Worthwhile delay for clarity on gay marriage

[unhappycamper]

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/09/worthwhile-delay-clarity-gay-marriage

Worthwhile delay for clarity on gay marriage
Opinion » Editorials
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 2, 2014

The simple idea that justice delayed is justice denied is as old as the law. And there's no question that justice - in the form of equal treatment for gay couples - is being delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After rulings last year that effectively invalidated California's ban on gay marriage and struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court left a major question unanswered: Does the U.S. Constitution protect the rights of gay people to marry and to enjoy the benefits and protections of marriage?

The high court now faces dozens of different lower court decisions finding that the Constitution protects gay marriage, all based - in whole or in part - on the Supreme Court's earlier decisions.

~snip~

The only way it can be truly settled, to the satisfaction of proponents and opponents, is with an unequivocal ruling from the Supreme Court. And that's worth a small delay.

[MNBrewer]

1. Opponents will NEVER be satisfied if marriage equality exists

Regardless of whether the SCOTUS ruling is unequivocal or not.

[merrily]

3. I don't care if they are dissatisfied. I care about ending Jim Crow in all his heinous forms.

Put the last nail in that fecker's coffin. Then, I might worry about who is pouting over equal human rights under the law.

Or not.

[merrily]

2. The Massachusetts Supreme Court very wisely rested its marriage opinion on the Massachusetts

Constitution. It did not trust SCOTUS review and neither do I.

I was about to add "especially Tony and his copycat Thomas, until I realized that they all pretty much vote together now, unless Kennedy goes "rogue" (rogue from a conservative Republican POV).

Kennedy did seem to go out of his way to pack a lot of language into his majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor. So, here's hoping the four ghouls cannot find a way around the language of a very recent(relatively) Supreme Court precedent and, if they do, Kennedy will do the correct thing again.

[Unvanguard]

4. A decade makes a lot of difference. The Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of marriage equality.

It would not have in 2004 but it will today.

[merrily]

5. I think so, too, as I said, because of what Kennedy did in Windsor.

If it had not been for that case, I'd be worried. I just hope the other four cannot come up with a way to persuade him to join them because I don't think a decade has made a difference with the "originalists."

[Unvanguard]

6. Yeah, Windsor's language is one of the game-changers.

So is the overwhelming weight of lower court decisions since Windsor, the massive shift in public opinion, and the general sense even among opponents that marriage equality is inevitable.

The other four justices will dissent but Kennedy has never taken their approach to LGBT rights cases.

[merrily]

7. Thank goodness.