Gay Marriage, Drunk Driving, and Property Rights: 3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch in 2013

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on gay marriage, the limits of police power during drunk driving investigations, and the rights of property owners to develop their land.

How are the justices expected to rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of their decisions?

Reason.com Managing Editor Damon Root sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to talk about the cases to watch in the Supreme Court's current session.

Shot by Amanda Winkler and Meredith Bragg; edited by Bragg.

Approximately 7.45.

Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Liberty||

    How do cosmatarians justify a living constitution when it suits them, such as when they want to force voters to accept homosexual marriage against their will? Does anyone think that the writers of the fourteenth amendment intended for it to justify homosexual marriage?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    a) What fags are forcing you to marry them?

    b) Not the 14th, the 10th, you straw-man DERPing half-wit.

  • Richard01||

    A good informative post that you have shared and thankful your work for sharing the information. Got some appealing information and would like to give it a try. Applaud your work and keep sharing your information.Really impressed! Everything is very open and very clear clarification of issues.
    Call Option || Option Tips

  • Richard01||

    Really impressed! Everything is very open and very clear clarification of issues. It contains truly facts. Nifty Options

  • Liberty||

    The 10th amend will force states to accept homosexual marriage? Idiocy. What, are you even talking about?

  • CosmoBro||

    Theocratic authoritarian rule on a state level is no better than that at the federal level. We do not live in a democracy. We, as citizens, do not have the right to vote away the freedoms of those unlike us. Fascism imposed by a (slim) majority is still fascism. If you insist on continuing to suck that Constitution dick, think about it this way: at the time of the Founding Fathers, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The government had no part in the practice whatsoever. Marriage was, assuredly, not even brought up during Constitutional proceedings. Unfortunately, do to racist reactions to interracial marriage, marriage licensing is now ingrained in our society. Returning to original marrital conditions would allow any and all consenting adults to marry whomever they wish, without forcing any private institution to do a damn thing. Tolerant churches can hold gay marriages, nutjob churches don't have to. You and your bigoted buddies can shit talk gays as much as your bible-fuckin' hearts desire. But, I assume that you, like so many other paleos, would rather keep marriage a governmental issue for the sole purpose of disallowing gay folks to marry.

  • Liberty||

    ...suck that Constitution dick...?
    The Cosmotarian of cosmotarians. He hates the constitution. He believes in federal rule from Washington. Why not invade Iraq, to install a libertarian regime? Then why force states to do so? He thinks any churches who have actually read the bible, which repeatedly condemns homosexuality, are "nutjob." I'm not even religious, but of course the cosma-fucking-tarian assumes I am. Fuck you. You and your "tolerant" cosmotarian Obama-voting buddies should go to San Francisco and leave us alone. Real libertarians would care less about this issue. But Cosmotarians think it's a matter of life and fucking death, look at our writer Gode. The idiot voted for Obama because of gay marriage and whined about his lefty friends illiterate homosexual son felt "left-out," and promoted his book about how to get your kid all kinds of taxpayer-funded goodies. These people value "inclusion" way more than they value liberty, and don't see the contradiction.

  • CosmoBro||

    What in the Sam Hill are you blathering on about? Obama, what does he have to do with anything? It's ignorant of you to even assume I voted for a democrat because I'm in favor of marriage equality. I voted for Gary Johnson, like that even matters in the context of this discussion. And who is "Gode"? You can't just throw around names of people you don't like and expect that to serve as a valid retort. Your consistent and unabashed logically fallacious talking points are doing nothing for your cause. You really do take strawmaning to an entirely new level. And, seriously now, what is your beef with inclusion? Nobody is saying that you have to get married to a gay dude, go to gay marriages, or even support the idea of gay marriage. What exactly is the problem with letting people of the same sex get hitched? Huh? Can you even think of a non-religious reason, Mr. "I'm not even religious"?

  • Liberty||

    By Gode I meant Godwin, I was confusing him with another, similarly idiotic, writer on a different website. In case you don't know, he writes trash like this:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....ion-policy
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....g-for-obam

    "or even support the idea of gay marriage. "
    Plenty of people are, actually, these liberals, with their hate-speech and anti-discrimination legislation, intend to do exactly that.
    I can think of many reasons to oppose homosexual marriage at the federal level. Firstly, our constitution, which you hate so much. Our history of states' rights. And while I would support, in principle, homosexual marriage at the state government level,(I would rather abolish it entirely) I would not support it as a cultural matter. Homosexuality is unnatural, deviant behavior, a threat to the entire system of the family, that should not be tolerated by society.

  • CosmoBro||

    Boy oh boy are paleos predictable! If I had a dime for every time one of ya'll came at me with the "hur hur family hur hur deviancy hur hur" argument against homosexuality, I would probably have a few of them there dimes. Look, I'm not going to even attempt to change your mind. You have a right to believe whatever you want about homosexuality, and I respect that. In fact, I could care less what you think. But, seriously, do you not see the massive amount of irony in this situation? You claim to support liberty (hell, it's your username), but you turn around and support denying an entire group of people the ability to form a social and/or spiritual contract with the person(s) they love....because you don't like what they do in the bedroom? That sir/madam is not liberty.

  • Liberty||

    This is the cosmos conception of liberty:
    "The ability to do an action, and have the rest of society unquestionably acccept it."
    I have a different definition. Gays should have the liberty to commit sodomy, and I should have the liberty to tell them what I think about them. I already stated, maybe you didn't see it, that I suport homosexual marriage at the state level for that reason.

  • CosmoBro||

    You know how I know you're gay? Your finger smells like Rupert Everett.

  • CosmoBro||

    You know how else I know you're gay? Two words: false teeth. Oh, and two more: you're gay.

  • CosmoBro||

  • Liberty||

    He even uses the "anyone who thinks sodomy is disgusting and unnatural must himself be a sodomite" cliche.

  • CosmoBro||

    Were you talking? Anyway, you know how else I know you're gay? You make me talk when we have sex. Oh, and every time we go out to eat you wanna sit on the terrace.

  • waaminn||

    OK so who comes up with all that crazy stuff?

    www.anono-web.tk

  • Richard01||

    I have explain so many article of this site in which some of them were very intresting and inspiring.This article has good title with good description. Stock Option Tips || Options

  • BlogimiDei||

    Kyfho Myoba - Your reply is PERFECTION.

    I will be watching you...

  • Training Semarang||

    thanks for these info. visit our web on Training Center Semarang.
    please comment to improvement.

    success for you all.

    PELATIHAN SEMARANG

  • Liberty||

    H

  • ygsrf||

    2013 Happy New Year,NFL,NBA,fashion kickoff for u

  • Alexjonson01||

    Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is great, let alone the content! Ncdex Tips || Indian Stock Market

  • Alexjonson01||

    I wanted to thank you for this excellent read. its very fine post. thanks for sharing it.I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion.Bullion Tips || Nifty Future Tips

  • rickl7069||

    First, we are talking about state licensing, not marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years without United States licensing, and will exist long after the United States. The problems have arisen due to government interference in marriage. If our government would just get it's nose out of marriages completely, then all of these arguments would become moot and quit wasting taxpayers time and money.
    A license is permission to do something, why on earth does anyone need permission from our government to be married, straight or gay?

  • CosmoBro||

    Winner winner chicken dinner!

  • Liberty||

    Because we have a government centered society.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE