When should gay marriage be legalized nationwide?

[eric82oslo]

When would be the perfect time for the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage in every state of the union, from Hawaii to Maine, from Alaska to Florida? Should they do it outright or should they wait a few more years? Or should they perphaps never do it and leave it up to each individual state instead? And what would your reasoning be for picking a specific year?

[Flake]

2014/2015.

[Ebowed]

ASAP

[ElectionsGuy]

ASAP

[Sol]

ASAP

[pbrower2a]

ASAP

It's time for us Americans to grow up.

[Gass3268]

ASAP

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Someone educate me here.  Is that even possible since the states control licensing of marrage?  Or is the question when should all of the states legalize it?

[Sol]

I think the main mechanism would be by SCOTUS.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It won't be until 2015 at the earliest that a case reaches SCOTUS for argument. June 2015 or June 2016 are the likeliest times for a decision to be handed down, with December 2016 possible if arguments are delayed until the start of the 2016-7 term, which is about the latest I foresee a case reaching the court. Unless one of the five pro-SSM justices leaves the court and is replaced by an anti-SSM justice, the outcome is foregone with the only question being can Roberts find a basis that he can agree with to side with the pro-SSM majority and make it a 6-3 decision that helps to keep SCOTUS from being so political.

[IceSpear]

2014 because I don't see the point in waiting. As someone else posted, people are already far more supportive of SSM than were supportive of interracial marriage during the time of Loving.

[SteveRogers]

2016 (Or the earliest time at which a case reaches the Supreme Court). The ball is rolling now in the federal courts and can't be stopped. One of the Circuit Courts is bound to rule in favor of legalization in the states throughout their jurisdiction. Once that happens, another punt on the issue really won't be a practical option for the Supreme Court.

The country is ready. Will there be some backlash in the South? Sure. But at this point social conservatives are running out of arguments against gay marriage that don't just sound like, "because we think it's icky." The average American knows by now that the sky isn't going to fall, because it hasn't in any of the states with gay marriage. There's no longer any plausible argument to be made that any legitimate state interest can be identified that would outweigh the entitlement of gay couples to equal protection in accordance with the 14th amendment.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

yesterday, preferably.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It won't be until 2015 at the earliest that a case reaches SCOTUS for argument. June 2015 or June 2016 are the likeliest times for a decision to be handed down, with December 2016 possible if arguments are delayed until the start of the 2016-7 term, which is about the latest I foresee a case reaching the court. Unless one of the five pro-SSM justices leaves the court and is replaced by an anti-SSM justice, the outcome is foregone with the only question being can Roberts find a basis that he can agree with to side with the pro-SSM majority and make it a 6-3 decision that helps to keep SCOTUS from being so political.

Why would a pro-SSM president appoint an Anti-SSM justice?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It won't be until 2015 at the earliest that a case reaches SCOTUS for argument. June 2015 or June 2016 are the likeliest times for a decision to be handed down, with December 2016 possible if arguments are delayed until the start of the 2016-7 term, which is about the latest I foresee a case reaching the court. Unless one of the five pro-SSM justices leaves the court and is replaced by an anti-SSM justice, the outcome is foregone with the only question being can Roberts find a basis that he can agree with to side with the pro-SSM majority and make it a 6-3 decision that helps to keep SCOTUS from being so political.

Why would a pro-SSM president appoint an Anti-SSM justice?

He wouldn't intend to, but it is always possible that the justice's views on that subject could be contrary to expectations.  It wouldn't be the first time a president had been disappointed by a justice failing to adjudicate as expected once on the bench.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Leave it to the states. Preferably it should be never.

[Bacon King]

Someone educate me here.  Is that even possible since the states control licensing of marrage?  Or is the question when should all of the states legalize it?

The Kitchen v Hebert suit coming out of Utah right now applies the Supreme Court's logic in US v Windsor (which held that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause prohibits the Federal government from not recognizing gay marriage) to the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, concluding that marriage equality on the state level is constitutionally mandated.

This case is obviously going to the Supreme Court, and I believe a decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide is pretty much inevitable. To do otherwise would require the court to ignore its own precedent in Windsor, ignore 14th Amendment case law, or do some insanely ridiculous legal contortion in an effort to avoid either. Maybe they could dismiss it on a technicality but that'd just be kicking the can for like a year or two at most.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe they could dismiss it on a technicality but that'd just be kicking the can for like a year or two at most.

  With the number of cans they have to kick, they can likely only delay it a month or two barring the loss of a justice leaving them with a 4-4 decision.

[morgieb]

Ideally now.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Never, but allow civil unions.  Unfortunately, it seems inevitable right now.

[PJ]

Never should have been illegal.

[Zioneer]

Leave it to the states. Preferably it should be never.

Oh JCL, you wacky, wacky reactionary.

[Goldwater]

ASAP