[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] It will become a federal case but the big gov wont dare go against the vast majority on this matter... Focus only on winning over states while maintaining a classy image... My point in all of this is that the chic fill a matter is too small to worry about... It makes them seem petty... If they cared about the kickbacks owner is dishing out why wait until now to act? It's like a 4 year folding his arms in protest because a friend said chocolate is better than vanilla... jeremiah06
If majority made a difference in federal cases then we would elect SCOTUS justices, and Roe v. Wade and a host of civil rights cases never would have passed.
There are probably some groups that have been on CFE's case for a while, but it's a large issue now because the CEO made public comments during an election cycle. That's the way stuff works, most things only become big news when some highly publicized event occurs.
Gay marriage somehow seems different to me... It's a 50/50 shot... no way to compromise... You're either for it or against... If majority states swing either way than has to back or lose millions of future votes... But I could be wrong my political science is sketchy at best...If it goes to the court then I really don't see how they could support making gay marriage illegal on a practical level, in terms of tax benefits, death benefits, basically in any legal aspect. Functionally I think they would have to make gay marriage legal in that aspect, the question is if they would, as social conservatives put it, protect the institution of marriage. I also don't see how that could happen due to the establishment clause, it seems like a blatant government establishment of religious practice with no valiud secular reason, and would thus violate the clause and judicial precedent. However, seeing as how many conservative justices were appointed under the Reagan doctrine (to stack the court with social conservatives that would uphold a traditional moral vision for the country) I wouldn't be surprised if at least a few of them had differing opinions on this second point, especially Scalia and Thomas. To play devil's advocate, they might argue that establishing marriage as a right would force religious institutions to perform marriages that they disagree with, but seeing as how churches don't technically grant marriages anyways (the government does, churches just perform ceremonies) it doesn't seem pertinent to me.
If they do refuse to take the case, though, or rule that it is beyond the federal government's purview then it does indeed go back to the states. The reason that this is unacceptable for most gay marriage advocates is because a SCOTUS ruling would make their gains permanent, whereas if they passed legislation by referrendum it could be undone by referrendum as in California. It would also resolve the issue accross the country, preventing drawn-out legal and electoral battles in other states. They could make changes more permanent by amending the state constitutions, but there are several problems. One, it takes a large number of votes, two it has to be done state by state, three the amendment can be retracted by following amendments, and four the constitutions can be amended against their favor as well.
Log in to comment