Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kepler]

"SAN FRANCISCO � Saying that it discriminates against gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California�s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions at least a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Good luck in getting the most conservative Supreme Court in decades to affirm this ruling.

[recessiontime]

People in Iraq, Afghanistan are being killed, there's global warming, a recession that might double dip...and yet the biggest concern we have today is what people do behind closed doors in the bedroom.

*shakes head*

[NovaKart]

No one said it's anyone's biggest concern and the issue is a lot more complicated than that. There's no law against homosexual sex.

Taking this issue to the supreme court is risky. I don't know enough about the judges to make a guess as to what the outcome will be. I know that gay rights groups were reluctant to do that.

[daskalos]

[Kepler]

The 14th Amendment was written to correct discrimination against racial minorities and has not been traditionally understood to protect homosexuals from discrimination. The Supreme Court has recognized that completely banning all types of discrimination is impractical. Age discrimination is okay if there's a good reason for it and even gender discrimination is sometimes okay (for example only males between 18 and 26 are required to register for potentially being drafted into the military according to the Selective Service Act). So the constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage seems like a legal gray area to me.

[Seoulio]

Gender and age discrimnination often has a purpose, as in there are reasons why you dsicriminate aginst them. We dont want a 5 year old being able to get a license and drive a car after all.

There is NOTHING that a gay man cant do that a straight man can. There is nothing a lesbian can't do that a straight woman can. To say that they are not afforded the same rights because you dont agree with the lifestyle they lead is discrimination.

Don't really see how this is a grey area. It's a convenient excuse for conservatives to hide behind so that they can force thier values onto another when it has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

it is pure and simple discrimination, they ARE treated differenly legally. Yet even though America continually holds that church and state are separate it always wants to use relgions as a backing to uphold this kind of discrimination

[daskalos]

On the 14th Amendment, yeah, it's a gray area. That's why this is all so fascinating. In the 2004 decision that struck down sodomy laws, the 14th Amendment was alluded to, but not specifically applied. This latest case does spefically mention the 14th Amenment, but more so under the "rational basis" reasoning and not so much the "suspect class" basis. (For the differences between these two concepts, see Google.)

Most of the punditry about this decision revolves around how the SC will decide, but it's entiely possible the SC will choose not to hear this case, and will let the decision stand as is. (Assuming the 9th Circuit Court affirms the decision, which it is widely expected to do.) (And, if the 9th overturns the decision, it's even more likely the SC will let that ruling stand.)

I'm not sure how many justices have to be in favor of hearing a case in order for it to be tried at the SC level, but assuming it takes a simple majority, it's possible that they will refuse to hear it. Why? Because it's likely that the four truly conservative justices see the writing on the wall, that marriage equality IS coming, and that Kennedy is likely to vote as he has in the past on issues of gay rights. It's possible that Kennedy is quite ready to extend his legacy so far as allowing gays to marry. If the SC refuses to hear the case (assuming, again, that the 9th CC affirms the decision), then the decision (sans SC approval) can only affect marriage law in CA. If the SC takes the case and the decision is affirmed, then marriage equality becomes the law of the land - all anti-gay marriage laws in the US fall.

Ooooh, this is fascinating stuff. Now I'm off to Google how many judges it takes to decide whether or not a case will be heard or not.

At any rate, marriage equality is coming. It's a given. Really, it's just a matter of how loing the ancien regime can man the barricades.

[daskalos]

Turns out that all it takes is four justices to decide to take a case on appeal, so my supposition that the SC would refuse to hear the appeal is greatly weakened, but still not a long shot.

[bacasper]

[Leon]

[NovaKart]

For me it's not about joining the mainstream. It's about having the same benefits as hetero married couples.

[bacasper]

[mises]

I don't like the word marriage being used with gays. I am indifferent to them and fully support them having exactly identical benefits for their relationships as I have for mine, but using the word marriage puts me off.

[tukmax]

So much for democracy.

[Leon]