Supreme Court Denies Review of Same-Sex Marriage Wins

[Castus]

Unless I'm mistaken, this means the stays disappear on the various Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decisions legalizing same-sex marriage.

In other words, marriage equality will shortly be the law of the land in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin...and also possibly in the other states in the circuits affected: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming. Which would make a total of 30 states plus DC where same-sex marriages are legal.

This is HUGE.

Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 States

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews®ion=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=21187989&pgtype=Homepage&_r=1

High court ruling may lead to gay marriage in 30 states

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16546959/

 
I am very disappointed.

[Sage]

I am very disappointed.

 
In what, specifically?

[Castus]

In what, specifically?

 Specifically? The legalisation of SSM in Virginia, which I've been opposed to for a variety of reasons.

[Sage]

Specifically? The legalisation of SSM in Virginia, which I've been opposed to for a variety of reasons.

 
Eh, I rather enjoy not being treated like a second-class citizen in the state I was born and raised in. Equal protection under the law is a beautiful thing. But I'll keep your sensibilities in mind and withhold inviting you to any future wedding I might have.

[Castus]

Eh, I rather enjoy not being treated like a second-class citizen in the state I was born and raised in. Equal protection under the law is a beautiful thing. But I'll keep your sensibilities in mind and withhold inviting you to any future wedding I might have.

I'm sure you do.

And should that happen, I would wish you the greatest happiness.

[stephyjh]

Specifically? The legalisation of SSM in Virginia, which I've been opposed to for a variety of reasons.

 
Regardless of your religious beliefs regarding same seeds marriage, I'm sticking on the idea of putting your religious beliefs into the law. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with sharia law being imposed, and it's the same principle.

[Pix]

See, I figured that since it only takes the okay of 4 justices for SCOTUS to take a case, the conservatives would make sure one got taken...because they've got to know that stopping nationwide same-sex marriage only gets harder with every passing week. (I was going to say "month," but the ground on this issue keeps shifting too fast for that.)

The fact that they didn't take a case, I think, amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that nationwide SSM is a done deal. Now the conservatives are just keeping their hands clean and letting the process take as long as possible by forcing the battle to be fought state by state.

With SSM essentially in the bag, the conflict shifts to the religious right's rear-guard action: "religious liberty," i.e., the ability of private citizens and businesses to continue to discriminate in the public sphere against LGBT folks. (For example, a bakery that refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.) The religious right has actually gotten some traction with this (see Hobby Lobby), so we queers are going to have to fight hard to make sure we get the same treatment as everybody else.

I hope so, but I'm curious...could this be a tactic to relax more liberal voters while scaring conservatives and other types who fear gay marriage to race to the polls in fear to vote Republican in the coming election?  And if it doesn't work then the reason that it's a "done deal anyway" can still kick in with no foul on the SCOTUS.

I knew one person who was a big defender of Obama against fellows of her church...until she found out Obama was tolerant of homosexuality and then she was scared God would destroy America and turned against him with a fearful passion, maybe even bordering on terror. (I should've joked that if God acted that way then he needed to be put on a terrorist watch list but I doubt she'd have seen the humor of it.)

In any case it does seem fear is the most common motivation for voting in the USA, be the voters partisan or merely concerned with an issue or two. (Come to think of it, fear seems to motivate a lot in the US, I sometimes snicker when I hear "home of the brave" in the Star Spangled Banner).

Maybe I'm being too cynical in wondering that. Some say I'm too cynical, though usually when I turn out to be wrong it's because I'm not cynical enough. (Again, I'm wondering if this is the case, not asserting it...I don't know, it just occurs to me.)

[MadZealot]

I hope so, but I'm curious...could this be a tactic to relax more liberal voters while scaring conservatives and other types who fear gay marriage to race to the polls in fear to vote Republican in the coming election?  

I suppose it's possible, but I think that'd depend upon Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

[Pix]

I suppose it's possible, but I think that'd depend upon Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

 
Good point. If they're (though it wouldn't necessarily have to be all of them) members of say the Heritage Foundation then I'd say that's close enough to "vast right wing conspiracy" (wouldn't be my choice of words, but they'd fit in this case well enough).

