Prop. 8 and DOMA: Final Round. FIGHT!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. bradl, Mar 25, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2013

    bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Well, everyone, that time is here.

    Both the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases are going to be argued before SCOTUS tomorrow (3/26/13) and Wednesday (3/27/13). Prop. 8 will be argued first.

    For Prop. 8, there are a number of outcomes that could happen:
    • Legal standing. California's AG is refusing to argue the case, as the AG believes it is unconstitutional. This means that there is no standing for the people who voted for the proposition. If SCOTUS upholds the previous courts' overturning based on merits of standing, then that deals a blow to the democratic process used in California.
    • SCOTUS could strike it down completely, eliminating bans in other states as well.
    • SCOTUS could strike it down with provisions to only have it banned in California, leading to various other lawsuits to be filed for other states.

    Each side is going to be given roughly 30 minutes to argue their case. Opponents (pro-gay marriage) plan to spend 20 of it arguing their case that it goes against the US Constitution, including amicus briefs being presented, then handing it over to the Solicitor General (the US AG), who will argue why the Federal Government is siding with the pro-gay marriage platform. Prop. 8 proponents will have the remaining time. Opponents will go first. SCOTUS doesn't have anything else on their calendar for the day.

    For DOMA, there's a bit more to it:
    • if upheld, prevents gay couples who were married from getting divorced, as they would be legally married, but have no avenue to terminate the marriage. Said marriage would not be recognized in any state, though the marriage is legal.
    • could be repealed, because it would create a second-class citizen, similar to Blacks in the Jim Crow era, which would violate the 14th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education.

    There is also the 8-state solution, which would mean that those 8 states that have domestic partnerships would have to go straight to same-sex marriages. All or nothing, with the other states' laws intact.

    SCOTUSBlog will have a lot of coverage on this, as well as NPR, and various stations in the 24-hour news cycle. I'm calling this the final round, because SCOTUS is it: the final battlefield. I'm sure there will be a lot that will go on for this.

    Personally I'm thinking that this is going to come down to 3 justices: Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Roberts. Kennedy, because of him writing the two biggest decisions with gay rights, the most recent being Lawrence v. Texas.

    Ginsburg, because of her decisions regarding who has standing in various cases.

    Roberts, because while he's one of the youngest on the bench, he has the chance to be on the proverbial right or wrong side of history, plus there are those who say that Prop. 8 and marriage protects kids by saying that the best thing for them is to be with the biological parents. Well, he's adopted kids, and has a relative who is out and well open, and will be in the courtroom during the proceedings.

    Either way, I'm opening the thread now, as this is going to be a fun week as far as legalities go. These two cases will be our generations' Brown or Roe v. Wade.

    So, it's time. One more round. Fight!

    EDIT: EDIT: Audio of the oral arguments is now available, as well as written transcripts.

    BL.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Certainly an historic week for the SC. How long until we get their ruling?
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    I'm hoping for the best, but whatever the outcome of today, equal rights for all are within reach.
     
  4. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #4
    June/July, I heard.
     
  5. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    Out of curiosity, who opposes equal rights? Forget gay/straight for a second, who actually opposes equal rights regardless of the reason?
     
  6. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    Not entirely sure yet. I'm still listening to a local program over here about the whole thing.

    One thing I find funny, is that the federal government is the one that has legal standing in the DOMA case, which the 1st Circuit overturned. So on appeal to SCOTUS, the US AG has refused to defend the case. So what has happened is that members of the House of Representatives, and nearly all Republican at that, hired an attorney, and it is that attorney who is defending the case. So it is even the question of if that could go through before even getting to the merits of the case, because they may not even have standing either.

    SCOTUS could even say that they are going to take themselves out of it, because it is such a heated political issue, rule everything on the standing issue, and bow out.

    So there is the ****** way out, or short way out, or there is the long way out. Right now, no gauge on which one they would take to even know when they'd come up with a ruling.

    What I do know is this.. There are lines outside SCOTUS right now for tickets to get in and into the overflow room that could reach the waiting lines for an iPhone release. This is that big.

    BL.
     
  7. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #7
    Nobody, probably. People just disagree on what "equal" means. Equal used to mean you go to your school and I go to mine. It used to mean you drink from that water fountain and I drink from mine. Now it means I get married and you get civil unioned.

