Question about gay rights and the SCOTUS.

[flamin lib]

It looks like Gay Rights may be the next religious right rallying point, along with the long standing Right to Life and Prayer in school.

So, assuming the SCOTUS hears some case regarding gay marriage or other gay rights issue, where in the Constitution or Precedent will they find justification for limiting rights based on sexual orientation?

Roe V Wade is a privacy issue stemming from the 4th and 14th amendments (I believe). Lawrence and Garner v. Texas is also based on privacy.

With these two wins, is there any chance the SCOTUS can limit gay rights re Marriage? What about the full faith and credit clause and the 14th amendment extending the bill of rights to the states?

It seems to me it's pretty cut and dried if a case can be brought before the SC.

[William769]

1. The only thing that is clear cut woth this SCOTUS

We are all screwed.

[flamin lib]

2. Well, yeah, but still they have to find some justification in either

precedence or the Constitution (common law? not a specialist here)

Can anyone speculate where they might find something?

[mongo]

3. It all depends on who is there at the time

After all Lawrence vs Texas was decided 6-3. With O'Connor gone and assuming Roberts takes her place, surely today it would have been 5-4.

If we lose one more progressive judge on the court, gay marriage will only be the tip of the iceberg.

I don't know if the court today would see it as a slam dunk case. There's more than just a right to privacy and individual civil rights at odds here. Various states rights issues, the ability to "legislate morality", national heritage and tradition - even the commerce clause could be called into play. You just never know.

Not that I'm against gay marriage in any way. I'm just skeptical that the court even today would vote to make it legal - or rather to force state's to recognize another state's gay marriage - let alone the federal government. The right see's it as the cornerstone of our civilization, and I don't think even the Supreme Court wants to touch it. Look at Dred Scott as an example where the court chose what was socially acceptable over what was constitutional and morally right.

[flamin lib]

4. Hmmmm, Thanks for the insight.

I need to go back and read the dissenting view on a few cases and see where the minority found their justification.

Bork was adamant that there was no right to privacy even in light of the 4th, persisting in viewing the language as only pertaining to search and seizure (I guess).

Thanks again.

[mongo]

5. You're welcome - I guess

but mostly it just makes me sad...

As the highest court in the land, they will be able to use whatever legal jargon they wish to justify their acting according to their own values.

There's so much at stake right now.

Abortion
Gay rights
Right to adult expression
expansion of executive branch powers
Justification for torture/detainment without habeous corpus.

Hitler was elected and worked within the law - sometimes a belief in a system of laws isn't enough.

[flamin lib]

6. Amen nt