Marriage equality proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court, Nov. 30, 2012.
Image by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
On Monday, the Supreme Court again gave no word on the status of several cases addressing the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Next news could come Friday.
WASHINGTON — After a weekend of waiting, the Supreme Court issued no word Monday morning on the status of several cases involving same-sex couples' marriage rights. The justices are scheduled to reconsider the cases at their next conference, Dec. 7.
No new cases were granted in an order list issued on Monday morning, including the cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. None of the cases' petitions were denied by the court either, meaning they remain before the justices.
The justices had been slated to consider 10 petitions on Nov. 30 asking the court to review various cases challenging DOMA, Proposition 8, and an Arizona law that would rescind domestic partner benefits to state employees. Although it is possible the cases were considered at that conference, the dockets for the petitions were updated Monday morning to state that the justices will consider them at their Dec. 7 conference.
The justices could continue to consider the petitions beyond the Dec. 7 conference; however, that would mean a delay of nearly a month for any likely decision on them, as the next conference after that is not scheduled to take place until the new year, on Jan. 4.
The Proposition 8 Case Supreme Court Docket:
WASHINGTON — After a weekend of waiting, the Supreme Court issued no word Monday morning on the status of several cases involving same-sex couples' marriage rights. The justices are scheduled to reconsider the cases at their next conference, Dec. 7.
No new cases were granted in an order list issued on Monday morning, including the cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. None of the cases' petitions were denied by the court either, meaning they remain before the justices.
The justices had been slated to consider 10 petitions on Nov. 30 asking the court to review various cases challenging DOMA, Proposition 8, and an Arizona law that would rescind domestic partner benefits to state employees. Although it is possible the cases were considered at that conference, the dockets for the petitions were updated Monday morning to state that the justices will consider them at their Dec. 7 conference.
The justices could continue to consider the petitions beyond the Dec. 7 conference; however, that would mean a delay of nearly a month for any likely decision on them, as the next conference after that is not scheduled to take place until the new year, on Jan. 4.
The Proposition 8 Case Supreme Court Docket:
thanks to Chris from Buzzfeed for this again the buzz has been providing excellent details on this development.
Some surmise that they are afraid that it would end up as a 5-4 decision to support full equality for all. So they are using the typical route of delay, delay, delay. Maine is expected to commence their gay marriages on December 29th while in Nevada a Federal judge says the state can ban same sex marriage, in the judgement handed down Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not "[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships."
Jones ruled that a prior Supreme Court precedent — a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple's marriage claim as lacking any "substantial federal question" — controlled his decision. Even if not, he ruled that the "exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage" was constitutional "[b]ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest."
In reaching his decision, Jones found that a classification like Nevada's marriage law, which distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual people (his analysis did not address bisexuality), should not be viewed with additional scrutiny, as are laws that distinguish based on sex or race. The analysis, made as part of challenges claiming a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantees, asks whether the group claiming discrimination under the law has experienced a history of discrimination and continues to face levels of political powerlessness.
In these areas, Jones found — contrary to a recent decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — that gay and lesbian people did not exhibit the characteristics necessary for additional protection.
"Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property," he wrote, in dismissing claims of a history of discrimination. Noting recent ballot successes on marriage issues, Jones wrote, "It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate."
Once Jones decided that "rational basis," the lowest type of scrutiny, would be applied to Nevada's prohibition on allowing same-sex couples to marry, he quickly found several reasons for upholding the differential treatment.
"The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest," he began, adding that if the state recognized same-sex couples' marriages, "it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined."
Jones ruled that a prior Supreme Court precedent — a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple's marriage claim as lacking any "substantial federal question" — controlled his decision. Even if not, he ruled that the "exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage" was constitutional "[b]ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest."
In reaching his decision, Jones found that a classification like Nevada's marriage law, which distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual people (his analysis did not address bisexuality), should not be viewed with additional scrutiny, as are laws that distinguish based on sex or race. The analysis, made as part of challenges claiming a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantees, asks whether the group claiming discrimination under the law has experienced a history of discrimination and continues to face levels of political powerlessness.
In these areas, Jones found — contrary to a recent decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — that gay and lesbian people did not exhibit the characteristics necessary for additional protection.
"Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property," he wrote, in dismissing claims of a history of discrimination. Noting recent ballot successes on marriage issues, Jones wrote, "It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate."
Once Jones decided that "rational basis," the lowest type of scrutiny, would be applied to Nevada's prohibition on allowing same-sex couples to marry, he quickly found several reasons for upholding the differential treatment.
"The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest," he began, adding that if the state recognized same-sex couples' marriages, "it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined."
More as the developments unfold, these are interesting times even as our local lawmakers' delay of the suggested buggery review by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller (then in opposition) in the last election debate however opposition spokesman on Justice Delroy Chuck today lamented that there was so much free time in the houses as there are no major law altering bills on the order paper as legislators spend little time doing nothing much these days which seems to put a cloud over the PNP's delay in reviewing the problematic law.
Lest we also not forget that the delay was hinted to by a young first time member of parliament Damion Crawford who at one point jeered at the suggestion by his boss at a function earlier this year:
originally aired on CVM TV February
Also the fear by anti buggery/gay advocates for the futuristic gay marriage rights that they see as coming on the heels of a buggery review they also suggest there will be prosecution eventually for persons who remotely speak out against any same sex related matter. I say highly unlikely.
Other evidence of the fear coming from sections the religious movement came from the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy society, JCHS where instead of really doing things to foster a healthy and inclusive nation it pays hundreds of thousands for full paged ads in newspapers yet thousands literally are homeless and hungry on our streets. Here is an ad that came out after dancehall/reggae artist made a mockery of our 50th celebrations by hitting out at gay marriage (a right never asked for in Jamaica)
Where are the priorities here? well that may change one day when we all get some sense in our heads.
Other evidence of the fear coming from sections the religious movement came from the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy society, JCHS where instead of really doing things to foster a healthy and inclusive nation it pays hundreds of thousands for full paged ads in newspapers yet thousands literally are homeless and hungry on our streets. Here is an ad that came out after dancehall/reggae artist made a mockery of our 50th celebrations by hitting out at gay marriage (a right never asked for in Jamaica)
Where are the priorities here? well that may change one day when we all get some sense in our heads.
also see from Gay Jamaica Watch: The US Supreme Court's Four Most Likely Moves On Gay/Lesbian Couples' Marriage Rights .............
Peace and tolerance
H
also see the following for some more background on the other GLBTQJA blogs:
MoBay Church Fraternity Says No To Buggery Review
Vatican vows to fight gay marriage after gains made on sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica
Group braces for costly fight against gays
MoBay Church Fraternity Says No To Buggery Review
Vatican vows to fight gay marriage after gains made on sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica
Group braces for costly fight against gays
Gay Parenting (a view on the ground) (an oldie)
No Same Sex Marriage says Prime Minister in Charter of rights (Bruce Golding)
Same-Sex Marriage A Misnomer, Fraud (Gleaner Letter) and my response to it.
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
+Cartoon+on+Rowdy+Homeless+MSM.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment