Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Skylar]

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Is there anyone who thinks that if put to a vote today, California wouldn't affirm gay marriage in a heart beat? For those under 40 in this state, support is nearly 80%. Even among the seniors, its roughly half.

Public sentiment swung toward gay marriage starting in about 2011. And hasn't shown any sign of slowing. With year over year polls typically setting a new record each time its measured.

I strongly suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to climb as the sheer attrition of time counters consistent opposition of gay marriage by seniors with inevitable dirt naps.

It would lose.

Californians Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage PPIC Publication

Not likely

• In the wake of the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision, support for same-sex marriage is at a new high.
  PPIC’s September 2013 statewide survey found that a record high 61% of Californians and 64% of likely voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (34% of adults and 32% of likely voters oppose). Solid majorities of Californians (59%) and likely voters (63%) approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling on Proposition 8 that allows gay marriage in California.
• Public opinion has undergone a reversal since 2000.
  In January 2000, the first time PPIC asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 39% of Californians were in favor and 55% were opposed. In October 2008, just before the passage of Proposition 8 (which banned same-sex marriage), 44% were in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Support for same-sex marriage moved above 50% in 2010, and the margin of support has continued to grow. Support has risen 5 points since May 2013, just before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling.
• Since October 2008, support has risen by double digits among Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
  Although support for allowing same-sex marriage is still far higher among Democrats (76%, up 20 points since October 2008) and independents (67%, up 14 points), it has nearly doubled among Republicans (from 23% to 44%, with 53% opposed).
• A majority of older Californians now favor allowing gay marriage; support is also up among other groups.
  For the first time, a majority of Californians age 55 and older favor allowing same-sex marriage (55% favor, 39% oppose)—a near reversal of opinion since October 2008 (34% favor, 58% opposed). Support for same-sex marriage has grown a considerable 15 points among younger Californians, age 18–34 (from 53% to 68%), and 13 points among those age 35–54 (from 45% to 58%). Majorities of women (66%, up 19 points) and men (55%, up 13 points) now support same-sex marriage. A majority of parents expressed opposition in 2008 (42% favor, 54% opposed), but now the reverse is true (53% favor, 42% oppose). There have been double-digit increases in support among Latinos (from 36% to 54%) and whites (from 50% to 65%).

Funny how California doesn't speak for everyone else.

Californians do speak for California. Which is what is being discussed.

 

[Syriusly]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Well that is your opinion- but your opinion counts no more than mine- the courts opinion however does count.

That is why in over 30 states, same gender couples now have the same 'liberty' to marry as my wife and I enjoy.

And what gives homosexuals the right to set the standard for everyone else?

LOL....what makes you think that homosexuals are? Do you think that the entire Supreme Court is composed of homosexuals?

This case is about equal rights in marriage law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

You seek to force people to recognize it. Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex? What would happen then? You wouldn't be so keen on same sex marriage then would you?

Now, magnify that to a state government. If you force them to recognize same sex marriage, you are forcing that way of life on the people of that state. If the state is forced to comply, that compliance would open churches who oppose gay marriage and/or refuse to marry gay couples up to discrimination suits. Since, by your definition, the marital rights you and your wife enjoy (and which were consummated by in a church by a religious official most likely) should be afforded to same sex couples. You know what that means, right? You will be forcing those who are religiously opposed to same sex marriage to condone and consummate a form of marriage they see as sinful.

 

[Skylar]

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

You seek to force people to recognize it. Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex? What would happen then? You wouldn't be so keen on same sex marriage then would you?

Who is being forced into a same sex marriage? Your analogy is just a steaming lump.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This case is about equal rights in marriage law.

There is no "marriage law." The Constitution does not cover "marriage law" nor has it ever. The fact that the states have made their own laws on the subject should confirm that fact. The sanctioning or restriction of one form of marriage or another is a 10th Amendment issue.

I will not have the government imposing its will on the states to conform to or recognize same sex marriage. If this is a matter of conscience, let people act on their own. If "love is love" let the people of their respective states decide that.

