-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Marriage Equality Heads to SCOTUS - Obergefell v. Hodges |OT| The Last Days of Murica
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
End of June.
Not even close. Probably late June.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Honestly, I don't know why every case can't go up same day. It's annoying.
I'm halfway through the first segment (using the Oyez iPhone app). It's too bad someone thought it would be a good idea to start shouting and protesting during the arguments.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Oh darn it, I was getting hype that it would be decided soon
They'll do an initial vote on Friday and then start drafting opinions. Those are long, and especially with this one, the language is very important.
Just wait till you get to question 2.
His logic doesn't track at all and he's not really engaging with any of the questions regarding adopted children.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Hence the rationale for equality: the argument against isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional argument. It's "stop liking things I don't like" encoded into law.
Listening to his terrible answers just makes me more confident that he'll lose, which is nice.
I get that Metaphoreous is on the right side on this (hey Meta), but you'd expect someone of his caliber to make arguments for the states. This is someone who would get tossed out of a GAF thread with one well-cited Mumei post!
boiled goose
good with gravy
Sex discrimination is totally a valid argument for SSM. Gender and sex are somewhat ambiguous and arbitrary.
If government bans SSM marriage then it is also in the business of determining gender.
If government bans SSM marriage then it is also in the business of determining gender.
I was gonna be that guy and post this when I started listening, so thanks for doing it for me Ivy. Lol.
I mean his voice was practically Derrick level...
Drama
boiled goose
good with gravy
Basically if the government says you are a man and can only marry a woman, it has to first establish that you are a man and your future spouse is a woman. These static gender and sex labels are pretty outdated.
Basically sex and gender ard complicated. Two consenting adults is much more simple.
You're already engaging with gender on a deeper level than the SCOTUS has ever done
TacticalFox88
Banned
……forgetit
Member
So there's no way the court will rule against gay marriage, right? I mean this is basically a done deal.
I'm trying to understand what he's talking about. I understand his main point that legalizing marriage equality will make marriage an adult-centered institution that will weaken the bond between children and their parents. He's wrong and that makes no sense, but that at least tracks. I guess.
I don't understand what he's saying once he gets prodded.
Are marriages annulled if a man is married to a woman, but then sex changes to a woman?
I guess, at what point does the state step in and be like "oh no you don't!" - is it when they recognize themselves as a woman and have been living as a woman for X amount of years, or when they legally change their sex from M to F? (I don't even know the process involved with that)
I guess, at what point does the state step in and be like "oh no you don't!" - is it when they recognize themselves as a woman and have been living as a woman for X amount of years, or when they legally change their sex from M to F? (I don't even know the process involved with that)
So every media outlet I've listened to so far (ok, only like three, but still) seems to think that so far it looks like the SCOTUS is gonna rule against SSM, or at least say it's a states rights issue. Is this true? I haven't listened to any of the audio yet, though, so maybe they're just ratings-mongering.
That's very likely the opposite of what's going to happen/the take away from most court observers.
EDIT: Let me expand: By take away, I mean, most seem to believe it's either too close to tell to that it's pretty obvious what the court will do. In fact, it's been pretty obvious what the court will do for a while now.
Which outlets? Cause if its TV then reality is likely the opposite of whatever they say.
cartoon_soldier
Member
After how Healthcare ruling went down (against all opinions and observers commentary) there is no saying.
Well.....this one doesn't sound too promising:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...tions-of-a-ruling-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/4/
That's... not really the correct take away from the oral arguments, at all. I mean, it's one takeaway, but not a complete one.
cartoon_soldier
Member
You have 4 liberal justices that will vote for SSM.
Scalia, Alito and Thomas will vote against.
Kennedy asked questions of everyone (except for the issue of whether SSM out of state should be recognized). That part is important, because it may show that the he wants to move towards making SSM bans illegal which makes the 2nd argument of out of state recognition moot. At the same time he was wondering if the court should change the accepted definition of marriage that was in society for a long time.
Roberts also asked questions of both sides.
The thing with Kennedy and Roberts is they tend to ask a lot of questions without really tipping their hat in these kinds of cases. Sometimes the questions are about playing Devil's advocate. Kennedy is the real swing vote here.
He asked the same question -- and really, the only question -- that could be asked to Bonuato, and probably the issue he struggles with most -- "Marriage has been this way for a millennia, why change it?" And the Forbes article is sort of incorrect. He didn't "repeatedly" bring this up on his own volition, but he brought it up because he didn't believe that Bonuato was actually answering the question asked by Souter (or was it Breyer? Hard to tell without the transcript in front of me).
He didn't really reveal much of his hand, but he seemed much more concerned -- as he has been in the past -- with the families and children of gay couples and their own dignity and liberty. That's the basis of his jurisprudence.
And this isn't really a question that is decided on oral arguments. Or even briefs. This was decided far earlier when the SCOTUS decided to deny cert to the 5 cases in September. Or issue a stay in Florida. I mean, you could even go far enough back and say that Kennedy has been ready for this since Hollingsworth. He wanted to rule on the merits. He was in the minority.
That's what I thought, but they all seemed to agree when I listened in so I was like "WTF happened?? Am I taking crazy pills?!" lol. I imagine most of the 24 hour channels are gonna keep saying it's unknown/incredibly close in order to drum up hype/curiosity for ratings.
Yup. Kennedy seemed to weigh the "tradition" and "who decides?" factors against "dignity" and "liberty" and "equal protection" factors. The state did a horrible job demonstrating harm to their tradition/who decides/state interest arguments.. while the harm to families (kids included, which is a point Kennedy loooooves to focus upon) as a result of deprivation of marriage is quite measurable.
TheAbsolution
Member
I'm having a very hard time listening to him too. UGH.
I don't think Kennedy particularly cares about the "who decides?" factor, but the idea of tradition might give him pause. Part of the argument seemed to be him considering "how much time" is needed, but it seemed kind of clear from the second part of the first question where he was leaning -- dignity.
I don't think we'll get any scrutiny decision, which is unfortunate, but that will come up again on another day, I suppose. In the end, that'll probably be the more important case.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Definitely not Souter, since he's retired.
Welp.
It was really encouraging that he cited Loving on that "how much time?" question. It also stuck out like a sore thumb that scrutiny didn't come-up.
(and my other half, currently listening to Bursch, just asked me, "Is this a gay guy who's trying to throw the states' case?")(yikes)
We've been hearing and saying for a long time, "don't try to read too much from oral argument. Don't do it!" But damn, it's so difficult not to.
Well, that's at least somewhat promising, I guess. Thanks for deciphering for me.
boiled goose
good with gravy
The whole institution of marriage rhetoric is such BS and I'm surprised justices are even engaging.
Marriage used to be forced.
Marriage used to be a business transaction.
Children used to be offered as spouses.
Polygamy.
Today society is largely accepting of SSM. Even some religions.
We are only arguing for Civil rights here. Is it fair or is it unfair?
The institution of slavery had a long legacy.
Marriage used to be forced.
Marriage used to be a business transaction.
Children used to be offered as spouses.
Polygamy.
Today society is largely accepting of SSM. Even some religions.
We are only arguing for Civil rights here. Is it fair or is it unfair?
The institution of slavery had a long legacy.
This probably doesn't factor into their overall decision, but the State was consistently laughed at for almost all of their arguments.
- Status