32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Redfish]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

 

[Redfish]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

 

[Skylar]

gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. equality does not require gay marriage. equality means you are treated the same regardless of your sex, race, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientaton. you do not need the word marraige to achieve equality.


Likely because there is no such thing as 'gay marriage.'


Again, there is only one marriage (contract) law that both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to participate in.


Equality requires equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law is to seek to discriminate against them, which is why it's illegal and un-Constitutional.

Its also illogical. What part of the marriage contract can gays and lesbians not satisfy? What purpose would be served in discriminating against them? There's no compelling state interest in such discrimination, no harm caused to anyone in allowing them to marry, and no rational reason in doing so.

Apparently discrimination against gays and lesbians exists now because it existed before. AKA 'tradition'.

That's not good enough.

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

Loving v. Virginia indicates that marriage is a right. Explicitly contradicting you.

 

[Redfish]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

Loving v. Virginia indicates that marriage is a right. Explicitly contradicting you.

interracial marriage.

 

[Skylar]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

Loving v. Virginia indicates that marriage is a right. Explicitly contradicting you.

interracial marriage.

Loving v. Viginia explicitly says that marriage is a basic civil right. You say that marriage isn't a right.

You're wrong.

 

[Skylar]

quality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

If its equal, what would be the point? You seem invested in mainatining a degree of separation here. And 'separate but equal' doesn't have a great tract record. Recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is far simpler and protects all the freedoms and rights that everyone else enjoys.

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

Its obviously about equality. There's no particular reason to discriminate against them. No state interest is served, no harm is done to anyone when they marry, and there's no particular reason to deny them.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing. Somebody explain how an identical twin brother who isn't homosexual who takes exception with his homosexual brother's lifestyle, is being "racist" against his queer brother. I must have been asleep in class that day. I'm wide awake now though. One of you "gay rights" racism experts enlighten me. I'm all ears.

Wait....what?

[Seawytch does her best feigned-befuddlement when she knows damn well the points Tom Sweetnam was driving home]

The poster's point is that if there are two identical twins, one gay, one not, then gayness isn't genetic, it's behavioral.

Its irrelevant in terms of rights. Free speech is behavioral. Religion is behavioral. Marriage is behavioral. Yet we protect the exercise of them all.

Serial-killing and theft are also behavioral. It's just that the majority got together and deemed that free speech and organized religions and marriage have limits. You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded building. Yet technically, that's suppression of free speech. You can have religious convictions, but not any that say you may harm another human being or our country as a whole. You can have 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire, but that cannot be forced upon other states to practice. Gays may really want to access orphans to adopt via the loophole of marriage, but the jury is still deliberating as to how that affects child welfare:

[Actually, they're not still deliberating, they're just pretending to in order to "not look like bigots"...while they scramble on how best to protect children from what anyone's common sense is telling them about gays raising them...]

 

[WorldWatcher]

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually.

Wrong. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas prove that wrong. Both cases about homosexuality and both cases finding that State laws were unconstitutional based on 14th Amendment protections.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Serial-killing and theft are also behavioral. It's just that the majority got together and deemed that free speech and organized religions and marriage have limits.

Then you've abandoned 'if its not genetic, its not a right' nonsense. Good. It was a silly argument.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[QUOTE="Tom Sweetnam, post:
Tom Sweetnam was driving home]

The poster's point is that if there are two identical twins, one gay, one not, then gayness isn't genetic, it's behavioral.

Its irrelevant in terms of rights. Free speech is behavioral. Religion is behavioral. Marriage is behavioral. Yet we protect the exercise of them all.

Serial-killing and theft are also behavioral. It's just that the majority got together and deemed that free speech and organized religions and marriage have limits. You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded building. Yet technically, that's suppression of free speech. You can have religious convictions, but not any that say you may harm another human being or our country as a whole. You can have 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire, but that cannot be forced upon other states to practice. Gays may really want to access orphans to adopt via the loophole of marriage, but the jury is still deliberating as to how that affects child welfare:

[Actually, they're not still deliberating, they're just pretending to in order to "not look like bigots"...while they scramble on how best to protect children from what anyone's common sense is telling them about gays raising them...]

Your fears about gays adopting and molesting children are silly.

 

[Silhouette]

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually.

Wrong. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas prove that wrong. Both cases about homosexuality and both cases finding that State laws were unconstitutional based on 14th Amendment protections.


