The Supreme Court Just Admitted It’s Going to Rule in Favor of Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court Just Admitted It’s Going to Rule in Favor of Marriage Equality

Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court refused to stay a federal judge’s order invalidating Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage. In doing so, the justices immediately set up a constitutional crisis between the state’s lawless chief justice and the federal judiciary. They also effectively admitted what court-watchers have suspected for months: The court is preparing to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality at the end of this term.

Here’s how Monday’s decision reveals the justices’ intention to strike down gay marriage bans across the country. Typically, the justices will stay any federal court ruling whose merits are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Under normal circumstances, that is precisely what the court would have done here: The justices will rule on the constitutionality of state-level marriage bans this summer, so they might as well put any federal court rulings on hold until they’ve had a chance to say the last word. After all, if the court ultimately ruled against marriage equality, the Alabama district court’s order would be effectively reversed, and those gay couples who wed in the coming months would find their unions trapped in legal limbo.

But that is not what the court did here. Instead, seven justices agreed, without comment, that the district court’s ruling could go into effect, allowing thousands of gay couples in Alabama to wed. That is not what a court that planned to rule against marriage equality would do. By permitting these marriages to occur, the justices have effectively tipped their hand, revealing that any lower court’s pro-gay ruling will soon be affirmed by the high court itself.

Not entirely unexpected, but good news nonetheless. Now maybe we can move forward with other important issues...nah, who am I kidding? The states that oppose marriage equality will certainly start looking for methods to circumvent the SCOTUS and continue to disenfranchise their citizens.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Now maybe we can move forward with other important issues

Wouldn't that be nice? I'm tired of this issue and believe it's about time we start letting people be free.

It's about time.

Any Bible thumper against another persons simple rights needs to reevaluate do onto others.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Yeah as others have said about time!.
Equality at last equality at last!.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
It's about time.

Any Bible thumper against another persons simple rights needs to reevaluate do onto others.

Oh.

I'm a bible-thumper and I am for it.

Awkward.

Not wholly unexpected and I was thinking the decision would be even more than 7-2.

The sad fact at the root of all of this is a fact that most people miss:

WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE MARRIAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WHATSOEVER?

Just giving the government the power to regulate this opens a Pandora's Box of abuse, strife, and contention that is totally unnecessary.

If the Supreme Court were to do the right thing, they would rule that the Federal and state governments have no authority to regulate the institution of marriage.

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE MARRIAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WHATSOEVER.

Because the codification of laws and numerous instances of juris prudence have granted the institution of marriage certain legal and financial benefits that a non-married couple enjoy.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
It's about time.

Any Bible thumper against another persons simple rights needs to reevaluate do onto others.

Oh.

I'm a bible-thumper and I am for it.

Awkward.

Not really if you actually read what they said:

Any Bible thumper against another persons simple rights

That statement did not say all bible thumpers. Only those that are "against another persons simple rights". A thumper such as yourself would not have been included in that statement.

a reply to: introvert

Freedom, for the most part, is an illusion.

Think I'm kidding? Stop paying your taxes, any of them.

I think that minimal taxes are needed, but who here knows the *real* percentage of the average American workers paycheck we are taking through taxes? Not just payroll either...

We don't need more taxes, we need people who are responsible with the money that's being taxed, period.

So while the scuffles are sensationalized on practically every media outlet (bought and paid for, one way or the other), is giving us facts, but not all of them. Giving us the story, but not all of it - all in a bid to skew how the average viewer/consumer sees and reacts to any given situation.

It's pathetic to think how many people just blindly follow, and even worse vehemently protect the media and all their bias.

Those who constantly scream 'bigot' for another disagreeing with them - may in fact want to look up that very definition.

Equality is equality - those who would put a label on it are either ill-informed, ill-educated, or just plain fools.
Is there any such thing as 'gay equality', 'straight equality', 'hate crime', etc?

In reality, no, of course there isn't. Equality is based on being a #$! human being.

Crimes? They are laws that are broken, period. It doesn't matter why, nor who the law was broken by.
Example, if someone assaults another person physically - more than likely they've a major problem with that person, no matter the reason, it's a crime - assault. No labels need be given it, other than the actual term.

How stupid can people possibly be? A right is a right, liberty is a liberty, and a crime is a crime - we are all human beings.

In this day and age where 'labels are bad' - why do those who claim to despise those who label...do it themselves?

#feelingmisanthropic

It will interesting to see what the SC cites in favor or against.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

So, do I have this right?

A federal judge said Alabama has to marry gay people (invalidating their ban on gay marriage), and the Supreme Court let that happen. So, because the SC unanimously agreed not to "stay" that federal judge's decision, that means gay marriage is currently NOT under consideration by the SC, meaning they've already decided.

Woo-Hoo! Maybe we can get on with important issues. I doubt it, though... LOL!

Let's just change the meaning of words to suit political agendas.
I have nothing against gay couples being recognized in some formal way.
Marriage is an institution of the church, between a man and a woman.
Why do they feel they have to force churches to change their own doctrine?
Why can't the government just create civil unions for gay couples with the equal weight of law as marriages?
Leave it up to the churches to decide who they feel they can marry or not.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Let's just change the meaning of words to suit political agendas.
I have nothing against gay couples being recognized in some formal way.
Marriage is an institution of the church, between a man and a woman.
Why do they feel they have to force churches to change their own doctrine?
Why can't the government just create civil unions for gay couples with the equal weight of law as marriages?
Leave it up to the churches to decide who they feel they can marry or not.

People can be married in a church but in no way is a church required to get married. This does not require churches to do anything. Marriage has nothing to do with a church unless you want it to. If Churches want to continue to lose followers and remain in the dark ages they are allowed to do that.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Marriage is an institution of the church, between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a legal institution. Many people's marriage has NOTHING to do with the church or religion.

Why do they feel they have to force churches to change their own doctrine?

No one is forcing the church to change.

Why can't the government just create civil unions for gay couples with the equal weight of law as marriages?

"Separate but equal"? It's been tried and failed.

Leave it up to the churches to decide who they feel they can marry or not.

It IS up to the church. Nothing about this ruling will affect the church in ANY way. This is a LEGAL decision only. The government CAN NOT tell the church who to marry.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Marriage is an institution of the church, between a man and a woman.

The institution of marriage predates modern religion, dating back to Paganism; they didn't invent it and they don't hold exclusive rights to it.

Why do they feel they have to force churches to change their own doctrine?

Nobody is forcing churches to do anything.

Why can't the government just create civil unions for gay couples with the equal weight of law as marriages?

Separate but equal...hmm, where have I heard that one before?

Leave it up to the churches to decide who they feel they can marry or not.

Um, yeah...there are privileges and benefits afforded to married couples by the government. To allow the church to have any say in the matter is in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Sigh.