Comments about ‘Gay marriage before Supreme Court? Cases weighed’

I wish people would read the ruling from the 9th Circuit. It applies ONLY to the state of California and does nothing on a federal level.

@Edith
your right it does and that maybe why the supreme court decides to side step that case. while the 9th circuit ruing could be used to claim precedent in future cases from other states the supreme court ruling on the case one way or the other will set precedent for future cases from other states. it will be interesting to see how they handle this case.

Edith,

what about the rights of the voters in CA who strongly supported Prop 8 and who have been abandoned by their governor and state attorney general. Don't they have the right to have their case taken to the SCOTUS?

@lost in dc
Not every case appaled to the supreme court goes before them. Usually case are taken up when there are conflicting rulings from two or more separate cases on an issue and since as Edith points out this ruling is unique to California (gay people had the right to marry and did then it was taken away) there is no conflicting rulings. The other thing that I do not think most people understand is that they will not be allowed to submit new arguments and since there is no conflicting rulings the only thing the court will really be looking at is if there may have been a serious misinterpretation of the constitutional law by the two lower courts that may lead to a change in the decision if reviewed by the supreme court, a rather high bar. A ruling by the supreme court on this case would set a precedent that could effect other states far more directly then if they allow the lower court ruling to stand. I think that is why they are likely to side step this case and take on the other cases where there are conflicting rulings.

Tolstoy,

thank you for the expanded explanation.

However, while the case may only apply to CA, it does not change the fact CA voters were abandoned by their elected officials.

Another issue I have, and you can/will correct me if I am incorrect, is the ruling can possibly be used for precedent in other remotely similar cases.

Gay people have ALWAYS had the right to marry - they do in Utah and all the other states than ban same-sex marriage, as long as the follow the same rules the rest of us follow - find someone of the opposite sex who has reached the age of consent who will have you, and you can marry.

Amazing! In the mid-east countries, gays are executed.

In the United States of America, we have the freedom to discuss gay marriage, and rights.

God bless America.

@lost
You are right that iIt can be used to argue precedent however a decision by scouts could invalidate existing laws and would at the least hold mor weight if used to argue precedents in less closely related cases.

lost in DC: "what about the rights of the voters in CA who strongly supported Prop 8..?"
KJK: What about the Virginia voters that supported laws restricting marriage to one's own race? Was the Supreme Court right to overturn those voters?

lost in DC: "Gay people have ALWAYS had the right to marry - they do in Utah and all the other states than ban same-sex marriage, as long as the follow the same rules the rest of us follow - find someone of the opposite sex who has reached the age of consent who will have you, and you can marry."
KJK: The same applied to that Virginia law. Blacks and Whites were treated equally. Both could only marry within their race. What's wrong with that? Also, Christians in Saudi Arabia have the same religious rights as Muslims. Both have equal rights to read the Koran and attend mosques. Isn't that the same logic you're using? Both Christians in Saudi Arabia and gays here choose not to take advantage of the rights offered them. Why should either of them get "special rights"?