Author Topic: Losing the gay marriage case before SCOTUS could be the best thing to happen to conservatives in ages  (Read 929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 384,037
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/20/losing-the-gay-marriage-case-before-scotus-could-be-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-conservatives-in-ages/

Losing the gay marriage case before SCOTUS could be the best thing to happen to conservatives in ages
posted at 1:01 pm on June 20, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

   

The clock is ticking down toward the eventual Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which will supposedly “settle” the gay marriage question once and for all. Most of the observers I’ve seen making predictions seem to feel that they will codify marriage as a right which crosses all boundaries except in cases of children and close familial ties, and some seem to feel that opponents of gay marriage won’t even get all four conservative justices on their side. My own views on the general topic are well known and there’s no need to go into the whole thing again. (Suffice to say that I don’t think it’s within the government’s power to demand a license or a fee for two consenting adults to marry.)

More interesting to me at this point is the political fallout which will come from this decision no matter which way it goes. Needless to say, it’s going to set off some fireworks. Greg Stohr at Bloomberg has issued the dire warning of the “turmoil” which would ensue if the Supremes allow states to decide for themselves. It will be chaos, I tell ya!



Greg provides a fairly good breakdown of the immediate impact on a state by state basis. Essentially, some states which have passed gay marriage either through legislation or court interpretation of their state constitution probably won’t be affected at all. These include 16 states along the lines of New York and Illinois. But in 20 others which currently allow the practice, including Florida, South Carolina, Kansas, Idaho and Alaska, such unions might stop almost immediately since they were court enforced over the wishes of the voters. In the rest of the states where there is no law allowing gay marriage, any efforts to enact change would probably be cooled down a bit.

But would conservatives really be “losing” if that happened? Even when hot topics are decided in the Supreme Court, the answer doesn’t always last forever. (Though the time required for that pendulum to swing can be generational.) It’s not as if the fight would go away, and sometimes in politics the fight is actually worth more than the victory. I’m reminded of the Roe v Wade decision in this context. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Supreme Court had either outlawed the practice of abortion or said that it was exclusively up to the states? Think about it for a moment. When the conservatives lost that one, it sparked the true beginning of the massive Pro-Life movement which continues to this day. In many states it has energized and bound together elements of the GOP and supportive conservative groups which might not have congealed as fully without that common enemy to do battle with. In some ways that fight, even though it was lost on the steps of the highest court, has provided the glue that drove conservatism forward for decades.

So what happens when (assuming it does) five, six or seven justices vote in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges? Do you honestly think that everyone is going to shrug their shoulders, suddenly realize they were wrong all along and just go home? I highly doubt it. In fact, in many of the states where the voters are most closely divided, it’s going to energize the base with an even greater interest in stopping more liberal appointments to the court in the next term. Conversely, if gay marriage is struck down at the federal level, the battle will shift back to the states and places like Florida will see a massive surge in activity by liberal, pro-gay marriage advocates eager to fight it out from state to state to state.

Personally, I’m with the professional court watchers on this one. I expect the court to find in favor of gay marriage. But conservatives shouldn’t be rending their garments too heavily just yet. In terms of political fortunes, it may just put more gas in your tank.
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,396
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Quote
So what happens when (assuming it does) five, six or seven justices vote in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges? Do you honestly think that everyone is going to shrug their shoulders, suddenly realize they were wrong all along and just go home? I highly doubt it. In fact, in many of the states where the voters are most closely divided, it’s going to energize the base with an even greater interest in stopping more liberal appointments to the court in the next term. Conversely, if gay marriage is struck down at the federal level, the battle will shift back to the states and places like Florida will see a massive surge in activity by liberal, pro-gay marriage advocates eager to fight it out from state to state to state.
But the damage is done.

Once a court like this makes a ruling, further courts, unless they are extremely rogue courts like Earl Warren's, almost always honor precedent, even of the rogues. Warren's court was the only court to have total disregard for precedent, and it's highly unlikely, given the rate things are going in this country, we will ever have the right-wing equivalent of that ever again, at least in our lifetimes.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Let's say that the SCOTUS goes the way of Federalism and finds that each State is free to make a decision on the issue.

Any laws enacted by any State would still need to be Constitutional within that State's own Constitution, so in essence, that State's Supreme Court will decide on the laws.

Additionally, the U.S. Congress is required to step in via their powers under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

So a SSM that's legally entered into in Illinois cannot be deemed illegitimate in Mississippi, any more than a divorce or bankruptcy adjudicated in Mississippi could be found not to be valid in Illinois. Congress "may prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

"Shall be proved" leaves little wiggle room.

