It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
Excellent questions, though one might say in answer to that, there is historical precedent to that aspect, where 2 people closely related were wed at one time. But that is all speculation and hopefully the better legal minds of the day and age can make sense of it all.

The court ultimately has to take the question and look at it from the most simplest terms, and then see how the constitution of the USA would apply to such. In these aspects, they would require tests that would have to be answered. Other cases in the past, where issues of a constitutional nature came up, they put forth a series of questions, usually three, and then applied the basic aspects of the arguments to those questions. If the answer to all three were one way or the other it was what they used to state if something was or was not covered under the constitution of the United States of America.

Right now the one thing that we call all hope for is that the court will make sense of the mess of laws that have come up with in the past few years and give a clear and concise definition, along with a test to go along with such that other courts can use in answering such questions. The ruling in this case, will have some profound ripples in the legal sense for the country for years to come. And something tells me that there will be challenges down the road.


Just clarifying. This thread "traveled" on topic discussion, as most do.

Are you talking about the USSC possibly making Marriage Equality a Federal Act?




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here is the Human Rights site keeping track of counties.

I think there is also a Federal hearing called for Thursday (need more detail)




Wednesday 2:00 pm: HRC confirms Chambers is only issuing to straight couples.

23 counties are issuing to all couples: Autauga, Bullock, Butler, Calhoun, Chilton, Coffee, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Dallas, Elmore, Etowah, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Limestone, Lowndes, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Perry, Wilcox and Winston.

16 counties are issuing to only straight couples: Baldwin, Chambers, Clay, Cleburne. Covington, Dekalb, Escambia, Greene, Lee, Macon, Marengo, Pickens, Shelby, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, Washington.

28 counties not issuing licenses to any couples: Barbour, Bibb, Blount, Cherokee, Choctaw, Clarke, Colbert, Coosa, Cullman, Dale, Fayette, Franklin, Geneva, Hale, Henry, Houston, Lamar, Lauderdale, Marion, Marshall, Mobile, Pike, Randolph, Russell, St. Clair, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Walker.


www.hrc.org...
edit on 11-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The first part on what would be considered incest, I was pointing out in response to your post about there already being precedents on record of such.

On the second part, it deal with the current case that will be heard in April by the USSC when it comes to the question of if same sex marriage is valid or not under the constitution of the USA.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee

The first part on what would be considered incest, I was pointing out in response to your post about there already being precedents on record of such.


Thanks.

I think the case against incestual reproduction is basic logic backed up by science.

Did you know that Toulouse Lautrec was not a dwarf, but afflicted with a congenital health condition, a genetic disorder, due to his parents being first cousins?

Even remote indiginous tribes have complex systems to avoid families marrying family members. How they know that I havent a clue.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

On the second part, it deals with the current case that will be heard in April by the USSC when it comes to the question of if same sex marriage is valid or not under the constitution of the USA.


It is strictly a Civil Rights Equality issue. It's Marriage Equality, not same sex marriage.

If anyone on the USSC lets their personal beliefs take priority, they should be removed from the bench.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That will be up to the court to decide, and ultimately having following the debate from the get go, the arguments have been pretty much religious ver civil rights. And what is more interesting, is that as the case grows closer, the rhetoric is the same as it has been for so many other issues and excuses time and time again. The sad part of it all, is that no one can answer the questions the justices ask, and they will, ultimately they will have to take a stand.

Here is the point to think about and hope for:

While a win would be a good thin, it is the numbers that we should hope for. A clear majority, of say 7 to 2 in favor of same sex marriage or even a 6 to 3, would send a far clearer message than anything else. If it is split along the lines of 5 to 4, it will be controversy again in 10 years.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
I did not know that. But I am sure that the old families of Europe, especially those who use to be in the upper ruling class, and were of a non morganatic marriage would have found that bit interesting.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

While a win would be a good thin, it is the numbers that we should hope for. A clear majority, of say 7 to 2 in favor of same sex marriage or even a 6 to 3, would send a far clearer message than anything else. If it is split along the lines of 5 to 4, it will be controversy again in 10 years.


Why? The number of assenting or dissenting votes does not lend the verdict any more weight.

Additionally, a 5 to 4 decision means that at least one conservative justice voted in favor.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Do you want this to be overturned in 10 to 20 years? If it is that close of a vote, a later court could retry the case and then state that the prior court was in error and overturn the ruling. if it is more where the clear majority of the justices rule in favor of same sex marriage, it would make it harder for such to be overturned by a later court. The more the justices that concur on the issue that agree, with a very large majority sends a far greater message.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
More on Alabama...

