Same-Sex Marriage Hearings at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know

[Hepburn]

IMO, this greatly clarifies interstate issues over same-sex marriage:

Excerpt:

This coming week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the highly controversial issue of same-sex marriage. But what does that mean exactly? And what are the potential national implications? We've asked Kate Shaw, an ABC News contributor and an assistant professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, to provide some clarity.

1) OK, let’s start with the basics. Very simply, what is the constitutional explanation for why same-sex couples in Massachusetts can get married but why same-sex couples in Texas can’t? Why is the law different in different states?

SHAW: States have a lot of freedom to structure their laws in ways that reflect the preferences of their citizens; that’s one of the unique features of our federal system. Some states can allow 16-year-olds to drive while others set the driving age at 18; and some states have the death penalty, while others don’t.

But the principle that each state can tailor its laws to its citizens’ preferences has limits, and those limits come from the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has made clear, for example, that the Constitution prevents states from prohibiting interracial marriage. So the question in this case is whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is within the states’ regulatory power, or whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sex-marriage-hearings-supreme-court/story?id=30559103

One of the issues discussed which will before the US Supremes is whether states which prohibit same-sex marriage must legally recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in other states.

[hifiguy]

1. A combination of cold analysis and gut instinct tells me that

the case will come out 6-3 for marriage equality.

1. I don't think any judge in his or her right mind wants to take on Judge Posner's devastating analysis that struck down the anti-marriage equality laws in Indiana and Wisconsin. Posner left no justification shanding, burned the village and limed the soil. A more scorched-earth judicial opinion this lawyer has never seen. It was one of the most brutal rejections of discrimination any judge has written since Brown v. Board.

2. Roberts will be in the majority. He's a chief justice, and chiefs always have an eye on their legacies. He won't want to be seen as being on the wrong side of history, particularly as more and more states enact marriage equality. He doesn't need to be out front like the Warren Court was in Brown; he's just acknowledging historical inevitability.

2A. Roberts will be in the majority because this is not an issue where there are any implications for corporate or elite power. The ownership class by and large doesn't give a hoot one way or the other about marraige equality and to the extent they do, they think it's good business. Roberts is generally a servant of elite power, but that isn't at stake here, so he can deviate from the reichwing norm, making himself look "good" without alienating the corporate masters to whom he has always answered.

3. Kennedy will be in the majority. He wrote the opinion striking down so-called sodomy laws and has generally been receptive to gay rights arguments. It would be very surprising were he to reverse course now.

4. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are slam-dunk votes for marriage equality.

5. The dissents from Fat Tony, Soapy Sam and Uncle Ruckus will be terrifying, but will also be comedy gold.

[Hepburn]

2. Great analysis...

...glad you replied.

I agree on Roberts: He will be with the majority, but most likely for reasons other than it is legally (and morally) the way to vote on this issue.

Yeah, Fat Tony and his Shadow will go the other way! I wish to hell Obama had been able to replace these two.

[Hepburn]

3. John Roberts' big moment: Will he anger conservatives again?

This is an interesting analysis of where the "swing" justices may be in the latest case on same-sex marriage:

"The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could decide whether gay and lesbian couples nationwide have the constitutional right to marry. The question at the core of Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the most consequential debates of the early 21st century, and one that is already helping to shape the 2016 presidential race.

Appeals courts nationwide have moved decisively toward supporting same-sex marriage, but a split at the appellate level helped propel the issue to the nation's highest court, led by Roberts.

Appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, Roberts has a solid conservative record and would seem an unlikely vote to support a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He dissented in United States v. Windsor, a landmark case in which a narrowly divided court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. And he's expressed sympathy with legal arguments that would allow same-sex marriage bans."

Read more at link:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-gay-marriage/index.html