So, if the SCOTUS opts for the Federalism stance, SSM is essentially legal in the United States because couples simply have to travel to the nearest State where it is legal, get married, and come back home a legally married couple.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,396
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Quote
So a SSM that's legally entered into in Illinois cannot be deemed illegitimate in Mississippi, any more than a divorce or bankruptcy adjudicated in Mississippi could be found not to be valid in Illinois.
Bankruptcies are a federal matter, under that same constitution.

Marriage, in all 50 states, is recognized by state license. A better comparison would be other items in which a state license or permit is issued. Pistol permits, for example, do not have automatic recognition from one state to another. Nor do driving privileges: even if a 15-year-old gets a learner's permit in another state, they can't use that permit in New York, where it is illegal for anyone under 16 to drive.

So the way around your ruling is simple: a same-sex couple may indeed be married in Illinois, and for that matter on the federal level, but that marriage is in violation of the laws of Mississippi, and none of the state-allocated benefits of marriage need to be offered. For the purpose of Mississippi law, they are not married.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Bankruptcies are a federal matter, under that same constitution.

Marriage, in all 50 states, is recognized by state license. A better comparison would be other items in which a state license or permit is issued. Pistol permits, for example, do not have automatic recognition from one state to another. Nor do driving privileges: even if a 15-year-old gets a learner's permit in another state, they can't use that permit in New York, where it is illegal for anyone under 16 to drive.

So the way around your ruling is simple: a same-sex couple may indeed be married in Illinois, and for that matter on the federal level, but that marriage is in violation of the laws of Mississippi, and none of the state-allocated benefits of marriage need to be offered. For the purpose of Mississippi law, they are not married.

If Mississippi tries to go that way, they will just accomplish bringing the issue right back into Federal Courts again, this time under the FF&C clause of the U.S. Constitution AND the XIV Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Hard to argue that Mississippi will honor divorces from other States, but not marriages.

If States like Mississippi try doing what you just described, the issue will eventually be settled by the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS will not be very likely to delegitimize all existing, legal same-sex marriages in order to allow a few States to do so, so then they will probably legitimize SSM on all States just as they standardized commercial driver's licenses.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 10:59:26 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Oceander

  • Guest
If Mississippi tries to go that way, they will just accomplish bringing the issue right back into Federal Courts again, this time under the FF&C clause of the U.S. Constitution AND the XIV Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Hard to argue that Mississippi will honor divorces from other States, but not marriages.

If States like Mississippi try doing what you just described, the issue will eventually be settled by the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS will not be very likely to delegitimize all existing, legal same-sex marriages in order to allow a few States to do so, so then they will probably legitimize SSM on all States just as they standardized commercial driver's licenses.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."


The Full Faith & Credit Clause does not necessarily go as far as it might seem under a simple reading.  Whether it is sufficient to trump a particular state's public policy regarding which couples it will recognize remains to be seen as there is most definitely a policy exception to the clause.

In point of fact, it happens not infrequently that one state's policy concerns trump another state's laws when the affected parties and actions are wholly within the first state.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs

The Full Faith & Credit Clause does not necessarily go as far as it might seem under a simple reading.  Whether it is sufficient to trump a particular state's public policy regarding which couples it will recognize remains to be seen as there is most definitely a policy exception to the clause.

In point of fact, it happens not infrequently that one state's policy concerns trump another state's laws when the affected parties and actions are wholly within the first state.

There are a number of policy exceptions to the FF&C,and several of them specifically addressing marriage, but the point that I was trying to make is that one State (or several States) acting to invalidate a legal same-sex marriage of another State will bring the Federal Courts back into the fray, and the outcome may see greater chances of the Courts expanding the rights of homosexuals to marry and have that marriage recognized as legal over, a lessened chance of having a legal same-sex marriage recognized by all the States. 

The other point where I disagree with the author of the article, is his notion that in States where same-sex marriages are allowed only as a result of Judicial actions by the State's courts and not the wishes of the voters, same-sex marriages will come to an immediate halt. Most (if not all) of these court decisions are grounded on the State's Constitution, and verbiage in those Constitutions that disallow for discrimination based on sexual orientation remains in place.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
A lot of shekels will be flowing from the rubes into the clutches of the various PACs fighting this. 
"Thars gold in them thar etc., etc., "
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
A lot of shekels will be flowing from the rubes into the clutches of the various PACs fighting this. 
"Thars gold in them thar etc., etc., "

THAT is the one irrefutably accurate prediction about this whole thing.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx