Supreme Court to take up Same Sex Marriage...

[Si modo]

Two different cases here.

United States v. Windsor - this challenged part of DOMA, the part that says gay couples can't get Federal benefits. What it doesn't challenge, apparently, is the bigger issue of whether states could refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses. In any event, DOMA was always unconstitutional, it was passed by Congress to get the issue off the table when it seemed Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Because it took another decade for a state to actually legalize same-sex marriage, it's taken a while for for someone to say the Emperor has no clothes. Striking down DOMA would effectively make gay marriage legal for the whole country, because the nine states that allow it would issue licenses to people the other states and the Feds would have to recognize.

Hollingsworth v. Perry is the more troubling one to me, because as I've said, I'm never really comfortable with the courts legislating from the bench, using their one-stop shop for doing so, the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker clearly had a conflict of interest, when he crafted a ruling that was geared towards previous rulings made by Justice Kennedy. Even the 9th Circuit reeled him back a bit, and frankly, when you get reeled back by the "9th Circus", you've probably gone too far.

The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)

Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.

Both Kennedy and Roberts have their legacy to consider. Roberts is young enough to not want to be on the wrong side of this...

Thank gawd justices are appointed so they can concentrate on the Constitution and not politics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All the problems we face in this nation and we become obsessed with nonsensical social issues... no wonder NOTHING ever gets fixed.

We are giving the powers that be to much control over our lives because we all argue like children over the smallest of issues. We've proven that we're incapable of running our own lives so they're all to happy to jump in and do it for us.

 

[Freewill]

don't play cutsie-poo semantic games, child.

what law governs gay marriage? When was marriage not defined as between a man and a woman? All states restrict who a person can marry. If gay marriage is forced upon us, not through the legislature but the judicial branch does that not mean that all marriage laws go out the window? Does that not mean you can then marry or sister? If not then why not?

doma

DOMA??? Really? DOMA does not define gay marriage it does quite the opposite. So try again. The liberal left will say that Obamacare is the law of the land because it was passed through the legislature. Funny they don't think the same of DOMA.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, you dodged the question.

Nothing you've stated or cited can be correlated rationally to your claim. Nor have you defined 'normalization' in context for each of these civilizations. You're just prattling off platitudes and expecting them to be taken seriously by people who actually know history.

But your statement about Europe tells me all I need to know about your ability to remain intellectually honest. Europe is in no danger of being 'replaced' by Islam and homosexuality has zero to do with any social upheaval there.

You can't name one civilization that passed on homosexuality as a value worth keeping can you?

Homosexuality isn't a 'value'. This might explain all the cognitive dissonance you've shown in this thread.

Is marriage? Respect for the family? Religion? What are all those traditional values anyway? Acceptance of same sex marriage is on the wrong side of history. It is on the side of the failures. Because it is a significant failure, it will not survive. Whether you want it to or not. It will not survive.

 

[Article 15]

Say what? What person was not allowed to marry?

Don't play cutsie-poo semantic games, child.

What law governs gay marriage? When was marriage not defined as between a man and a woman? All states restrict who a person can marry. If gay marriage is forced upon us, not through the legislature but the judicial branch does that not mean that all marriage laws go out the window? Does that not mean you can then marry or sister? If not then why not?

Does anyone else find it hilarious that this clown calls himself "Freewill" and sports an American flag avi?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Two different cases here.

United States v. Windsor - this challenged part of DOMA, the part that says gay couples can't get Federal benefits. What it doesn't challenge, apparently, is the bigger issue of whether states could refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses. In any event, DOMA was always unconstitutional, it was passed by Congress to get the issue off the table when it seemed Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Because it took another decade for a state to actually legalize same-sex marriage, it's taken a while for for someone to say the Emperor has no clothes. Striking down DOMA would effectively make gay marriage legal for the whole country, because the nine states that allow it would issue licenses to people the other states and the Feds would have to recognize.

