Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
6. At least 6 to 3 to rule gay marriage flat out Constitutional
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:22 PM
Mar 2013

Seriously. There's even an outside chance it'll be unanimous. The arguments against are all papier-mâché. I think you guys are making way too much of the necessary process of questioning the lawyers for and against so that they are forced to make their cases.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says gays can't marry, anymore than there was 40 years ago saying a white and a black person couldn't marry. So the SC can't really say it's not Constitutional, since the document doesn't address it at all. It does say "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." which sweeps away DOMA and any attempt by any state to say that a marriage in another state isn't valid. So that one should be easy. Then the fact it doesn't address marriage but does say "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.", which can easily be interpreted to mean that if you can get married in NH you can get married in NC, and vice versa, which kills Prop 8 or any other state law like it.
In other words, both from what's not in it and what is in it you very easily arrive at a point where you say, not that gays can marry, but where did it ever say they couldn't? And if it doesn't that means they can, and if they can that means they can in every state. And that's that.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

You could be right - your prediction is not unreasonable - The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2013 #1
I made a similar comment in another thread - Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #4
Wise words. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #5
My take as a straight white male is that the supremes will do as little as possible. OffWithTheirHeads Mar 2013 #2
Because the rule is DON'T decide matters and cases which do not HAVE to be decided, elleng Mar 2013 #3
Yes, this. RudynJack Mar 2013 #8
Could be; elleng Mar 2013 #9
"Makes Gov. Dean's new venture more important." David Zephyr Mar 2013 #13
elleng, you're a treasure to this board Richardo Mar 2013 #47
Oh dear Richardo, thank you. elleng Mar 2013 #48
At least 6 to 3 to rule gay marriage flat out Constitutional Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #6
Unfortunately, that isn't how constitutional law works. Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #10
Hmm. Question: Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #12
No, not after Loving v. Virginia. elleng Mar 2013 #14
I have always loved that quote by Justice Stewart. DevonRex Mar 2013 #27
That is how it started out (it was a recognition across state boundaries issue) Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #16
OK, between you and elleng I am thoroughly confused Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #18
elleng likely has a better summary of Loving Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #25
Cases based on sexual orientation are decided by applying the rational JDPriestly Mar 2013 #30
It is an interesting question Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #38
Right to the point. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #19
Oh, but that it was so easy...and fair...and just. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #20
Scalia, from a legal perspective, Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #7
Fascinating. Thanks for the insight, Ms. Toad Hekate Mar 2013 #17
From a human perspective, the view is a lot different. Moostache Mar 2013 #23
Scalia. Whenever he talks or writes at great length it is always bullshit. DevonRex Mar 2013 #28
True. I remember one opinion he wrote in which he avoided JDPriestly Mar 2013 #31
Have you spent much time reading his criminal law opinions? Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #39
From a biological stand point davidpdx Mar 2013 #40
You may be right about that one! n/t Ms. Toad Mar 2013 #41
Hi David! MuseRider Mar 2013 #11
Hearty hello and hug to you, MuseRider. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #21
Oh gosh David me too MuseRider Mar 2013 #42
Thank you for lending us your trained ear Hekate Mar 2013 #15
Remember. Roberts adopted his two children because he and his JDPriestly Mar 2013 #32
Thank you. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #49
As I think back, I believe that my first violin teacher was probably a JDPriestly Mar 2013 #50
Guess what? I agree with you. "Not a defeat, by any means." David Zephyr Mar 2013 #34
I am hoping for the best but, like you, I think they will not go all the way. nm rhett o rick Mar 2013 #22
I'll take the narrow ruling on this one. Let's hope for a better day tomorrow with DOMA. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #37
Maybe Why This Is So Hard Here colsohlibgal Mar 2013 #24
Actually, the problem here is not with the Puritans who settled in New JDPriestly Mar 2013 #33
"the U.S. got the Puritans". It's so funny and painfully true at the same time. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #35
The Prop 8 case gives the court an easy out. RandySF Mar 2013 #26
Wouldn't that invite more cases from more states? n/t moondust Mar 2013 #29
They will refuse to decide ArcticFox Mar 2013 #36
They just keep fighting to keep those blinders on! WinstonSmith4740 Mar 2013 #43
That's what I was thinking! rusty fender Mar 2013 #45
That would be an Insane Ruling Demeter Mar 2013 #44
Is it dusty in here or what? displacedtexan Mar 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Proposition 8: What I hea...»Reply #6