Marriage Equality/SCOTUS Decision

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I'm putting this in the Debates thread although I'm not sure this is a debate because I just have a question.

Everybody and their mom are changing their FB status and symbols to be in support of gay rights but based on my understanding of the Supreme Court, today was just oral arguments and we won't hear anything for weeks/months, is that right?

And what do we think of this public opinion campaign anyway? The SCOTUS is not known for being really interested in popular opinion polls so is this just to take a stand in support of gay rights or what?

I'm going to find it amusing (if I'm right and we won't know the outcome for months) that all these people inevitably change their FB status back to pictures, etc. well before the decision is handed down.

[diggitydot]

Because it begins today and tomorrow, we are showing our support for marriage equality. To you, to our coworkers, our friends, our state, our country, our world. I don't think anyone is expecting all the red FB pictures to last until the SCOTUS makes a decision, nor do we expect our Facebook pictures to sway Scalia, Anthony, or the other justices. But at the same time, we can't sit back and do nothing and pretend like nothing important is happening.

Yup, to all of this.

[spotty_dog]

LOL at the idea of the SCOTUS being swayed by Facebook status and profile pictures.

I know little about the legal procedures involved, but Wikipedia tells me that a preliminary vote will be taken among the justices within a week of hearing oral arguments. Then draft opinions will be written, a final vote will be counted and majority/minority opinions finalized, but the opinions may not be announced until the end of the term.

FB has showed me that a lot more of my friends are in favor of marriage equality than I'd thought. I wonder if my traditional-marriage-favoring friends are noticing the same thing.

[oceanchild]

There's actually an interesting scholarly debate that I vaguely recall from my political science days about whether the Supreme Court makes big societal changes or follows big societal changes. (For instance, was Brown v. Board the court taking a stand, or following public opinion?)

But either way I don't think the justices are thinking about that, and yeah, they probably aren't so much following Facebook. Maybe their clerks are.

[corn poffi]

Yeah I don't think anybody who changes their picture actually thinks it's going to sway the SCOTUS. Just like lawn signs aren't going to persuade somebody to vote for that candidate. It's a show of support.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

There's actually an interesting scholarly debate that I vaguely recall from my political science days about whether the Supreme Court makes big societal changes or follows big societal changes. (For instance, was Brown v. Board the court taking a stand, or following public opinion?)
.

That is interesting! I think my FB feed reflects a different opinion than that of the country at large.

[niener]

Yep. To what everyone else said. I suspect I'll change mine back before a decision is made, but I also suspect I'll change it again once a decision is made assuming it's a favorable decision.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

Yep. To what everyone else said. I suspect I'll change mine back before a decision is made, but I also suspect I'll change it again once a decision is made assuming it's a favorable decision.

Initial reports say that while the decision may strike down Prop 8, they don't think it will be a national decision. That would be a minor win for supporters but I think people (on my FB feed at least) are going to be disappointed that the SCOTUS doesn't declare something nationally.

[weeniegeniewife]

Personally, I am showing support for my dear cousin and her beautiful partner. They live in California and deserve to get married and have the same rights as everyone else. Love is love! Who are we, or politicians, or religious individuals, to stand against that? Boggles my mind.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

I read a great comment on CNN.com (I think). The commenter basically said "I'm a conservative, and a true conservative believes that govt should stay out of the home. Who am I to pass judgement on the actions of two consenting adults in love?" True that!

[poky]

Yes, my understanding is that we're not to expect a ruling till June/July. Saw this the other day, which kinda lays out how the various rulings could go and what it would likely mean: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-marriage.html

[WolfpackWife]

In agreement with nearly all of the above--I, too, was seriously shocked and gladdened to see how many people on my news feed were changing their photos. I changed mine back after a couple of days but the picture remains posted on my timeline. It's true for me as well that the change was a little something in an effort to show the LBGT community that they have support from me. I'm glad so many of my friends showed the same support.

Actually, my uncle pulled me aside this weekend (we were back home visiting for the weekend) and said "You know, (my cousin/his gay son's name) said to me the other night that he really appreciates how vocal and demonstrative you are on FB about your support of marriage equality. It means a lot to him and he feels really supported by you and (DH's name). Because of that, it means a lot to me and (his wife/my aunt) too". And that reminded me why I take the time to do even small things like change a profile pictures or share other articles or memes regarding marriage equality issues. Not only because of my two beloved gay relatives, but because of human decency.

[HouseofWool]

I was listening to the NPR coverage of the oral arguments the other day and I couldn't help but think that DOMA was enacted not out of homophobia, but to prevent a sizable percentage of the population from getting the tax breaks. So, the woman who brought the case lost over $300K to taxes because the federal government didn't recognize her marriage. That's a good sized chunk of change for the government to get from just one individual.

[WolfpackWife]

I was listening to the NPR coverage of the oral arguments the other day and I couldn't help but think that DOMA was enacted not out of homophobia, but to prevent a sizable percentage of the population from getting the tax breaks. So, the woman who brought the case lost over $300K to taxes because the federal government didn't recognize her marriage. That's a good sized chunk of change for the government to get from just one individual.

I absolutely think that plays a huge part--the homophobia and shroud ultra-conservative Christians put over the anti-bible aspect of homosexuality helps detract from the fact that gay couples are having to pay the govt lots more than us straight couples.

[Alacrity]

I absolutely think that plays a huge part--the homophobia and shroud ultra-conservative Christians put over the anti-bible aspect of homosexuality helps detract from the fact that gay couples are having to pay the govt lots more than us straight couples.

With double earners, married people pay more.
So why should same sex couples get a tax brake?

BTW Minor nit picky point. It's same sex marriage. Not gay marriage.
Gays can get married to the oposite sex. Straights can get married to the opposite sex.
That I'm straight gives me no more ability to marry a guy than if I were gay.