Hollingsworth v. Perry is the more troubling one to me, because as I've said, I'm never really comfortable with the courts legislating from the bench, using their one-stop shop for doing so, the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker clearly had a conflict of interest, when he crafted a ruling that was geared towards previous rulings made by Justice Kennedy. Even the 9th Circuit reeled him back a bit, and frankly, when you get reeled back by the "9th Circus", you've probably gone too far.

The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)

Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.

We all do, in that this should not be a ‘controversy’ in the first place; the states should simply allow access to marriage by same-sex couples, in accordance with the Constitution.

I do disagree that this is ‘legislating from the bench,’ however, as the states abdicated their right to address this issue when they enacted measures to prohibit same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, in violation of the Founding Document.

To be consistent with current 14th Amendment jurisprudence, then, the Court should rule to uphold the lower courts’ rulings, allowing same-sex couples access to marriage, and disallowing the Federal government from interfering with states correctly following the law on the issue.

Note that there are standing issues in play as well, and both cases are somewhat unique in that neither will be defended by their receptive Chief Executives, Congress will be defending DOMA, where the Administration is correctly siding with the case law on the issue, and Prop 8 is being defended by private citizens opposed to Equal Protection doctrine, and it’s possible they might not even have standing.

 

[JoeB131]

Just something else that the government will force onto the majority. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?

How is this being forced upon you?

If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?

Just as Obamatax is being forced upon the majority.

There is no mention of health care in the Consitution or the Bill of Rights. As there is no mention of marriage. So if my state decides that marriage is between a man and a woman, as it always has been defined, that that is the state's right to do so.

IF this is to become a right then let's do a consitutional amendment and have the majority of the people decide the issue, not a court where there are almost half with a pre-dispostion either way. Rights are defined, they are not made up out of sail cloth.

I didn't ask about your constitutional fetishist inclinations.

I asked how gay marriage becoming legal has ANY EFFECT on your life. At all. one little bit.

because frankly, you seem awfully invested in something that has no impact on your life.

 

[JoeB131]

Just something else that the government will force onto the majority. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?

How is this being forced upon you?

If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?

The very minute a private individual has to accept same sex marriage they are affected. Every photographer forced to perform services for a same sex couple's wedding, every counselor, every wedding cake baker, every parent with a child in school is affected. If they could get into an unholy alliance and not bother anyone else it would be a different story. But that's not the case, is it?

So people won't be allowed to discriminate if they have businesses? So what?

Frankly, I'm trying to understand how a photographer who runs a marginal business to start with wouldn't welcome the hell out of more potential customers.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.

After the fiasco of Roe v. Wade, they might just rule against same sex marriage and let it be fought out where it should be, in legislatures.

Decisions like these ought to be fought and decided in the Legislative Branch, that's the role that the Constitution lays out for our nation and that's where Women's Rights was established. The role of the Supreme Court should solely be based upon prior legislation, and the "intent" of Constitution (it's amendments and bills of rights) during the time it was written and ratified. Right side or wrong side of history, cases should not be decided based upon "what is the popular thing to do at the time" and certainly not based upon the latest poll results. If "popularity and lifestyle" was the criteria for basing a Supreme Court decision, what would the ramifications be should the majority of the nation lean towards pro-life? Should abortion rights be based upon the same "popular" majority? Some may view the sanctification of life as being on the "right side of history" as well.

The other thought to be considered is the voice of the people. In California, for example, (right or wrong) it was the voice of the people at the ballot box that determined the outcome of Proposition 8. Does any judge have the right to completely nullify an individuals voting right on an issue, simply because they don't agree with the outcome? How much weight does the Constitutional right of the voter really have, if a select few in judicial postions can simply toss them out as "irrelevent"? This case before the Supreme Court is not a simple one there are many factors to consider, that only the established rule of law [under the United States Constitution] can answer.

 

[bodecea]

They didn't fail for the sole reason they normalized homosexuality. Normalizing homosexuality is a symptom of a civilization terminally ill. Every civilization that normalized homosexuality and there were many, never passed that value on after their demise. The pattern has been repeated many, many times. The civilization is so decayed and depraved it fails. Whatever replaces it rejects the depraved ways including normalization of homosexuality. If same sex marriage was a value on the right side of history, we would have had it since the Pharoahs ruled Egypt.