I'll try to remember to look up more info on them tomorrow (or as soon as I have enough time to spare) as I could get a better idea that way.

While not exactly related, I just recalled my partner sharing about a school board that made her furious...seems nearly half of them were part of some fundamentalist Christian group trying to "take back our schools" (and it was nation wide and not the only way they were going about it) and they'd all voted in unison to deny the school a new biology textbook (even though the one in use was made over 30 years ago) because it examined and refuted Creationist claims. They'd have still failed to ban it but as usual they tried to sway others to vote with them and in this case they got the one extra vote they needed by convincing another board member that the new textbook was (at about 10lb/4.5kg) too heavy! I know I should be upset as my partner was about it but I laugh.

[HeartShadow]

I'm sure you do.

And should that happen, I would wish you the greatest happiness.

 
That .. doesn't actually work.

You're saying "I don't want you to have the right to marry, but I wish you happiness in the marriage that should be illegal."  That doesn't make SENSE.

Either the marriage is somehow wrong, in which case why would you want them to be happy in something immoral, or it's fine, in which case why shouldn't it be legal.

And if it's "different" because you know Sage - it's ALWAYS different when it's someone you know.  But every single person you'd deny marriage to?  is a someone.  Is a someone who's hurt when their rights are denied.  It's only "different" because you want it to be.

[Redfaery]

Regardless of your religious beliefs regarding same seeds marriage, I'm sticking on the idea of putting your religious beliefs into the law. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with sharia law being imposed, and it's the same principle.

 
This.

Given that the attitude of many mainstream Buddhist denominations towards sex makes the Catholic Church look like a bastion of sexual permissiveness in comparison, you still don't see Theravada monks standing outside movie theaters picketing rom-coms for promoting the worldly institution of marriage.:whis:

[AineLlewellyn]

That .. doesn't actually work.

You're saying "I don't want you to have the right to marry, but I wish you happiness in the marriage that should be illegal."  That doesn't make SENSE.

Either the marriage is somehow wrong, in which case why would you want them to be happy in something immoral, or it's fine, in which case why shouldn't it be legal.

And if it's "different" because you know Sage - it's ALWAYS different when it's someone you know.  But every single person you'd deny marriage to?  is a someone.  Is a someone who's hurt when their rights are denied.  It's only "different" because you want it to be.

This. All of this.

[MadZealot]

Good point. If they're (though it wouldn't necessarily have to be all of them) members of say the Heritage Foundation then I'd say that's close enough to "vast right wing conspiracy" (wouldn't be my choice of words, but they'd fit in this case well enough).

Members of Heritage?  Scalia maybe, but the four I mentioned?  Highly unlikely.  

Regarding the phrase in quotes: I'm not the first to use it.  

[Altair]

This is HUGE.

Not to be a size queen, but it just got bigger. This just in:

Gay Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevada Struck Down

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055

This Ninth Circuit ruling is new--that federal appeals court has never ruled on the issue before, so it was not among the circuits whose decisions in favor of same-sex marriage were left untouched by the Supreme Court only yesterday (which, in marriage equality terms, is apparently equivalent to a lifetime, with the lightning speed at which this issue has been moving).

I may be reading this incorrectly, but given that SCOTUS turned back all those cases, I think it's safe to assume they won't touch this one either. Which, if I'm not wrong, means marriage equality in Idaho and Nevada almost immediately becomes a done deal.

When I woke up yesterday, SSM was legal in 19 states + DC (which is an exponential leap from the situation only 5 years ago). Less than 48 hours later, that number has effectively jumped to 32. Astonishing.

[Melamphoros]

When I woke up yesterday, SSM was legal in 19 states + DC (which is an exponential leap from the situation only 5 years ago). Less than 48 hours later, that number has effectively jumped to 32. Astonishing.

That really puts it into perspective.  In 2008 there were only two states that recognized SSM (not counting that little mess in CA) and now half of them + DC has it.  In another 5 years we may just have a large majority of states with de jure marriage equality...

...Damn, that sounds like optimism.  Time to up the medication.