Talk Elections

Discuss.

Please only vote on what you think would happen under the current judges, not what you want to happen.

With the current reactionary craphole we have as a SCOTUS ? No chance.

Probably uphold restrictions on same-sex marriage.  I could possibly see Kennedy finding a right to civil unions, and in the process overturning the procedural portions of DOMA, but that's more because Kennedy likes to judge the law as if he were Jack Horner looking after some pies in the corner.  He rarely resists sticking his hand in.

What I believe should happen? Option 1. What I think would happen? Option 2.

Option 2 -in other words, maintaining the status quo with gay marriage advocates remaining tethered to the will of each individual state.  

Option 1 would rape states rights, while Option 2 allows gay marriage to slowly insert itself across the country state by state.

Equal rights trump states rights.

It is not really fair to force gay marriage down the throats of those who do not want it. Let each state do it; if gays cannot get married in Ohio, then gays should not move to Ohio. Simple solution in my opinion. I favor gay marriage at a state level here in Florida. But just because I favor it in Florida does not give me the right to force it down in Wyoming.

But it's also not fair to tell a same-sex couple that they cannot be legally recognized simply because others in the state don't like it.  If a person is against gay marriage, they have the right to not marry a gay person or even associate themselves with homosexuals; it is none of their business, and the sacramental recognition of marriage can be left to the churches to decide on.  But telling a person to simply move out of their state because their current state doesn't treat them as equals is no better than telling a black person to move out of the South if they don't like Jim Crow.  Not everyone can easily move where they want to, and they shouldn't have to feel obligated to just because the law is unfair to them.

While I believe in equal protection under the law, states rights trump and natural law trumps states rights. In other words option 2. The  Federal government has NO right to encroach upon this most personal of human matters. The states will ban it. Even the ones who the judges have forced it upon the people against the will of the people (California). Indiana's soon coming ban will be upheld.

So surely you believe heterosexual marriage should be prohibited in a state if the state desires to prohibit it, yes? :)

And sorry to tell you, but the numbers suggest that Californians are now opposed to constitutional bans on gay marriage, contrary to four years ago.  Your side's position of this issue is becoming less popular each year, and that support is not expected to reascend.

Other in that I can easily envision Ernest's or a similar scenario.

The trend is not in your favor. It's in mine. There's a reason gay marriage don't work. The whole of history bears that out. The reason gay marriage is even bantered about is because we are so liberal about divorce.

()

Not so.

There is no evidence proving that same-sex marriage has been proven detrimental in states where it is legal.  And frankly, it is not the State's responsibility to micromanage what people in do in their own lives such as divorce or marry people of the same sex.