Let gays marry if they will, let straights do likewise; but don't force someone to marry you against their religious doctrine or gender preference. It's open and shut. There is a thin line between recognition and outright submission.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is 'no risk' of churches being forced to marry anyone they don't want to- it has been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and no churches in that time have been forced to marry blacks, or forced to marry Jews, nor been required to make women priests, or required to make African Americans full church members.

Then how else will gay couples get married? In some farcical chapel in Las Vegas? Who will marry them? The government?

You don't seem to get it. Since religion (not just Christianity) has been used to consummate marriage all throughout American history, it only serves that religion as a result of a positive ruling in favor of advocates would have to consummate a form of marriage they oppose.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL....what makes you think that homosexuals are?

Look no further than Memories Pizza, or Sweet Cakes. One was shut down temporarily for stating a religious opinion, the other was destroyed for religiously objecting to serve a gay couple. You know what that tells me? Homosexuals are setting the standard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

You seek to force people to recognize it. Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex? What would happen then? You wouldn't be so keen on same sex marriage then would you?

Who is being forced into a same sex marriage? Your analogy is just a steaming lump.

The stupidest statement of the day Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex?

 

[Redfish]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

 

[Seawytch]

There is 'no risk' of churches being forced to marry anyone they don't want to- it has been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and no churches in that time have been forced to marry blacks, or forced to marry Jews, nor been required to make women priests, or required to make African Americans full church members.

Then how else will gay couples get married? In some farcical chapel in Las Vegas? Who will marry them? The government?

For one thing, we've been marrying in churches for decades.

You've never heard of a civil wedding ceremony? Seriously? What planet were you born on?

 

[Redfish]

Lets just face reality, OK? There is a very strong disagreement on this issue in the USA. Maybe the SC will settle it, but I seriously doubt that it will be over no matter how they rule.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

You seek to force people to recognize it. Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex?

I am not seeking to force you to marry anyone.

You seek to force people not to marry.

I think that they should have the freedom to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

This case is about equal rights in marriage law.

There is no "marriage law." The Constitution does not cover "marriage law" nor has it ever. The fact that the states have made their own laws on the subject should confirm that fact. The sanctioning or restriction of one form of marriage or another is a 10th Amendment issue.

I will not have the government imposing its will on the states to conform to or recognize same sex marriage. If this is a matter of conscience, let people act on their own. If "love is love" let the people of their respective states decide that.

Of course there is 'marriage law'- every state has marriage law.

And every American has a right to marriage- that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court over and over.

But I agree let people act on their own- let them get married.

Stop forcing them not to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Lets just face reality, OK? There is a very strong disagreement on this issue in the USA. Maybe the SC will settle it, but I seriously doubt that it will be over no matter how they rule.

Just as Loving v. Virginia did not stop the disagreement, within 3 decades the issue essentially disappeared.

I suspect it will take even less time for same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

Nothing against a Constitutional Amendment- just doesn't look like it will be necessary.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.

 

[Iceweasel]

Lets just face reality, OK? There is a very strong disagreement on this issue in the USA. Maybe the SC will settle it, but I seriously doubt that it will be over no matter how they rule.

Just as Loving v. Virginia did not stop the disagreement, within 3 decades the issue essentially disappeared.

I suspect it will take even less time for same gender marriage.

I doubt it. Straight people don't see gender as ambiguous. A while man with a black/asian/hispanic wife doesn't change the birds and bees thing that floats 97% of the population. It will never be seen the same.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....what makes you think that homosexuals are?

Look no further than Memories Pizza, or Sweet Cakes. One was shut down temporarily for stating a religious opinion, the other was destroyed for religiously objecting to serve a gay couple. You know what that tells me? Homosexuals are setting the standard.

Oh cry me a river.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them.

 

[Iceweasel]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

Nothing against a Constitutional Amendment- just doesn't look like it will be necessary.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.

Not for a similar issue though. You lose sight of that.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL....what makes you think that homosexuals are?

Look no further than Memories Pizza, or Sweet Cakes. One was shut down temporarily for stating a religious opinion, the other was destroyed for religiously objecting to serve a gay couple. You know what that tells me? Homosexuals are setting the standard.

Oh cry me a river.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them.

LOL. You are quite the drama queen!