OFFICIAL: Gay marriage debate

[Seawytch]

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

Fully aware of that it's not law to recuse themselves from the case even thought it's been done before by Keagan.

Also section 3 of DOMA was struck down. By not hearing the case you send a message that states or voters can decide what defines marriage as it should be, and you say to the other 3 branches they have a right to do so as they have been doing.

There is no reason at all for the Supreme court to decide what constitutes as marriage, when it already struck down section 3 of DOMA, and combine that with not hearing the case you say let it stand.

I don't care what a 3rd district appeals court did or didn't do, the supreme court is the highest court in our land and can send a message without ruling just as easy as they can with ruling.

You've heard of Full Faith and Credit have you not? If a 40 year old Alabama man marries his 15 year old cousin, his civil marriage is recognized in all 50 states including those that don't allow 15 year olds or 1st cousins to marry. The remaining provisions of the unconstitutional DOMA is restricting the application of FF&C must be struck down by the SCOTUS because Congress has abdicated their duties.

Civil rights have often been won through the courts. It's the system the founders set up.

Correct. Congress should have repealed the DOMA law, and didn't, as my edit to the post you quoted showed. However, Congress should be given time to do it's job. To expedite this process by saying the courts will decide is the judicial branch taking power that its not supposed to have as the founders intended it to be the weakest branch of Govt for a reason.

I'm sorry but the lives of gays and lesbians can't be put off until Congress gets its collective heads out of its asses.

The founders set up a system for citizens to redress their grievances. That is what gay couples are doing...using the system set up by the founders for the purpose it was set up.

Like I said, "Supreme court can send a message by not hearing a case just as easily as ruling on one." The supreme court jumped the gun on this because of power hungry justices. The amount of big cases this court has decided to hear and rule on in its very short time together screams of a judicial branch with way to much power. That's the argument for judicial reform not with the supreme court, but at the 3rd district federal court of appeals.

They jumped nothing. If all the appeals courts had ruled the same way, no problem...one didn't. The next step after Federal appeals courts is what?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like I said, "Supreme court can send a message by not hearing a case just as easily as ruling on one." The supreme court jumped the gun on this because of power hungry justices. The amount of big cases this court has decided to hear and rule on in its very short time together screams of a judicial branch with way to much power. That's the argument for judicial reform not with the supreme court, but at the 3rd district federal court of appeals.

What is this "3rd district federal court of appeals" comment about (yes I know that the 3rd District Court of Appeals covers PA, DE, NJ and the Virgin Islands)? I'm asking for relevance.

IIRC, the SCOTUS has received appeals from the 11th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 5th, and 4th Circuits. They rejected a stay request and case selection from the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, and 4th Circuits - allowing SSCM to begin in states under their jurisdiction. Not until the 6th ruled in support of allowing states to discriminate against SS couples did the SCOTUS accept the appeal.

You statement is correct, it looks like the SCOTUS was sending a message that the 6th Circuit didn't get.


>>>>

 

[Judicial review]

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

Fully aware of that it's not law to recuse themselves from the case even thought it's been done before by Keagan.

Also section 3 of DOMA was struck down. By not hearing the case you send a message that states or voters can decide what defines marriage as it should be, and you say to the other 3 branches they have a right to do so as they have been doing.

There is no reason at all for the Supreme court to decide what constitutes as marriage, when it already struck down section 3 of DOMA, and combine that with not hearing the case you say let it stand.

I don't care what a 3rd district appeals court did or didn't do, the supreme court is the highest court in our land and can send a message without ruling just as easy as they can with ruling.

You've heard of Full Faith and Credit have you not? If a 40 year old Alabama man marries his 15 year old cousin, his civil marriage is recognized in all 50 states including those that don't allow 15 year olds or 1st cousins to marry. The remaining provisions of the unconstitutional DOMA is restricting the application of FF&C must be struck down by the SCOTUS because Congress has abdicated their duties.

Civil rights have often been won through the courts. It's the system the founders set up.

Correct. Congress should have repealed the DOMA law, and didn't, as my edit to the post you quoted showed. However, Congress should be given time to do it's job. To expedite this process by saying the courts will decide is the judicial branch taking power that its not supposed to have as the founders intended it to be the weakest branch of Govt for a reason.

I'm sorry but the lives of gays and lesbians can't be put off until Congress gets its collective heads out of its asses.

The founders set up a system for citizens to redress their grievances. That is what gay couples are doing...using the system set up by the founders for the purpose it was set up.

Like I said, "Supreme court can send a message by not hearing a case just as easily as ruling on one." The supreme court jumped the gun on this because of power hungry justices. The amount of big cases this court has decided to hear and rule on in its very short time together screams of a judicial branch with way to much power. That's the argument for judicial reform not with the supreme court, but at the 3rd district federal court of appeals.

They jumped nothing. If all the appeals courts had ruled the same way, no problem...one didn't. The next step after Federal appeals courts is what?

Simple - the next step is to not hear it and let your previous ruling stand and let the other branches do their jobs as the founding fathers wanted. The Judical branch hearing this case was a gross premature stab at deciding what is a right, when they are only to interpret the constitution not make it. EVERYTHNG about this case screams judicial overreach and every citizen of the USA should be appalled and scared shitless of their government now. Like I said, "judical reform" is without question needed now.

 

[Judicial review]

Like I said, "Supreme court can send a message by not hearing a case just as easily as ruling on one." The supreme court jumped the gun on this because of power hungry justices. The amount of big cases this court has decided to hear and rule on in its very short time together screams of a judicial branch with way to much power. That's the argument for judicial reform not with the supreme court, but at the 3rd district federal court of appeals.