>>>>

Keep clinging to that life preserver while you ask yourself why in Windsor the Court brought up Loving and then went on to say that as of its Decision last June, gay marriage was "only allowed"..."in some states".?

If it applies, it applies. Apparently the Court thought at least at the time, that it didn't... They have been known to rethink their own past decisions.

 

[Silhouette]

[QUOTE="Tom Sweetnam, post:
Tom Sweetnam was driving home]

The poster's point is that if there are two identical twins, one gay, one not, then gayness isn't genetic, it's behavioral.

Its irrelevant in terms of rights. Free speech is behavioral. Religion is behavioral. Marriage is behavioral. Yet we protect the exercise of them all.

Serial-killing and theft are also behavioral. It's just that the majority got together and deemed that free speech and organized religions and marriage have limits. You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded building. Yet technically, that's suppression of free speech. You can have religious convictions, but not any that say you may harm another human being or our country as a whole. You can have 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire, but that cannot be forced upon other states to practice. Gays may really want to access orphans to adopt via the loophole of marriage, but the jury is still deliberating as to how that affects child welfare:

[Actually, they're not still deliberating, they're just pretending to in order to "not look like bigots"...while they scramble on how best to protect children from what anyone's common sense is telling them about gays raising them...]

Your fears about gays adopting and molesting children are silly.

If heteros were doing this soberly on main street in a "hetero pride parade" where they encouraged children to be looking on and even participating, those people would be denied adoption rights if they walked into an agency the next day and an intake person recognized them from the parade or photos like the ones above.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually.

Wrong. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas prove that wrong. Both cases about homosexuality and both cases finding that State laws were unconstitutional based on 14th Amendment protections.


>>>>

Keep clinging to that life preserver while you ask yourself why in Windsor the Court brought up Loving and then went on to say that as of its Decision last June, gay marriage was "only allowed"..."in some states".?

If it applies, it applies. Apparently the Court thought at least at the time, that it didn't... They have been known to rethink their own past decisions.

You're as ridiculous as you are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Incorrect.


Marriage is in fact a right, but that's not at issue in this case.


At issue is the fact that same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law, where the states seek to deny gay Americans that right in violation of the Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And his point is well taken. If you want protection under the 14th, you're going to have to show how two identical twins can be "born with" different orientations sexually.

Wrong. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas prove that wrong. Both cases about homosexuality and both cases finding that State laws were unconstitutional based on 14th Amendment protections.


>>>>

Keep clinging to that life preserver while you ask yourself why in Windsor the Court brought up Loving and then went on to say that as of its Decision last June, gay marriage was "only allowed"..."in some states".?

If it applies, it applies. Apparently the Court thought at least at the time, that it didn't... They have been known to rethink their own past decisions.

There is no difficulty in those pondering at all.

Loving was cited as an example of when State law violated the Constitution and when the States pass unconstitutional laws it is the SCOTUS's job to overturn such laws. It was used to emphasize that such State laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. That was the only need to reference Loving in the case because the case was not about State law, it was about Federal law. It is uncontested that States have the power to include and accept SSCM in their family code - in other words the State as unquestioned Constitutional authority to say "Yes" to SSCM. That is all Windsor determined, it did not address whether States have the Constitutional authority to discriminate and say "No".

The question as to whether States can say "No" will probably begin to be addresses this fall. And the SCOTUS has multiple options in addressing that issue:

1. If there continues to be no split in the Circuit Court decisions (so far all post-Windsor Circuit Courts are in agreement) that the logic of unconstitutional discrimination described by the SCOTUS in terms of equal protections under the 5th Amendment, that that same logical analysis applies to the States under the 14th Amendment. With no split the SCOTUS could reject all appeals coming out of the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit Courts leaving those decisions as the final word in those jurisdictions and sending a message to the other Circuit Courts that those decisions applied the correct application of Windsors logic. If the SCOTUS rejects the appeals, then the "stays" previously issues are ended (the language in the stays says this) and then the issues then revert to the Circuit Court to end their stays (if issued) and for the States to start recognizing SSCM's.

2. If the 6th Circuit Court, which has already heard oral arguments, rules in favor of a States ability to discriminate against homosexuals, then that generates a post-Windsor split in the Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS will likely be forced to take up an appeal and rule on SSCM.

3. Irregardless of what comes out of the 6th in the next few weeks, the SCOTUS could decide to: (A) accept on case from the cases already on appeal [10th, 7th, or 4th], (B) accept multiple cases and treat them seperately hearing separate arguments and issuing separate decisions, (C) merge any combination of current appeals into one oral arguments session and then issue a combined decision.

