What do you think of the Supreme Court's dismissal of the gay marriage cases?

Today, the Supreme Court dismissed five appeals from different states on gay marriage. By doing this, they effectively left intact the legalization of same sex marriage in those states and thus supported the legality of same sex marriage. However, by not making a ruling, they also did not make a nationwide ruling that would affect all states. What is your opinion on this decision? Do you support their decision? Would you prefer that they had made a ruling for the whole country?


0|0
3|11

Most Helpful Guy

  • I wish they would legalize gay marriage. Why? So that gay people could get off their high horse and we can stop hearing about it. I mean seriously? If you don't like something thats fine but the more you try and control people the more they will fight back. I'm so sick of discrimination bullshit that I'm ready to munch the next one who brings it up in the throat. If your gay and you want to get married, that should be your right but for the love of god stop throwing it in our faces. And if you are against gay marriage, grow the fuck up and leave them to their lives and live yours.

    The court should have made it legal in all states.

    1|4
    1|1

What Guys Said 10

  • Actually, your interpretation is wrong. Dismissing an appeal is not the same as supporting gay marriage. You jumped about 10 steps of logic there and came to the wrong conclusion.

    Dismissal may be for hundreds of reasons. For example, an appeal must have a legal basis. People often go to court and represent themselves because it's cheaper, but they have no knowledge on legal issues. The judge may read their complaint, and find no legal basis for their claim and dismiss it on the spot.

    The most likely cause of the dismissal would be political. Although Supreme Court judges vote independently and the decision goes to the majority, they may also decide that the Federal court should not be the one making the decision because the country as a whole is not ready for it. While you can be gay in New York or California, and it's acceptable, try being gay in Utah or Mississippi and you're probably going to get beaten to a bloody pulp.

    Opinions greatly differ from state-to-state, and a decision to approve or reject the appeal and apply it across the USA will probably start riots no matter what the decision is. It will also be a very uncomfortable election topic - noting that Supreme Court judges are appointed to their position by the President.

    Therefore, the dismissal is in fact a message that each state is responsible for making their own decision on gay marriage based on popular approval. If the state hates gays, the state will not recognize gay marriages and vice versa.

    0|0
    0|0
    • But it does support same sex marriage. It let rulings that banning it is unconstitutional stand, which means it is legal in more states, which means it supports same sex marriage, whether they intended it as a political statement or not. Look, I was in DC at the time of the ruling, and discussed it with several people highly knowledgable about this sort of thing. I fully understand the implications. I understand that a major reason they wouldn't want to take such a case is because they would rather leave it up to the states, especially to avoid such a political and controversial decision like Roe v. Wade being repeated.

      However, it will be interesting to see what happens if the case comes back, seeing as there has been recent dissent among the lower courts.

    • Show All
    • Oh dear, please don't pursue a career in law or science.

    • More insults without actually countering my points. I'm amazed at your incredible argumentation skills. However could I believe my argument to be correct when countered by an intellectual giant such as yourself?

      here, I'll rephrase my initial statement: "they're supporting something that supports gay marriage, but somehow not supporting gay marriage itself, even if unintentionally." Does that make you happy? Actually, don't answer that. Your reasoning about why THAT's somehow wrong will probably give me a headache.

      And please, never pursue a career in English .

  • I am not gay.
    But it is beyond stupid that this is even a debate. It needs to be allowed across the country and should be a national law. You cannot cherry pick which state will honor the marriage.
    Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as those of us who are or where married.
    the problem is that there has not been a separation of church and state. They allow themselves to be swayed by religious opinion. All religions are dangerous. This world would be much safer if we had no religion.

    0|1
    1|0
    • Actually, you make a good point. Marriages are recognized by both state and religion. So one should ask religious gays... Why do you want to get married when your religion rejects your very existence as an abomination of the devil?
      One should also ask non-religious gays, "Why are you fighting for the right to marriage when it is a religious union?".

      If you want the financial benefits of marriage, well the US already recognizes couple who "co-habitate" more than 1 year as essentially married. If you can prove you live with your bf/bf or gf/gf for more than a year, you can claim them on your insurance, medical, and also taxes. So you already have access to such financial benefits.

      Also, if gays want their relationship to be recognized by the state only, then they should fight for "Gay Unions", rather than "Gay Marriage". It's easy to introduce a new law recognizing gay union, rather than changing existing laws defining marriage.

