that reason, may be believed to be less than sacred, but sin is sin, no matter how practiced, and is best concealed to the degree possible if the goal to to gain even a modicum of respectability in one’s reputation.

But behind it all, God knows. The difference is, does that knowledge have any effect upon the type of behavior exhibited?

[LibLieSlayer]

1) Marriage as defined by GOD is between a man and a woman
2) The entire history of mankind has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman
3) homosexuality is a sin and therefore abhorent to GOD and man
4) Those that claim that Biblical doctrine will not win the argument are liars and on the fast track to hell
5) The left has stolen enough of our language... no more... MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN... IT NEVER WILL BE OTHERWISE... REGARDLESS OF LAW!
6) Hate the sin not the sinner

LLS

[Carriage Hill]

Amen to that.

[Carbonsteel]

I agree with everything you listed.

But consider this, people in this country have treated marriage as a joke for at least the last 50 years. Gay marriage just makes it that much more of a joke.

We should have never let the Government get involved with marriage in the first place. That’s about the time everything associated with marriage started to fall apart.

Nearly everything the Government touches turns to crap and marriage here in the U.S. and how we treat it today, is just another example of why too much Government is a bad thing.

[honestabe010]

I just thought all the possible outcomes and the legality of even being able to decide a case was interesting. Also, the best point you make is that the government should not be in the marriage business and that is what has created this whole mess. If the government wasnt involved than people could do whatever they wanted according to their own morals and of course be free to disagree with life choices but it would be just like anything else in that regard and wouldnt take up such a huge block of political discussion

[Jacquerie]

>>The California Only Solution

4) This would be a ruling that applied only to California. It would state that once it grants the right to marry to same-sex couples it cannot revoke that right<<

The state of CA never did that. Two d@mned sets of blackrobes, one state, one federal, purposely did that.

>>there is no rational reason to deny such couples the status of marriage<<

That's Blackrobe lingo for, "We disagree with law passed twice, one by the right-wing CA legislature, and the last by the people via referendum."

[LibLieSlayer]

Amen!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

Thank you!

LLS

[honestabe010]

Well we have 3 branches of government and this is a classic case of checks and balances. They allowed civil unions and the cal supreme court said u have to grant marriage if u do that prop 8 is passed then all the way to scotus. So whether or not its is agreeable that they didnt use judicial restraint the courts play a needed role sometimes its good sometimes its bad but so is the legislative process and referendums for that matter. Its a bit futile in california now dont u think though? If needed they could get gay marriage on the ballot and it would pass at present day, public opinion has shifted so much since 2008

[Huebolt]

Since marriage is, and always has been, a religious sacrament, the SCOTUS may as well review consubstantiation, transubstanciation, and the Christmas Litany.

Marriage, like sex, is IMPOSSIBLE for persons having the same gender.

It is as unnatural as ritual human sacrifice and the practitioners should STFU.

[Carbonsteel]

I’d be willing to bet that if marriage had remained a religious institution out of reach of the grasp of the Government, Gays would have wanted nothing to do with it.

[honestabe010]

Human sacrifice? That is what christianity is based on and what god told abraham to do( although he stopped him)

[Huebolt]

Human sacrifice? That is what christianity is based on and what god told abraham to do( although he stopped him)

I agree, religion is the basis of much violence and death today. If one presses the point, communism is a religion, with lenin its messiah.

Socialism and statism ditto.

I believe that all totally irrational belief systems and behaviors are used by ruling class posers to subjugate the human will.

At best, they exploit human fear and weakness in the guise of comfort - and at worst, they avocate the divinely sanctioned genocide of "non-believers".

[OneWingedShark]

Since marriage is, and always has been, a religious sacrament, the SCOTUS may as well review consubstantiation, transubstanciation, and the Christmas Litany.

Who says they won't?

[OneWingedShark]

Human sacrifice? That is what christianity is based on and what god told abraham to do( although he stopped him)

Was it a human sacrifice, or a God sacrifice? Moreover, was it a suicide?
If things are as Jesus claims (a) that he is God, (b) that he came to Earth to die, (c) that he did so of his own will -- then is not the Crucifixion the suicide of God?

[highball]

I think we’re most likely to see 4) or 5). The most limited ruling they can make, given the precedents.

And while we’re at it, I can’t see any way that DOMA isn’t overturned. The left-leaning Justices want it gone for political reasons, and the right for its federal overreach.