U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Gay Marriage

Will the Roberts-led Supreme Court dare to stop the gay marriage juggernaut? This may be the week we find out, per this report in the LA Times:

After two decades in which gay rights moved from the margin to capture the support of most Americans, the Supreme Court justices will go behind closed doors this week to decide whether now is the time to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

For justices, the issue is not just what to decide, but when to decide it. In times past, the court has been faulted for waiting too long or moving too quickly to recognize constitutional rights.

The justices did not strike down state bans on interracial marriage until 1967, 13 years after they had declared racial segregation unconstitutional. Yet in response to the growing women’s rights movement, the court in 1973 struck down all the state laws restricting abortion, triggering a national “right to life” movement and drawing criticism even from some supporters that the Roe vs. Wade ruling had gone too far too fast.

Now, the justices must decide whether to hear an appeal from the defenders of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman.

At the same session Friday, the court will sift through several appeals to decide whether legally married gay couples have a right to equal benefits under federal law. Appeals courts in Boston and New York have struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies such a right, and the justices are almost certain to take up a case to resolve that question…

[continues in the LA Times]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

28 Comments on "U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Gay Marriage"

  1. What the fuck to people spend their days thinking about. Gay people getting hitched? WHO GIVES A FUCK. No bigger fish to fry?

    • David Howe | Nov 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

      I think it’s obvious that a great many people care about this. As should you.

      • Kevin Leonard | Nov 25, 2012 at 2:54 pm |

        wait, what? why, David?

      • Well I don’t. It’s none of my business.

      • Jin The Ninja | Nov 26, 2012 at 8:18 am |

        sorry, but if a queer person is awaiting on a conservative, legal body of a conservative military empire for validation of their union, they have much bigger problems than attaining a license for a heterosexual institution that is entirely profane in the first place.

        • So? They aint botherin you. Jealous annoyance and other childish emotions DO NOT count. Besides, show me the word heterosexual in the marriage license. Fix your own problems, I promise you have some bigger ones than this in your life, even if you aren’t aware of them.

          • Jin The Ninja | Nov 26, 2012 at 11:39 am |

            whom is ‘they’ ? and what the frack are you talking about? contemporary marriage is a heterosexual institution and a holdover practice of the victorian era filled with fun things like divorce, abuse, financial dependence, and all sorts of parental and family drama. why as a queer person would I want that? and if the body that legitimises the practice is an arm of an imperialist, murderous and oppressive nation-state, why do i require their consent to love whom i want? gay marriage is not the end all of inequality. many queer people will tell you this- we’re a subculture founded on being forced to subvert mainstream culture (INSTITUIONALLY codified oppression BY THE VERY STATE that seeks to co opt and ‘liberate’ us!!!). i’m sorry, contemporary marriage is a ‘white picket fence’ ideal that doesn’t really have any context for queer people.

          • lifobryan | Nov 26, 2012 at 10:42 pm |

            I completely agree with this assessment of the profane cultural looking glass. But I am nevertheless of (at least) two minds about it. The neopagan-art-hippy side of me looks at most codified institutions as tentacles of the oppressor. In particular, this side of me sees marriage in general as a trussed-up suck-up to a consumer-codified norm that has way more to do with feudal hierarchy & consumer status than human relationship.

            Sanctioned marriage between two people includes a third (invisible) entity … the one with power to sanction (along with whatever cultural agenda is attached to it). And on that level, I say, f*ck John Roberts. I don’t need him to approve or sanction my relationship. I’m not into “third entities” in my relationships anyway …and even if I were, it wouldn’t be John Roberts! Beyond all that, there is no reason queer folk (and I include myself here), need to reflect, mimic, parody, or subvert the institutional system in order to have a meaningful, loving connection. When definitions are arbitrary and hierarchically codified, how is “marriage” any different from a credit score?

            That said, when it comes to the consensus reality that most “citizens” inhabit, an official sanction (though ultimately meaningless & kind of offensive), is nevertheless kind-of validating. (And it took two glasses of wine for me to even use the word “validating”).

            The neighborly, everyday-persony side of me is actually very happy when consensus folk begin to slowly recognize that love is love. And I hope this recognition (on the ground level) helps people think more deeply about what love means, when they “accept” queer folk into the institutional club. This side of it has more to do with the hapless denizens under the oppressor, than with the oppressor’s agenda. Or codified philosophy.

            Personally, I have no interest in being a mesh-warped reflection of Ozzie & Harriet in Eisenhower’s funhouse. But when everyday neighbors kind-of-sort-of-dimly understand that my love for another soul is no different than theirs, there’s a bit more light in the cosmos.

          • Jin The Ninja | Nov 27, 2012 at 11:23 am |

            this^ is a great response. thanks. i totally agree- i just had to represent for the anarcho-queer (long term partnered) contigent;)

          • lifobryan | Nov 27, 2012 at 6:48 pm |

            My favorite demographic!

      • True but I do care about them. I have gay friends (both male and female) who are in loving relationships. If they want to get hitched, great, hope they are happy is all. Meanwhile, HAVE YOU SEEN THE PLANET?

    • DeepCough | Nov 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm |


      • Why? This has nothing to do with them, and has no effect on them.

      • Yeah, that would be a better thing for you folks to concern yourself with, your children. Did they get their Ritalin today? The people who are so upset about gay marriage are more than likely not qualified to be a parent, having never matured much past the school yard themselves.

    • Gay people who want to get married, maybe.

  2. Hey I’m a gay person and for me and at least 1% of our population aren’t allowed to see our partners in dire hospital situations, few companies extend benefits to our partners as they do with straight marriage, taxes are affected if youre single or not. The bottom line is we didn’t choose this anymore than you guys chose to have your skin color. Why should we be punished for that or denied privileges just because we’re different. Sure I can get married to a woman but I can’t actually do the deed nor would I want to. Don’t ya see how unfair it is?

  3. BuzzCoastin | Nov 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm |

    Gay marriage offers a new business opportunity for the legal profession: Gay Divorce.

    The Supreme Court has a vested interest in promoting the legal trade.
    Ultimately this economic factor will overcome the religious objections
    because we all know that if the choice is between God or Mammon
    Mammon is the preferred choice among humans

    • Kevin Leonard | Nov 25, 2012 at 8:35 pm |

      There should be no religious discussion regarding the morality of gay marriage by the Supreme Court. It should strictly be a civil matter in the eyes of the government.

  4. I agree with dethbird. This is from the none-ya category… Two people want to get married it’s none ya business. As they said on the old movie; “Keep your nose in your own back yard.”

    • Jin The Ninja | Nov 26, 2012 at 11:43 am |

      exactly, so no need to post on every tongue-in-cheek or dissenting opinion that doesn’t conform to ‘pro.’

  5. Normally, I would say yes, this should be ruled on by the Supreme Court.

    The problem is, it’s THIS Court, and they cannot be counted on to do the right thing, and rule on the actual law, which guarantees Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment, and would therefore abolish Prop H8te for lame, prejudicial BS that it is.

    And I’m sorry. I don’t give a crap what anybody says. After the Bush v. Gore ruling, I don’t trust Ted Olson as far as I can throw him.

  6. Personally, as a gay person myself, I’d much rather we be confronting the fact that I can still be fired or evicted in more than 30 states in the nation just for being gay.

    The marriage thing is important, don’t get me wrong, but my personal economy, and my right to reasonably secure a damned roof over my head without discrimination is far more critical.

    I may or may not ever find that “love of my life” partner, but I’m always gonna need a job and a place to live, free from discrimination.

Comments are closed.