So, IOW, you can't point to even one, nor can you cite how 'normalizing homosexuality' contributed anything to it's fall, nor can you cite any evidence whatsoever of this being a pattern.

Wow. What a surprise.

I just told you. You want to create some kind of strawman just to have something to say. Out of all the civilizations that have normalized homosexuality does one exist today? Just one. Has any civilization that normalized homosexuality ever passed that value on to the civilization that replaced the failure? Not one. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Chinese all had recognition of same sex rights and they were all replaced by civilizations that slaughtered gays. If you want a present day example, look at Europe. Europe is failing and being replaced by islam. They will hang gays from lamp posts when Europe finally dies.

Of all the ancient civilizations that did not normalize homosexuality, which one exists today?

 

[JoeB131]

If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.

After the fiasco of Roe v. Wade, they might just rule against same sex marriage and let it be fought out where it should be, in legislatures.

Please point out a "failed" civilization that failed because it normalized homosexuality.

Thanks.

They didn't fail for the sole reason they normalized homosexuality. Normalizing homosexuality is a symptom of a civilization terminally ill. Every civilization that normalized homosexuality and there were many, never passed that value on after their demise. The pattern has been repeated many, many times. The civilization is so decayed and depraved it fails. Whatever replaces it rejects the depraved ways including normalization of homosexuality. If same sex marriage was a value on the right side of history, we would have had it since the Pharoahs ruled Egypt.

So can you name a civilization that you are specifically talking about?

Name the civilization. It was a pretty simple question.

All civilizatiions fall, eventually. Or change into something else.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage, and I fully expect that it will, then people will just become more creative in avoiding the effects. Two years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost. Following the example I set, a local photographer is using the same principles to refuse to provide photography services to same sex couples. You'll just find more and more people finding ways to avoid acceptance. No one is going to be particularly harmed by adjustment of business practices. It will become just another incidence of a nation more divided tomorrow than it was today. The US will divide into two completely different cultures who not only don't want to have anything to do with one another, but exist independently from one another. The nation will not be able to tolerate such a division. We will follow all the other failures into the dustbin of history.

 

[Katzndogz]

How is this being forced upon you?

If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?

The very minute a private individual has to accept same sex marriage they are affected. Every photographer forced to perform services for a same sex couple's wedding, every counselor, every wedding cake baker, every parent with a child in school is affected. If they could get into an unholy alliance and not bother anyone else it would be a different story. But that's not the case, is it?

So people won't be allowed to discriminate if they have businesses? So what?

Frankly, I'm trying to understand how a photographer who runs a marginal business to start with wouldn't welcome the hell out of more potential customers.

Usually gays don't want a marginal business, but the best they can find. Of course businesses will still discriminate, they will just be more clever about it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Please point out a "failed" civilization that failed because it normalized homosexuality.

Thanks.

They didn't fail for the sole reason they normalized homosexuality. Normalizing homosexuality is a symptom of a civilization terminally ill. Every civilization that normalized homosexuality and there were many, never passed that value on after their demise. The pattern has been repeated many, many times. The civilization is so decayed and depraved it fails. Whatever replaces it rejects the depraved ways including normalization of homosexuality. If same sex marriage was a value on the right side of history, we would have had it since the Pharoahs ruled Egypt.

So can you name a civilization that you are specifically talking about?

Name the civilization. It was a pretty simple question.

All civilizatiions fall, eventually. Or change into something else.

I named several. All civilizations fall eventually, but they follow a specific pattern when they do. And, when that civilization falls, the one replacing it doesn't accept same sex marriage "rights".

 

[JoeB131]

All the problems we face in this nation and we become obsessed with nonsensical social issues... no wonder NOTHING ever gets fixed.

