On Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed the question
of whether or not it should be constitutional to allow gay and lesbian couples
to marry. However, six of the nine justices questioned whether now was the
right time to make a decision regarding the issue.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stated, "I wonder
if the case was properly granted."
Justice
Sonia Sotomayor voiced a similar concern, stating, "If the issue is
letting the states experiment and letting society have more time to figure out
its direction...why is taking a case now the answer?"
Many justices who appeared to support same-sex marriage understood that there was no way to issue a ruling that could apply only in California or only in the nine states with strong civil union or domestic partnership laws.
Unfortunately, such justices feel, at the time being, that they are left with an all-or-nothing choice. The options: allow same-sex marriage in all 50 states or allow all states to do as they wish.
Five court members indicated that they might dismiss the case on the basis that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal a decision granted by a lower court. Interestingly, when justices have second thoughts about agreeing to hear a case, they sometimes dismiss it as "improvidently granted."
Mr. Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer arguing on behalf of opponents of same-sex marriage stated that, "the key to marriage...is procreation." Rebutting his argument, Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out that there are plenty of married couples incapable of having children -- does that insinuate that the government could ban a man and a woman who are over 55 from marrying because they would not be able to have children?
Even if the case isn't dismissed, Justice Kennedy commented, "We have five years of information [concerning gay marriage] to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more [concerning traditional marriage]." It should be interesting to see whether or not the justices follow through hearing the case, and, if so, what their explanations are given their ruling.
Questions: Do you personally feel that the time is right for the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of marriage equality? If so, why? If not, when will a better time arise? Do you think the justices are really left with an all-or-nothing choice? If not, what are some better solutions? Do you agree with Mr. Cooper that marriage is centered around procreation? Is the comparison between gay marriage and traditional marriage really that one sided as Justice Kennedy mentions above?
7 comments:
I think that there is no "right time" for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of marriage equality. But I do think that they should decide sooner rather than later as there has been so much controversy surrounding marriage equality. I don't agree with Mr. Cooper, like Justice Breyer said, there are many couples who cannot have children or choose not to have children. I think marriage is about publicly and/or religiously claiming your love for another person; it's not about procreation. Personally, I think same-sex couples would make better parents than some married parents out there right now. With same-sex couples, they have to thoroughly think through their choice to become parents. With heterosexual couples, procreation can happen unintentionally and could end up with an unwanted baby.
I think that the Supreme Court should't shy away from the issue of marriage equality just because it is such a hot issue: thats why supreme court justices are nominated for life. To me, on a strictly legal view, full marriage equality seems to be the only constitutional way. Regardless ones personal and religious views, the constitutional is not vague on this issue and the arguments against marriage equality seem pretty weak to me. For other social issues, such as abortion law, I can see how the social conservatives can make a legal argument (such as right to life) but there does't seem to be any solid legal arguments in defense of disallowing gay marriage. I think this issue leads to the inherent flaw of the Supreme Court: we will basically get nine people deciding the fate of the whole country on there own personal beliefs, without much regard to what seems to be the clearly constitutional choice.
Like Sam said, I believe the Supreme Court cannot continue to push off the issue of marriage equality. It is a topic that has been prevalent in our society for a while now and it is time for the Supreme Court to finally make a decision. Putting it off will only cause more anxiety and tension, and it will just make matters worse. Marriage should not be centered around procreation because that is not what it is all about. Marriage is about the love shared between two partners, regardless of gender. Like Grace mentioned, same-sex couples must really want a child in order to go through whatever process they decide to receive one. Therefore, this dedication would make them excellent parents. Furthermore, I believe at this point the justices are left with an all or nothing choice. The current situation confuses many and adds more complications than necessary. All couples should be allowed marriage equality and I hope this is achieved sometime in the near future.
A significant portion of the oral arguments were dedicated to whether the original sponsors of the bill even have standing in the Supreme Court case. If the Supreme Court were to decide that they bill's supporters did not have standing , then the ruling made by Judge Vaughn Walker of the District Court for the Northern District of California (which declared Prop 8 unconstitutional as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses) would be the final ruling on the case. Thus, Prop 8 would be overturned without requiring the Supreme Court to take an official stance that could be applied to other states. I really hope that the Supreme Court takes a definitive stance and rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional; however, I feel that this is a somewhat probable third outcome of this case.
I think now is really the best time for the decision to be made. They have a big name case, it has made its way up to the Supreme Court and I believe the country is ready. Some of the arguments regarding not having enough information to see what the repercussions on society are are just completely bullshit. This is the Supreme Courts job! To make decisions that will affect society with only the basis on whether it is constitutional. Did we have much evidence about integrating schools in the South during Brown v. Board of Education? Not really.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, I really see no way they could justifiably rule any other way. If Kim Kardashian can legally get married for ten minutes, then homosexuals should have complete marriage equality.
I think that there is a lot of wasted time and energy on trying to put boundaries out for who can and cannot get married. I hope the Supreme Court makes a good decision and makes that choice quickly. I agree with Sam the the Supreme Court shouldn't shy away because of how relevant or 'hot' the topic is, it is their job to make these decisions. Because it is so relevant and such an important decision I believe the Supreme Court needs to make a choice soon, people are only getting frustrated.
According to this article, gay marriage was legal in only two countries in 2004 (the Netherlands and Belgium). Now, gay marriage is legal in 11 countries, not to mention "nine states, three Native American tribes and Washington D.C." Therefore, there is no better time than right now to settle this case. We live in a country where freedom and opportunity are supposed to be the values by which we live. Yet, eleven countries have legalized gay marriage while we had to question whether it was the "right time" to just hear the case. In regards to Justice Kennedy's comment that we have five years worth of information about gay marriage versus 2000 years of information about traditional marriage: this is not a decision that requires facts, statistics, and data. What sort of "information" is he expecting anyway? This is about a fundamental right that should be granted to all human beings. Also, if he wants more information, he and the other Justices need simply to legalize gay marriage and then conduct all of the research that they so desire in the comfort of their very own country.
Post a Comment