Hundreds Of Amicus Briefs Filed On Behalf Of Gay Marriage To SCOTUS

[stromboli]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/03/09/scholarly-associations-file-briefs-supreme-court-cases-gay-marriage

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of organizations filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court last week, arguing various positions in a series of lawsuits over whether states can bar same-sex marriages. Briefs came from employers, politicians, civic associations, religious groups and different groups of law professors. Also filing briefs last week were two national groups of historians, the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association.
Groups of law professors (based on their specialties) regularly urge the Supreme Court to take one stance or another. The same is true of professors in a number of fields, and there are likely individual professors backing states that seek to bar same-sex marriage. But it is unusual for so many disciplinary associations -- all citing a research consensus within their field -- to file briefs in the same case. And while the American Anthropological Association didn't join this round, it filed in an earlier case.
The briefs filed by scholarly associations all come down on the side of marriage equity, but cite different approaches to research, reflecting their different methodologies.
The Organization of American Historians submitted a brief based on research prepared by George Chauncey, the Samuel Knight Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University and one of the leading historians of gay and lesbian Americans. The brief focuses on the systematic discrimination against gay people for much of American history -- an important point legally, because various Supreme Court cases have held to a higher level of scrutiny distinctions in laws among groups if one of those groups has been subject to discrimination.
The brief notes the long history of state laws against gay sex and of employment policies (of governments and private organizations) that discriminated against gay people.
And while the brief notes considerable legal progress in recent years, it also argues that anti-gay bias persists and links this bias to the efforts against gay marriage.
"Some of the same groups that previously fought gay teachers in schools, gay characters on television shows, domestic partnership policies and antidiscrimination laws have provided leadership to the campaigns to prevent gay couples from marrying," the brief says. "Their messaging strategy has mobilized some of the same fears and antigay hostility that helped defeat prior gay-rights measures."
The American Historical Association also filed a brief, but it was not available as of Sunday evening.
The American Psychological Association brief focuses on psychology research showing that being gay is "a normal expression of human sexuality," and that the institution of marriage "offers social, psychological and health benefits" that are denied to gay people in states barring same-sex marriage.
Further, the brief discusses numerous research studies of gay and lesbian couples, concluding that "there is no scientific basis for concluding that same-sex couples are any less fit or capable parents than heterosexual couples, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted."
The American Sociological Association makes similar arguments in its brief, saying that existing evidence shows that children of gay couples are as well adjusted as other children. 'The clear and consistent social science consensus is that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children of different-sex parents," the brief says.
"This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous reliable studies, including those using nationally representative data. The research supports the conclusion that the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child well-being insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhance family stability, which are key drivers of positive child outcomes."

Add Jon Huntsman, Mormon politician and former candidate for presidency
http://fox13now.com/2015/03/07/jon-huntsman-jr-utah-mayors-sign-on-as-friend-of-the-court-in-same-sex-marriage-case/

SALT LAKE CITY â€" Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. has signed his name in support of same-sex marriage at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Huntsman and his daughter, Abby, are among hundreds of political conservatives who signed a “friend of the court” brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to rule in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide. Other political notables included former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, GOP donor David Koch and Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker. Some who worked on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign also signed on.

Maybe some fucking sanity has finally emerged in the Republican Party. Huntsman has always been among the most liberal/centrist of the Republicans, one Mormon I respect. He has always spoken his conscience in the face of opposing and more popular opinions.

If SCOTUS doesn't back gay marriage after all this, then we truly are one fucked up country.

[Solitary]

The fact that it is even up for debate is disturbing to me for so many reasons. "Are we not human?" I'm not gay, but I have had gay friends and an androgynous lesbian girl friend who I still cherish. I hate people that can't accept them for who they are.  Solitary

[stromboli]

The funny/stupid parts about this are too numerous to count. The LDS church just excommunicated a guy who spoke up against the church's stance on LGBT rights, the church is simultaneously trying to push bogus gay right bills through Utah and Idaho legislatures, Marie Osmond came out in support gay marriage, and I guarantee Huntsman and Osmond are in no fear of excommunication. Talk about a mixed message.

When SCOTUS approves, and the prospect is they will, I'm going to hang a big sign on my trailer to congratulate them. That'll rattle my Mormon neighbors a little.

[SGOS]

To think the president before Obama campaigned on a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage at the Federal level.  Well, it's still not over until the Supreme Court actually decides one way or the other.  At which point congress will have to pass an amendment insuring the rights of everyone, which at congressional speeds could take 80 years.

Edit:  that's assuming the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage.  I don't think that's going to happen, but boy can I be wrong on these kinds of predictions!

[stromboli]

The Supreme court's job is basically to defend and/or interpret the Constitution. Every single decision based so far, overwhelmingly for gay marriage, is based on its constitutionality. In order to invalidate gay marriage at this point, they would have to invalidate every argument made as to the constitutionality of gay marriage. Since Prop 8 has already been struck down by SCOTUS, for them to turn around and do that would be in the face of everything that has happened. Not to say it won't, but I believe by doing so, Justice Kennedy would be reversing a previous stance.

Any amendment against gay marriage would have to establish that it is essentially damaging and runs counter to the spirit and letter of our national beliefs, quite difficult to do. The Amicus Briefs filed in this instance effectively demonstrate that both professionals and politicians do not see it as harmful and unconstitutional. The fact that prominent Republicans are for it is a big selling point.

not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful.