New Hearing Could Clear Up Gay Marriage Confusion in Alabama



U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, a President George W. Bush appointee, will hear arguments Thursday in a complaint filed by same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses earlier this week in Mobile County. Last month, Granade declared Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in a ruling that went into effect on Monday – the day the nation’s highest court shot down a stay request from Alabama’s Republican attorney general.
...
Some legal experts agreed with Moore’s interpretation of the federal order. That is, because the lawsuit listed no probate judges as defendants, no probate judges could be ordered to do anything by Granade’s ruling. But others believed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny a stay request from the state and let Granade’s ruling take effect marked the ultimate authority, trumping any kind of directive from Moore.
...
It’s not the first time in Moore’s history – or for that matter, Alabama’s – where federal orders weren’t viewed so much as “orders,” but rather as an opportunity for grandiose defiance in the name of states’ rights. In 2003, Moore was removed from his position as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to take down a monument he had installed at the judicial building that displayed the Ten Commandments.


Hopefully, this will be cleared up soon.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   


BREAKING: All Alabama Counties Must Marry Same-Sex Couples, Says Federal Judge. U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade has once again ruled in favor of equality — ordering probate judges throughout Alabama to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


www.advocate.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This article is just funny:

Alabama GOP chief says gay marriage will incur God's wrath, but state is already hellbound

www.al.com...


edit on 12-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That is funny.

Alabama's motto: "We dare defend our rights." (as long as you're straight, that is...)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

Do you want this to be overturned in 10 to 20 years?


That is not how the Supreme Court determines it will hear a case. They review legal challenges to the law based on precedent and once a decision is made it is almost always final:


When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken. Source



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
The US Supreme court can and has reversed a ruling, in effect overrule itself. This only happens when a different case, involving the same constitutional issue as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, usually due to the changing social and political situations. The longer the time between the cases, the more likely to occur, due to stare decisis.

While such cases are rare, they do happen, and ultimately the way the justices vote, along with the decision happens. Ultimately, there greater the majority, the less likely that another court in the future would be so willing to overturn the decision. If it is too close of a split, then the court could state that the prior court was in error and give the opposite verdict.


Here are some of the case:
Point in case would be cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned 50 years later in Brown v. Board of Education. Wolf v. Colorado, only to be over turned 12 years later in Mapp v. Ohio.
Austin v. Michigan state Chamber of Commerce, and later about 20 years, Citizens United, over turned that case. Pace v. Alabama, and 80 years later, Loving v. Virginia. Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned in Lawerence v. Texas.


All of them were constitutional issues that were ultimately ruled on and then over turned.

A side note, the one time where it was an amendment that overturned a case was the Dread Scott case.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: mugger
My only concern, If they rule in favor of it, does this mean that churches will be forced to perform these weddings just as the government has forced the baker and florist or will they still have their choice to not perform them?


No. Churches are private organizations, they are not public accommodations. The discrimination laws don't apply to them. They can legally turn away anyone they want.
Indeed. Besides, it's not like you have to married in a church. You can get married in a courthouse if you want, or a drive-thru if you happen to be in Vegas. If you do want to get married in a church however, there are definitely some churches out there that will marry gays. Any gay person that has a problem with a Church refusing to marry them has numerous alternatives. There's no excuse.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The US Supreme court can and has reversed a ruling, in effect overrule itself.


Which is what I quoted.


Here are some of the case:
Point in case would be cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned 50 years later in Brown v. Board of Education. Wolf v. Colorado, only to be over turned 12 years later in Mapp v. Ohio.
Austin v. Michigan state Chamber of Commerce, and later about 20 years, Citizens United, over turned that case. Pace v. Alabama, and 80 years later, Loving v. Virginia. Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned in Lawerence v. Texas.


None of which cited the number of justices voting on a previous case as grounds for overturning the decision. They used new legal precedent or interpretation to form their decision.

Plessy was 7 to 1. Pace was 9 to 0. Both of these completely disprove your theory that the number of justices voting could lead to the case being overturned in the future.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I thought this was an interesting article. It's about what's going on in Alabama's same sex marriage fight.

Be sure to read the comments.



“This is a huge problem that Christians have in America as they separate their Christianity from their politics,” the pastor and author stated. “It makes it convenient for them to betray Christ, even in office.”


christiannews.net...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
This could get interesting. I'd start a new thread if I was in a position to monitor it.

The STATE Supreme Court of Alabama just trumped the FEDERAL judges decision. Declaring a ban on all same sex marriages.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join