Several court watchers this week have been floating this possible "compromise" ruling on gay marriage. The court will hear arguments in this monumental and historic case on Tuesday. In a nutshell, under this scenario the court would be voting for state's rights but also allowing gay marriage.
Considering the court's contorted ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, in which it said that it is possible for "closely held" corporations to, in effect, discriminate against women because of their owners' right-wing religious beliefs, this alternate ruling isn't all *that* farfetched.
Under this scenario, the court breaks the same-sex marriage issue into two questions.
Question 1: Are states required to allow same-sex marriages?
On the surface this would seem to be the obvious all-in question. But under this scenario, the court would rule that yes, states can decide to continue to bar same-sex marriage.
Question 2: Are states required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?
This is the roundabout scenario in which the court might think it could have it both ways. And in this scenario, the court would rule that states must recognize legally valid marriages from other states. This ruling could be an extension of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.
On the surface, this sounds like still a victory for gay marriage, but is it? Yes, states would still be required to recognize marriages done in other states, but I really do fear that if this alternate scenario carries the day there will be unintended consequences, and discrimination would continue in states that don't recognize same-sex marriages.
For example, would states be required to extend benefits to gay couples? Would it be OK for businesses and public accommodations to discriminate? If the court rules this way, I think without a doubt some of the states that now legally recognize same-sex marriage (Kansas, Alabama, South Carolina, etc.) probably would change their laws back to barring it.
The court might think it's clever by "having it both ways" with a ruling like this, but in reality it's creating a whole new set of problems and "kicking the can down the road" for a future court to have to clean them up.
There is also a serious economic fairness issue if this position carries the day. Why is it fair that poor gay Americans should have to travel out of state to marry?
For most gay Americans this wouldn't be much of an issue, but there are pockets of poverty and isolation where it could be a very real hardship. In places like South Florida, Alaska and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, poor people would be severely penalized in their ability to marry and, frankly, it just wouldn't be possible for some if they were forced to travel to another state in order to marry.
All I can say is, PLEASE, PLEASE Supremes, don't think you're smarter than everyone else and try to solve the issue in this roundabout way. You will only be creating problems that even you Smarter Than Everyone Else Super Rich Republican Highnesses cannot even imagine. You would be leaving the door open for homophoic right-wing lawmakers to think of creative ways to discriminate against legally marriaged gay people and still be potentially creating a "second class" of married citizens.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-surprise-coul … ase-2015-4
Basically, instead of deciding the issue once and for all, which we are all hoping for, the court would be settling for another incremental step in gay rights progress and keep the marriage debate going for years, if not decades, longer.
Hey Toole, I had been confident the Supreme Court would do the right thing. Now I am much less so, as this "compromise" sounds just like something the court that gave us Citizens United and the Hobby Lobby decision might well do.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a civil right, and the states have no right to ban it. If this court does not see it that way, I am certain that a future court will.
“…..Will the justices choose this equality in 2015 or will their decision be made with political, financial, and religious leanings. We may find that it is just more expedient for the justices to make this (country) a slave ship once again as it was at the beginning in 1776 with the unconscionably compromise that our founding fathers allowed. We can only hope the judges will choose otherwise more out of right than in fear of a mutiny.”
As for me, I don’t want to sit in the back of the bus unless Justice Thomas agrees to be back there with me.