4. The SCOTUS could decide to "hold over" appeals to later conferences. We all expect the SCOTUS to determine whether to accept or reject an appeal either in their September 23rd Conference or early in the October term conferences. They are not required to address the issue on the appealee's timeline. They set their own. They could continue to role over the question form conference to conference to next year some time.


>>>>​

 

[Silhouette]

...The question as to whether States can say "No" will probably begin to be addresses this fall. And the SCOTUS has multiple options in addressing that issue:

1. If there continues to be no split in the Circuit Court decisions (so far all post-Windsor Circuit Courts are in agreement) that the logic of unconstitutional discrimination described by the SCOTUS in terms of equal protections under the 5th Amendment, that that same logical analysis applies to the States under the 14th Amendment. With no split the SCOTUS could reject all appeals coming out of the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit Courts leaving those decisions as the final word in those jurisdictions and sending a message to the other Circuit Courts that those decisions applied the correct application of Windsors logic. If the SCOTUS rejects the appeals, then the "stays" previously issues are ended (the language in the stays says this) and then the issues then revert to the Circuit Court to end their stays (if issued) and for the States to start recognizing SSCM's.

2. If the 6th Circuit Court, which has already heard oral arguments, rules in favor of a States ability to discriminate against homosexuals, then that generates a post-Windsor split in the Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS will likely be forced to take up an appeal and rule on SSCM.

3. Irregardless of what comes out of the 6th in the next few weeks, the SCOTUS could decide to: (A) accept on case from the cases already on appeal [10th, 7th, or 4th], (B) accept multiple cases and treat them seperately hearing separate arguments and issuing separate decisions, (C) merge any combination of current appeals into one oral arguments session and then issue a combined decision.

4. The SCOTUS could decide to "hold over" appeals to later conferences. We all expect the SCOTUS to determine whether to accept or reject an appeal either in their September 23rd Conference or early in the October term conferences. They are not required to address the issue on the appealee's timeline. They set their own. They could continue to role over the question form conference to conference to next year some time.


>>>>​

The Court has already begun addressing whether or not states may say no to gay marriage. You may remember them granting the stay on gay marriage in Utah this Summer? And this:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a ruling by a federal appeals court that would have allowed same-sex couples in Virginia to get married this morning.
The justices granted a request made last week by opponents of gay marriage, including Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg. Lawyers for McQuigg said allowing same-sex couples to marry before a Supreme Court review could create “uncertainty for the public” and “irreparable injury to the commonwealth.”

The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld a ruling by a Norfolk federal judge overturning Virginia’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court did not give an explanation or release the vote totals Wednesday.
“The cryptic nature of the court’s order makes it difficult to ascertain its reasoning,” said Carl Tobias, a professor for constitutional law at the University of Richmond School of Law... Supreme Court s stay of Virginia same-sex marriages no surprise - Roanoke Times Virginia

The Court is ruling on these stays because they are consistent with the wording in Windsor 2013; while allowing gay marriages to happen in the interim is inconsistent with Windsor 2013. There is no mystery. The Court is telling the public what they consider the interim law to be. They are also sending a message to the lower courts about what their position should be.

The Supreme Court isn't slavish to what the lower courts are doing. Their master is the People of the US and the US Constitution's interpretation. This isn't a sporting event where "two teams of the lower courts" are battling it out and the SCOTUS will simply "rule with the winner". This is a sophisticated question of constitutional law with heated and weighty opinions on both sides.

I think ultimately it will come down to the welfare of children, their civil rights & whether or not setting a precedent under the 14th for just some deviant sexual [or any, using precedent] behaviors-in-minority being able to dictate their behaviors that are repugnant, to an unwilling majority.

The ramifications for the discruption of penal and civil codes is gigantic with such a precedent. It would literally shift the power of these codes from state to federal jurisdiction with this one event. States' discreet communities currently are the lords of human behaviors within their midst. The majority decides which are allowed and which are not. This would shift that power. How in the future would you deny other repugnant behaviors from majority regulation? It would then be discrimination. What is more repugnant than ass-sex parading as "mother and father" to children? No, really? This is an objective question of law...

 

[rightwinger]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

Correct.


Citizens have the Fifth Amendment right to individual liberty, free from interference by the state – where that right to individual liberty also manifests as the right to make decisions about one's personal, private life.