We are giving the powers that be to much control over our lives because we all argue like children over the smallest of issues. We've proven that we're incapable of running our own lives so they're all to happy to jump in and do it for us.

You guys on the right were happy to exploit social issues when it made stupid people vote against their own economic interests. (And I don't exempt myself from that. I used to get just as upset about that sort of bullshit a decade ago.)

Now that it's not a winner for you, you want to complain that people are focusing on it too much.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats vote for increased welfare thinking that they are voting FOR their economic interests when they are actually voting against their economic interests.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All the problems we face in this nation and we become obsessed with nonsensical social issues... no wonder NOTHING ever gets fixed.

We are giving the powers that be to much control over our lives because we all argue like children over the smallest of issues. We've proven that we're incapable of running our own lives so they're all to happy to jump in and do it for us.

You guys on the right were happy to exploit social issues when it made stupid people vote against their own economic interests. (And I don't exempt myself from that. I used to get just as upset about that sort of bullshit a decade ago.)

Now that it's not a winner for you, you want to complain that people are focusing on it too much.

Generalizing is fun huh?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Jesus would stand with the persecuted.

In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tactical layout is obvious. Sotomoyor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg will probably vote to uphold the lower court decisions to some degree, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote to overturn them. That leaves Justice Roberts (whom I would have pegged as another knuckle dragger until he saved ObamaCare) and Kennedy (who penned Lawrence and Romer, decisions that expanded gay rights.)

Again, I would rather have this worked out in Congress and the legislatures than the courts.

Both Kennedy and Roberts have their legacy to consider. Roberts is young enough to not want to be on the wrong side of this...

You may be correct. But I'd want a decision that was decided on the merits of the constitution, not how these guys are going to be "remembered" later.

Here's the thing. We are going to get there eventually. Probably a lot quicker than anyone thinks. I would much rather have the legislative thing run its course than to have a court ruling that people feel was imposed on them.

I really do think that Hardwicke was a correct decision, and Lawrence was judicial overreach. The thing about Hardewicke was that after it was passed, most of the states went back over their laws and abolished the sodomy statues. Also, Hardwicke is real comedy gold for the name of a court decision.

Now, on a tactical decision about things I care about, the courts settling this issue might take it off the table and the GOP might actually have to sell the Plutocracy without the coating of Social Issues. Or maybe not. Roe v. Wade may have settled the legal issue, but the political issue is just as hot as ever.

Disagree.

Lawrence is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, that the issue is emotional and controversial doesn’t mitigate that.

The Court had before it a statue clearly offensive to the Constitution, where individuals were subject to criminal prosecution for simply being gay, in violation of both Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

But Lawrence really isn’t the on-point precedent concerning Prop 8 and DOMA, Romer is. In Romer Colorado acted to single-out gays and exclude them from that state’s anti-discrimination law, the same legal framework as Prop 8.

And the political irony of DOMA is remarkable; here we have ‘conservatives’ arguing that the Federal government has to right to dictate to the states how they’ll administer their laws, simply because of the right's animus toward gays – so much for ‘states’ rights.’

 

[Freewill]

How is this being forced upon you?

If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?

Just as Obamatax is being forced upon the majority.

There is no mention of health care in the Consitution or the Bill of Rights. As there is no mention of marriage. So if my state decides that marriage is between a man and a woman, as it always has been defined, that that is the state's right to do so.

IF this is to become a right then let's do a consitutional amendment and have the majority of the people decide the issue, not a court where there are almost half with a pre-dispostion either way. Rights are defined, they are not made up out of sail cloth.

I didn't ask about your constitutional fetishist inclinations.

I asked how gay marriage becoming legal has ANY EFFECT on your life. At all. one little bit.

because frankly, you seem awfully invested in something that has no impact on your life.

Not hare to understand your lack of comprehension. I am just not sure if it is by design or not.

Anyway, circumventing the law and the way things are suppose to work seems to me to effect everyone. I presume that you are against DOMA, why? I'll make a huge leap here and guess you are not gay. If not then how does this argument effect you and why have you chosen the side you have chosen?