Utah Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Gay-Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Aug 5, 2014.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2014
    New Jersey, United States
    Looks like this is it it guys, the final and last say is gay marriage will happen sooner rather than later. Utah has asked SCOTUS to uphold their state sanctioned bigotry. I'm excited/nervous for how this will play out.

  2. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    And SCOTUS will take the Constitution, roll it up into a roll, and slap Utah upside the head, Homey da Clown-style, as it applies Article 4, Section 1 and Article 4, Section 2 to the Utah AGs:

    Utah is going to lose this one.

  3. Meister Suspended


    Oct 10, 2013
    I visited Utah once and people seemed bewildered by me.
  4. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2014
    New Jersey, United States
    I hope Kennedy sees it your way.
  5. Technarchy macrumors 604


    May 21, 2012
    I'm not so sure.

    DOMA was obviously going to go down. The key question in DOMA was where does the federal government derive the power to create something like DOMA. This is a constitutional matter, and the answer is no where. The feds don't have the power in create DOMA, so it got struck down.

    The states on the other hand do have the power to define marriage.

    The second issue being I think SCOTUS will chew up and spit out the discrimination argument. Just because a gay man does not want to marry a woman doesn't mean there is inherent discrimination. That standard would not stand up to scrutiny on countless other scenarios.

    For this reason I think SCOTUS will kick it back to the states.
  6. lannister80 macrumors 6502


    Apr 7, 2009
    But not in violation of the equal protection clause.

    ?? Marriage is NOW (I dunno about before, but it is now) about voluntary love and commitment. You marry the person you LOVE, not a person whose Tab A happens to fit into your Slot B.

    I meaning look at Loving v. Virginia. "Just because a white man does not want to marry a white woman doesn't mean there is inherent discrimination." didn't hold up, and it's essentially the same thing.
  7. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2014
    New Jersey, United States
    I HIGHLY doubt SCOTUS will see it this way. The majority will rule in favor of SSM precisely because of the discrimination argument. Most of the federal rulings since the DOMA decision last year have cited blatant discrimination in their reasoning. I have no reason to think SCOTUS will see it any other way. By the way, the "gay man not WANTING to marry a woman" argument is not seriously considered by any prudent judge, it's just silly. States would rather use the horrible procreation argument as part of their defense instead of the silliness that you speak of.
  8. tgara macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2012
    Connecticut, USA
    Not exactly true. The majority opinion mixed principles of federalism (state autonomy), equal protection, and due process, but the precise constitutional basis for striking law down was never really made clear.

    Like you, Roberts thought it was a federalism case, but Scalia and the other dissenters were not so sure. The confused constitutional basis for the majority opinion in my view led to the variety of viewpoints of the dissenters. They couldn't figure out what constitutional principle Kennedy was basing his opinion on.
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
    Gay marriage coming to Utah. Who would have guessed that?

    Adam and Steve and Bill? :eek:

Share This Page