    • I never thought of marriage as being strictly religious. I am no longer a religious person. But the fact is you do not have the security and full rights living with someone as you do if you are married. yes there are laws and "understandings" that are happening but they do not cover everything. You might be able to get insurance but you take a risk claiming them on taxes as if you get audited I don't think it will hold up. Also, if you die your partner has no rights to your property. Even if a long drawn out court battle might eventually resolve in their favor they will spend a fortune. I would never get married in a church again. I might remarry but it would be for the tax benefits and asset protection, not because I think I need a piece of paper to say I am married.

  • The Supreme Court correctly refused to hear the cases. They learned the hard way during Roe vs. Wade that this is a topic best left to a legislature. Mandating either for or against will set off a firestorm of controversy that clearly needs clarification at the Federal level.

    0|1
    0|0
    • That's pretty much what the guy I talked to about it today said. They want to avoid major political decisions that would be better handled by other branches.

  • By not making it a ruling, they also force people in the other states to start their own proceedings, slowing the evolution. I suppose that was the price Conservative religious nuts demanded for these rulings.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Good. This isn't enough, though. I won't be satisfied until there are no more gay people left to even possibly get dismissed by a court. The Most High created Adam and Eve, not Adam and some other f****t named Steve.

    0|1
    2|2
  • If certain states want to miss out on all the additional tax revenue of allowing same sex marriage, the decision is theirs.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Too bad they did not have the guts to say that gay marriage IS to be legal in ALL STATES.
    It is enviable!
    Why prolong the legislation?
    Being gay is a biological trait that can not be altered

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think the liberal judges are afraid the other judges might prevent them. Also, they may want to leave such a political issue to the other, more political, branches.

    • Is it a biological trait? Or is it a psychological trait?
      There's evidence to support both.

      One should consider that the large majority of the world is actually against gay people. In fact, only about 5-10% of the world's population are pro-gay. Largely in western democratic societies.

      Example: There are 7 billion people on the planet.
      - All majority muslim countries are anti-gay (Iran, Egypt, Syria, all of Africa) - accounting for 2 billion people. Many of these nations execute gays.
      - Russia (150 million people) is notoriously anti-gay and often jail them.
      - China and India (2.5 billion people total) stigmatize gays. No surprise here. They don't prosecute them, but they are shamed.
      - United States (300 million people), a highly polarized issue. Many republican states are anti-gay. I don't have the number, but even if the ratio was 1:1, only 150 million Americans are pro-gay. That's only 2% of the world.
      -Canada, UK, EU - total about 1% of the world.

  • they're just being pussies. same sex marriage in every state is an inevitability. religious nuts don't have a leg to stand on in court thats why they keep losing.

    0|1
    0|0
    • There is a difference between faith and religion. Religion is actually condemned in the bible by our LORD. People just hate what is different from them. The bible only mentions gay acts one time for sure, where as it mentions things like adultery over 30-40 times. I am of the faith and believe people should do as they please. We are not the ultimate Judge of sin or perceived sin.

  • What were the other implications of these particular cases, besides them just being about gay/lesbian relationships? In law and politics, it's hardly ever about just one sole issue contrary to popular belief.

    0|1
    0|0
    • What do you mean? As far as I am aware, the appeals that were rejected were simply about the legalization about same sex marriage. I have not yet run across any information that implies otherwise. Even the man I talked to today, the Director of the Congress Project at The Wilson Center in DC didn't say anything about other factors.

    • What I mean is basically as said above: cases in the Supreme Court or legislation in Congress, for example, is hardly ever as simple as is reported on the news. Usually there are extra implications. Like legislation, as an example. A representative might vote down legislation to increase funding for retired and former vets, but usually because there is extra "fat" on the bill that outweighs the benefits proposed in the bill. But the news (and opposing candidates) will report that that particular representative just dislikes vets because he doesn't vote in their favor on things.

      Or in the Supreme Court's realm, sometimes they'll refuse to hear a case/reverse lower decisions/confirm lower decisions for any number of reasons. Perhaps there is extra stuff we don't know about, or perhaps it's so that lower courts will take it into their own authority for the ultimate decision.

      So yeah, things are rarely as simple as they are reported lol

What Girls Said 3

  • I wish they had made it a ruling for the whole country because we've seen before that civil rights cannot be left up to individual states nor popular vote.

    However, it could have been worse. I'm happy overall.

    1|2
    0|0
  • It makes me wonder yet again why these things always have to be accomplished with teeny tiny baby steps that take decades and decades and decades to get us there eventually. Ugh.

    0|1
    0|0
  • i don't think it matters if a person is gay or straight. As long as they love each other

    0|1
    0|0
    • But what is your opinion on how the Supreme Court handled the appeals?

Loading...