Will the Supreme Court Take on the Issue of the States and Same-Sex Marriage? An Overview of the Route of the Same-Sex Marriage Issue to the Supreme Court

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

Will the U.S. Supreme Court  take on the issue of the states and same-sex marriage ?  

This remains to be seen.  Last week, the Supreme Court put same-sex marriage cases originating in five different states on the list of cases to consider hearing.  The justices have now met, at least initially as of September 30, 2014, to consider the cases.  This conference is not to hear the cases and then issue a ruling, because the Supreme Court has not gotten that far.  Rather, since the Supreme Court has the option to accept or refuse a request to review a case from a lower federal court, they must first vote to hear the case.  If at least four of the nine justices agree to review these cases, a requirement known as the "Rule of Four", than a hearing will be scheduled and eventually the justices will rule on those cases leaving us with a majority decision and opinion on the subject of same-sex marriage at the state level.  If the justices decide to review the cases, the process of the hearing, conference, ruling and opinion writing could take about a year.  If the justices hear a case in the winter or spring, Americans could get a ruling by June or July of 2015.  The cases the Supreme Court is considering are from the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal, which are the federal appellate court for three circuits.  These cases originated in five different states: Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin.

 

How did same-sex marriage get to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Over the past year, suits have been filed in almost every state that legally bans same-sex marriage, including Georgia.  These suits are challenging these state denials of same-sex marriage, whether denied by state law or by the state constitution, as violations of the U.S. Constitution.  Supporters of same-sex marriage rights argue that to deny the ability of same-sex couples to acquire a marriage license from the state, and thus the same legal benefits as other married couples, is a violation of the 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause guaranteeing equal protection under the law.  Those that oppose same-sex marriage or support the state bans have argued in the courts that the U.S. Constitution does NOT prohibit the states from defining marriage in a way that excludes same-sex couples.  Some of these suits have made it out of the lowest level of the federal court system, district courts, and into the intermediate appellate level.  Each of these intermediate appellate courts have jurisdiction (authority) extending over a particular geographic boundary.  These geographic boundaries are referred to as "circuits".  The losing parties in these circuit courts of appeal, the supporters of state bans, have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decisions of the lower courts in the hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the state bans as constitutional exercises in state authority.  The Supreme Court is the last court of appeal.   If there is a hearing and a ruling, the decision of a majority of the Supreme Court justices will be the final decision and will essentially become law.  If there is no hearing and no decision, the decision of the lower court stands.  Every Court of Appeal that has heard a state same-sex marriage case has ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Before this, only 1 out of 22 lower federal district courts had upheld a state ban as constitutional.  Therefore, no decision may mean that same-sex marriages can resume in the states' whose bans were overturned at the lower levels of the federal court system.


If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

After the September 11th attacks: A Short Guide and Timeline of the Foreign Policy Actions Taken post 9/11

While most adult Americans remember vividly where they were on the day of the attacks, feeling those same emotions and fears 13 years later, many are a bit uncertain about the events that came afterward.  This is especially so for those that have only recently entered adulthood.  As a Political Science Professor, I find that a high percentage of my students are confused about which country was invaded as a direct result of the attacks and which came later, but was indirectly related to this horrific slaughter of 3,000 Americans. Knowing where these countries are on a map is a whole other challenge.  Here are the facts:

Who attacked us?

Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden, organized and carried out the attacks from their base in Afghanistan.  The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in order to hunt down al-Qaeda and its leader bin Laden, but also to overthrow the Taliban, the group brutally ruling the country.  The Taliban, are an extremist Islamic group, like al-Qaeda, that took control of Afghanistan by force in the 1990s.  While both are violent and extremist, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have different reasons for existing.  Al-Qaeda is an organization bent on terrorizing the U.S. and our supporters in an effort to change policy in Arab countries and the U.S.  The Taliban are isolated to Afghanistan and operated as a ruling regime.  The Taliban are a local group that overthrew the government in Afghanistan in order to install a theocracy.  The Taliban's efforts do not extend beyond Afghanistan's borders, unlike the efforts of al-Qaeda.  This is why the U.S. deals with the two groups differently.  Because the Taliban and al-Qaeda share a vision, the Taliban gave refuge and support to al-Qaeda beginning in the late 1990s, allowing them to train and hideout in the country.  The U.S.'s secondary goal to hunting al-Qaeda was to overthrow the brutal Taliban regime and support the creation of a democratically elected government.  The U.S., and now the democratically elected Afghan government, continues to this day to fight remnants of the Taliban who are attempting to reassert control over the country.  Under the Obama administration in 2011, bin Laden was found and killed while hiding out in neighboring Pakistan.  The fight against al-Qaeda continues, but unlike with the Taliban, it is a global fight as this group and its members can relocate just about anywhere.

Stop Playing Their Game

If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!

What game?

The game I am speaking of is the partisan and divisive game used by many politicians, candidates, and polarizing news radio or television pundits.  It is the game of manipulation.  The game of manipulation is designed to gain your attention and to then gain influence over your opinion.  I am talking about the politicians in your party, especially the "celebrity" types, as well as the television and radio news hosts you listen to, all of whom find a way to be the loudest mouth in the national conversation.  DO NOT assume that I am only talking about the other party, the other shows, or the other politicians.  I am talking about the politicians in your party, especially the "celebrity" types, as well as the television and radio news hosts you listen to, all of whom find a way to be the loudest mouth in the national conversation. 

What are the methods of play?

These divisive and polarizing figures take the path of least resistance.  On one hand, this entails "dumbing us down" with overly simplified, overly broad, misleading and sometimes downright untruthful statements.  These characters do not get your vote or attention unless you are filled with rage or passion; but more importantly, they do not get your attention unless they reduce complex arguments down to a "bumper sticker sized"statement.  Bumper sticker sized statements, sometimes referred to as "sound bites" are better tools of manipulation than complex discussions or nuanced statements.  Bumper sticker statements and sound bites convey a minimal amount of information that is devoid of context.  To include context in a statement, would lead to facts that do not support the statement or opinion, and would also lead you to believe that the world is a bit more complex than the speaker would like you to believe.  Context and fact may also lead you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else.  For some politicians, partisans and ideologically extreme media characters, educating you in historical fact, statistics and context would be counter-productive to their effort to hold your attention and counter-productive to their policy goals.  

The second method of play is distraction.  The game's objective is not to have analytically and substantive discussions or statements about meaningful action and policy, but to prevent us by distraction from coming to our own conclusions using critical thinking skills.  One such "shiny object" used for the sake of distraction every summer is the vacation taken by the President.    Another such shiny object is the attendance at a fundraising event by the President.  Most of these shiny objects are brought to us by a steady barrage of pictures and video clips of Presidential activities.

Example...don't worry...it's non-partisan ;)

Every president, Republican or Democrat, goes on vacations, some extended  and some short; and every president, Republican or Democrat attends fundraising events all over the country.  Much of the time, these trips occur shortly before, during, or after a major news event.  For President Obama it has been the recent August vacation and golf outing in the midst of the growing ISIS threat and beheading of journalist James Foley.  President Obama also received some flack for neglecting to visit Ferguson, Missouri during the civil disorder related to the police shooting of Michael Brown.  For President Bush, the most resilient memory Americans have of a bad photo op is his 2005 fly over of the damage in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.  Another memory of the Bush administration is the great deal of