[kilodelta]

With a name like SCROTUS, they have to ban state bans on gay marriage. I'm pretty sure SCROTUS is Latin for scrotum. Checkmate.

[trdsf]

I'm thinking it's going to come down 5-4 in favor, mmmmmmmmaybe 6-3.  No hope of more than 7-2, and damned little hope of getting that.  CJ Roberts might be reachable with the right argument.  Alito, probably not but I can't rule it out.  Scalia and Thomas are just completely hopeless; if either of them votes in favor, I will walk into a church and light a candle.  Not going to promise anything weirder, because there exists a non-zero chance, however vanishingly small.

If I were to engage in some SCOTUS kremlinology, I'd say that this is the issue that Kennedy has adopted as his own (in much the same way that Blackmun took over abortion cases and managed to protect that right while he was still on the court) and his future legacy as a Supreme Court justice hangs on him successfully shepherding this through.

[stromboli]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html

By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”

Roberts was joined in his majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

I was wrong. It was Roberts, not Kennedy. Strange-Scalia voted in favor, Sotomayor against. Hmmmm..... we shall see.

[trdsf]

I have a couple questions that I have never had answered -- not even unsatisfactorily -- by anyone opposed to equal marriage rights.

• What would your reaction be if the Islamic definition of marriage was made the primary definition of marriage?  How is that different from you trying to put your religious definition on people who are not members of your church?
• What is the exact, measurable, definite damage that is done to, for example, a married heterosexual couple in Kansas by the mere existence of a married homosexual couple in Massachusetts.  Assume there is no knowledge of or relationship to each other between the couples.
• In the eyes of the state, which issues marriage licenses without which a marriage is not legal even if it's held in a church, a marriage is effectively a personal contract between two individuals.  What is the Constitutional basis to barring such a contract between two adults in full capacity based only on their gender?

This last one is the most relevant to the upcoming Supreme Court case -- hinging it on this sort of very basic level argument could force Roberts' hand, and maybe even Alito's, basing the argument on something that's so absolutely settled as far as the Court is concerned that it's going to make a dissent look mental.  The anti-equality side already has a hell of a hurdle to jump in that it's going to be difficult to frame an argument so narrowly that it wouldn't require overturning at least bits of Loving v Virginia or biting chunks out of the 14th Amendment.  Given the speed with which the Court overturned themselves on Bowers v Hardwick (a 1986 decision upholding anti-sodomy laws) -- partially in Romer v Evans (the 1996 Colorado case) and completely in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 -- I think they're not likely to apply the brakes.  Seventeen years between decision and overturning is lightning fast in SCOTUS terms.

Speaking of mental, I still can't envision any argument that could pry Thomas loose from Scalia, or Scalia's head loose from his ass.

[trdsf]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html

I was wrong. It was Roberts, not Kennedy. Strange-Scalia voted in favor, Sotomayor against. Hmmmm..... we shall see.

In Hollingsworth, the decision was not for or against gay marriage as such, but on a question of standing -- that is, when the state has declined to defend a law further after a loss in court, is it permissible for private parties to take the appeal further.  This is why there's such a weird split on the voting -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#U.S._Supreme_Court for details.

Basically, the court said that the private groups that took over when California decided not to appeal the overturning of Prop 8 did not have standing to do so, vacated the Ninth Circuit decision on the basis that it shouldn't have heard the case in the first place, and sent it back to the last decision made when the state was a party to the appeal -- which was the district court that overturned Prop 8.

So the votes on this case are not aligned with a justice's historical stands on LGBT questions and aren't really indicative of how they might vote on the upcoming case.  Essentially, they took Hollingsworth so they could tell the district court why they shouldn't have taken the case in the first place.

[stromboli]

Can't speak to the first two, but I think #3 is basically why Prop 8 and all of the following cases went against the anti gay proponents. Trying to make the case that marriage has a spiritual basis versus a legal contract is the gist of the whole case.

[SGOS]

How much weight will this particular court give to these particular amicus briefs on this specific issue?  Why would an ideological leaning court care anymore about an amicus brief that public opinion, or for that matter, why would they care about an amicus brief any more than they would care about the intent of the constitution?

Can we expect any amicus briefs to be filed by those opposing gay marriage now?

[stromboli]

The key is that an Amicus brief is provided to offer information that might be relevant to the decision. Whether it has any weight at all is up to the court. And you are right, an ideologically right leaning court may not take any of that into account. Pretty sure they all have an understanding of the issue by now.

Anyone who the court considers non involved and capable of offering a legitimate opinion can apparently file a brief, as I understand it. So no doubt there may be opposing briefs filed.

[trdsf]

Can't speak to the first two, but I think #3 is basically why Prop 8 and all of the following cases went against the anti gay proponents. Trying to make the case that marriage has a spiritual basis versus a legal contract is the gist of the whole case.

Pretty much.  The first two are so I can gauge the depth of the individual's hypocrisy and self-deception.  The last one is what I think is the central point to the whole question of gay marriage.

Oh, and I forgot the fourth point: if marriage is about having and raising children, explain why infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, and couples past the age of childbirth should be allowed to get married if gay couples can't on the basis of not being able to have children.

[stromboli]

Yeah, I don't remember the name, but we recently had a dude on here that was trying to make that argument. the simple fact is that after all the smoke and noise, marriage is a legal contract, as we have pointed out here many times.