6th Circuit rules same sex marriage ban not unconsttituional

[about_average]

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/06/362102170/federal-appeals-court-upholds-state-gay-marriage-bans

I think we can be assured of a ruling from SCOTUS on that exact question in the not too distant future.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Well, first of all it said that it's bound by what the Supreme Court has done in the past. In the early 1970s the court said there was no federal question in a challenge - in a state law - that banned gay marriage. It said that in a one sentence order and the court here says that it's still bound by that, even though just in a matter of weeks ago the court left in place rulings by three other federal appeals courts that had struck down gay marriage. And it said well, that's not good enough, we still are stuck with that earlier decision. But then the court went on to basically tackle the issue and say that this is a question of who decides and that in these cases, what we're left with is this, that the states had a rational basis - a reason - you might not like the reason, but it was a reasonable reason, so to speak. And that is that by creating a status - marriage - and subsidizing it with tax privileges and deductions, the states created an incentive for two people who procreated together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the states of irrationality; only of awareness of the biological realities of couples of the same sex and that they do not - who do not have children in the same way as opposite sex couples.

I wonder how same sex couples who adopt children and sterile couples, or couples who don't want kids, fit in to that picture.
I guess sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry since they don't meet the acceptable reason for marriage.

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/06/362102170/federal-appeals-court-upholds-state-gay-marriage-bans

I think we can be assured of a ruling from SCOTUS on that exact question in the not too distant future.I wonder how same sex couples who adopt children and sterile couples, or couples who don't want kids, fit in to that picture.
I guess sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry since they don't meet the acceptable reason for marriage.

Along those lines, it was stand to reason then that couples beyond child-rearing age lose their tax advantage. Can you imagine the howl from the white patriarchy?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Like it or don't the court is a political animal, judges can be impeached and funds can be trimmed by the Congress. Plus the courts have no enforcement arm. Andrew Jackson told John Marshall to fuck himself on a few occasions.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

 

[Wrong Element]

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/06/362102170/federal-appeals-court-upholds-state-gay-marriage-bans

I think we can be assured of a ruling from SCOTUS on that exact question in the not too distant future.I wonder how same sex couples who adopt children and sterile couples, or couples who don't want kids, fit in to that picture.
I guess sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry since they don't meet the acceptable reason for marriage.

It will be interesting. I thought ahead of time that the 2013 cases would be decided exactly the way they were, and given that the membership of the Court has not changed since then, I don't think there's a majority for the notion that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Getting rid of these bans state by state won't be much fun for those directly affected, but it will have the advantage of being harder to attack politically than a Court decision that "takes it out of the hands of the people" would be.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It will be interesting. I thought ahead of time that the 2013 cases would be decided exactly the way they were, and given that the membership of the Court has not changed since then, I don't think there's a majority for the notion that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Getting rid of these bans state by state won't be much fun for those directly affected, but it will have the advantage of being harder to attack politically than a Court decision that "takes it out of the hands of the people" would be.

The court doesn't wanna open the door to all the other permutations and combinations of conjugal union. If Heather can have 2 moms, she can have 5.