    This too shall pass.
     
  8. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #8
    That's the funny thing.. If SCOTUS rules a certain way, Civil Unions will be made non-existent. They would have to be turned into marriages, or there are no marriages at all. That's the 8-state solution, and where second-class citizens would come in, violating Brown, and the Civil Rights act of '64.
     
  9. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    Its now the 9 State Solution. Thank you Colorado:)

    (California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.)
     
  10. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    Colour me updated. You're right! :)

    Interesting to note: this is the most Conservative bench we've had at SCOTUS since prior to Roe, as Roe was a 7-2 decision, with the dissenting justices being conservative.

    Roberts is definitely going to be key here. SCOTUSblog had this to say:

    Seeing that Roberts has adopted children, that argument isn't going to rub him the right way. On the other hand, rumour has it that it is Roberts who has the relative who is openly gay that will be at the Court. He may have to recuse himself from this, as his impartiality may be compromised.

    I wonder if there will be a live feed of the proceedings tomorrow.. it's set for 10am EDT.

    BL.
     
  11. rdowns, Mar 25, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2013

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11

    Robert's gay relative is there at his invitation. He won't be recusing himself from this.
     
  12. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #12
    I personally think that DOMA is done but Prop 8 might be here to stay. Why is that you ask? Because Prop 8 may be viewed as a "state's rights" issue even though it violates the equal protection clause. So we'll see where this goes and which way Kennedy swings.

    6-3 repealing DOMA :)
    5-4 upholding Prop 8 :(
     
  13. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Well, the initial problem is the government being the arbiter of what constitutes marriage, but since that's the case, the more liberty we have, the better, so I support repealing DOMA.
     
  14. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Again, that is still even if the standing issue succeeds. If it doesn't, then the case couldn't be presented to SCOTUS at all, which the ruling would fall back to what Walker handed down at the 9th Circuit, making Prop. 8 invalid. That's the ***** way out I mentioned before.

    SCOTUS could still refer to this as a states right's issue, and issue the ruling, limited only to the state. That way, Prop. 8 would die in California only, and not be enforceable anywhere else. That would also lead to similar cases for the other 41 states, as the Perry ruling would be the precedent.

    Funny thing here, is that since the 1880s, SCOTUS has mentioned that marriage is a fundamental right. With that being stated by them, Loving should have never been a problem (though they made the right call there). However, I am not sure how leaning SCOTUS was back then, as political party ideologies were reversed back then. Whether they keep subscribing to that principle they had from the 1880s is a good question. That's where Thomas, Roberts, and Sotomayor will have a field day.

    BL.
     
  15. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #15

    Regardless of Prop 8 being invalidated or upheld, I'm more concerned about it being a national issue.

    The reason for this stems from the segregation laws certain states had in our country. If the Federal Government didn't step in and wield the stick and force integration, then ethnic minorities would have no rights and protections today. (Then again, we really don't have equal rights and treatment for minorities anyway but that's another issue for another thread.)

    And to clarify what I said about Prop 8 earlier. I am 100% against Prop 8 and in favor of equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. What I meant by Prop 8 being upheld is the appeal to keep same-sex marriage illegal, which I do not agree with.
     
  16. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    Fair enough, and understandable.

    What the disconcerting part of this is, is that the Prop. 8 case could be invalidated without ever going through the fight. Liken it to you wanting to go up against your greatest opponent, but you win by default because your opponent never showed up. You'll never know how the match went and if you were indeed better than that opponent.

    That is what describes the standing issue.

    Ultimately, we (most of us) would want to see the case go all the way through all 15 rounds (like Rocky and Apollo or Ali/Frazier) and be proven the winner. That way, everyone knows that laws like Prop. 8 are wrong.

    On a side note: resident lawyers, would it be illegal to place bets at a sports book or something on the outcome of a legal case? I'm just asking to ask; no ulterior motive.

    BL.
     
  17. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #17


    I'm all for proving that Prop 8 was indeed wrong on so many levels. Among them are, the majority restricting the rights of the minority, religion interfering with public matters, abusing our system of government to propagate hate, etc.