What is this "3rd district federal court of appeals" comment about (yes I know that the 3rd District Court of Appeals covers PA, DE, NJ and the Virgin Islands)? I'm asking for relevance.

IIRC, the SCOTUS has received appeals from the 11th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 5th, and 4th Circuits. They rejected a stay request and case selection from the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, and 4th Circuits - allowing SSCM to begin in states under their jurisdiction. Not until the 6th ruled in support of allowing states to discriminate against SS couples did the SCOTUS accept the appeal.

You statement is correct, it looks like the SCOTUS was sending a message that the 6th Circuit didn't get.


>>>>

Sorry I meant the 9th circuit ruling in 2002 on
that reciting the phrase, "One nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance infringed on the separation of church and state. That was a ruling by elitsts judge that should have been removed from the bench by congress as congress has the power to do.

You are correct the 6th district.

 

[Judicial review]

The entire 9th circuit should be abolished.
Time to send these elitist federal judges constantly run a muck a message. You are the weaker of the 3 branches for a reason and these cases you shouldn't even be ruling on.

 

[Seawytch]

You know...I remember back in the day...the anti gay crowd was telling us to challenge the law if we thought it was unjust...until we did. Now it's not okay. Transparent as glass...

 

[Judicial review]

You know...I remember back in the day...the anti gay crowd was telling us to challenge the law if we thought it was unjust...until we did. Now it's not okay. Transparent as glass...

The law was challenged and struck down by ruling against section 3 and you guys challenged it as you have a right to do. My issue isn't with the people who are fighting for rights. My issue is simply with the courts. The judicial branch. Hence my name.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The two are no less advocates for gay rights than the other seven are for heterosexual marriage.

This is the hand with which we have been dealt.

A couple of cards were dealt from the bottom of the deck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, we stopped you from doing that.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Ah, of course...but Scalia, a huge, Catholic, anti gay bigot whose son conducts reparative therapy for gays is okay?

So much for your "reasonableness".

If you were to be reasonable a say the supreme court should have refused this case and never heard it I'd agree that the conflict of interests on both sides would be a winning argument for this non action. Supreme courts refuse cases all the time.

Well that's a delightful deflection. The SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case...one of the appeals courts ruled opposite of ALL the others. That kinda leaves no choice.

Oh, and there's the issue of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA still being in place which violates the FF&C clause.

Nobody on the SCOTUS is required to recuse themselves from this case. Not the ones opposed and not the ones in support.

True. But the advocates should recuse themselves.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nope, we stopped you from doing that.

How do you explain
Kagan and Ginsburg? Both lesbians and advocates of gay marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't prove they are lesbians and we can prove the other seven are hetero, so the two should stay and the other seven recuse.

 

[hipeter924]

I'm a conservative. However, should the Supreme court decide to allow it it must be respected. Should the states and it's citizens be allowed to vote locally for it as a state issue and it is upheld it should be respected. Under no circumstances does ANY human being have the right to say,

They can't marry, because its against my religion or against the standard. Not good enough. It's a God given right to be able to chose. He gave us the choice to make our own decisions sinful or not when he told Adam and Even what not to do, but still allowed them to chose, whether or not to do it. Also, is their a sin in the bible that will prevent you from going to heaven? We don't know because the bible doesn't say that. God created man in his image. Gods image is his heart. Love. Jesus loved sinners and their are many parts in the bible that back this up. He never tried to shun sinners from him, or say you will not go to heaven if you do this. He does say that who is man to judge when they aren't God?

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

If you ask me if I care about what happens on this issue, not really. Times change. I'm for man and women, but I respect the way our government was made to handle these type of issues.

Now you morons can debate this issue after FINALLY a level headed original unbiased post. First one this year.

^ fag

Quit your whining you fat pussy.

^ fag

No, your the gay one for sucking dick.

 

[bodecea]

The two are no less advocates for gay rights than the other seven are for heterosexual marriage.

This is the hand with which we have been dealt.

A couple of cards were dealt from the bottom of the deck.

How so?

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter what happens, the controvery will go on for decades.

 

[Nosmo King]

Now I fully believe that the 2 supreme court justices need to step down with their conflict of interest on this issue. The judicial Branch is supposed to be fair and unbiased. This is all the reasoning I need to say this.

Yeah? Which two?

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are actual gay rights advocates/activists. Huge conflict of interest.

Did Thurgood Marshall recuse himself when deciding civil rights cases?

 

[Syriusly]

I normally avoid Jud's threads entirely- and after reading through I remembered why.

The Supreme Court will be deciding the issue- some people will be happy with the result, some won't be.

Regardless of the Courts decision, it will be legal and binding, short of a Constitutional amendment, and if I don't agree with it, I will hold my nose and acknowledge it, just like Citizen's United.

But I will not be calling the Court names or declaring them fascists- no matter what.

What about the rest of you? Step up now- how will you react to the Court, if the ruling goes against what you believe is correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some can be babies and cry one way or another, some always do that. Screw em if they can't be American.

 

[Judicial review]

I normally avoid Jud's threads entirely- and after reading through I remembered why.

The Supreme Court will be deciding the issue- some people will be happy with the result, some won't be.

Regardless of the Courts decision, it will be legal and binding, short of a Constitutional amendment, and if I don't agree with it, I will hold my nose and acknowledge it, just like Citizen's United.

But I will not be calling the Court names or declaring them fascists- no matter what.

What about the rest of you? Step up now- how will you react to the Court, if the ruling goes against what you believe is correct?

You can't take the truth. It's ok, though. Over time you will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no dictatorship.

The Court has the power.

The haters can get over it.