    However, how can we expect a clear winner when the referee and the judges of the fight have obvious biases with who they want to win? Right now we have four judges who will clearly vote in banning gay marriage, 4 who will vote that gay marriage is legal, and 1 who typically sides with those who want to ban gay marriage.

    Either way, let's hope for the best in all of this and a much brighter tomorrow.
     
  18. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #18
    The thing that struck me about this thread is the zealous use of the word "FIGHT" in the title. Apparently it's about putting people in their proverbial place and not about trying to get everyone on the same page, after all.
     
  19. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #19
    Though, I didn't make the thread, and I won't speak for the OP, at times it has felt like a fight. A very long and a very nasty fight. Especially when you factor in all of those who have spent a lot of time and a lot of money in an effort to "fight" against our rights. It does feel like we are fighting back. And with good reason.

    And I don't believe it's about getting everyone on the same page - because whether DOMA and Prop 8 are struck down or not, there will always be people who are against it. Just because the court rules on it doesn't mean all of a sudden those who have been against it are going to jump onboard. There are still places in this country that look down and are against interracial marriage - and how long ago was Loving vs Virgina?
     
  20. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #20
    It's a fight to get everyone on the same page. ("On the same page," in my usage, being "having access to the same rights.") It's not a fight for the sake of a fight. Do you think there would be as much zealousness if the topic was about putting people in their proverbial place over whether to cut the crust off of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, even though there's plenty of opportunity to put people in their proverbial place in such a debate?
     
  21. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #21
    You've both illustrated my point. No, elistan, by getting everyone "on the same page," I'm talking about "getting people to agree." Because otherwise you're going to ram your beliefs down someone's throat whether they like it or not, no matter which side of the issue you're on. And like Moyank24 has said (loosely paraphrased by me), you can legislate rights but you can't legislate acceptance. My comment was about the willingness of people - on both sides of the issue, mind you - to simply force the other side into compliance and say "We won" rather than trying to get others to see eye-to-eye.

    As long as you believe it can't be done, then it won't be done.
     
  22. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #22
    I get what you're saying - and I appreciate the fact that you have a Utopian views of things.

    But, frankly, it's just not realistic. There are people who are NEVER going to
    believe that this is the right thing and that we deserve equal rights. There are people who are NEVER going to stop believing that we are sinners and are going to Hell. There are people who are NEVER going to believe that this wasn't a "choice" for us.

    Look at abortion. 30 years after Roe V Wade, does everyone see eye-to-eye on the issue? How about the Death Penalty? When it becomes an issue that has to be decided by the Supreme Court, there is always going to be some degree of "forced compliance". If not for Loving vs Virgina, how long would it have taken for states to recognize interracial marriage? There may be some states where it would still be illegal today.

    You may see it as "ramming our beliefs down someone's throat", I see it as something that is long overdue. We can sit around and play nice and beg people to understand -been there, done that. The problem is, do you know how long that will take? If we don't force the issue, who will? I don't want my kids to grow up in a world that believes our family doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else's. We've waited long enough for people to come around. It hasn't happened.
     
  23. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #23
    I'm no expert on the social rights movements of the 1900s - so I have to wonder, how much of it was through forcing the other side into compliance, and how much by getting others to see eye-to-eye? I get the impression there was plenty of both. And I don't see a problem with it. At some point, for example, yes, it's right to force a person wanting to segregate schools to comply with laws banning segregated schools. (See Brown v. Board of Education.) Similarly, I think it's right to force the recognition of same-sex marriage upon a nation even though a minority of people in that nation still don't want to recognize it. History seems to show that force and persuasion are both required. It'd be nice if force wasn't required, if Brown v. Board of Education wasn't required, if people were willing set asside considerations of race, gender and sexual orientation of their own free will, but that's not always the case.
     
  24. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #24
    Excellent post.

    Here's an example of how well the first few years of integration went (and this was 3 years after Brown v. BOE):

    [​IMG]
     
  25. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    Let me nip this in the bud right now.

    I worded it that way, because that is how the narrators in both Street Fighter II (regular, champion Edition, Hyper-fighting edition, etc.) and Mortal Kombat had worded it when they always came down to their matches, especially the final match.

    Since this is the final match for both Perry and DOMA, it felt appropriate.

    BL.
     

Share This Page