Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Boss]

But they did hear the case.

That is why they had oral arguments.

They reviewed oral arguments and decided not to hear the case on the grounds it lacked standing.

 

[Syriusly]

But they did hear the case.

That is why they had oral arguments.

They reviewed oral arguments and decided not to hear the case on the grounds it lacked standing.

Supreme Court Hearing Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Case This Week - ABC News

They clearly 'heard' the case- since they literally heard the arguments.

They decided the case on the standing issue.

 

[Boss]

But they did hear the case.

That is why they had oral arguments.

They reviewed oral arguments and decided not to hear the case on the grounds it lacked standing.

Supreme Court Hearing Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Case This Week - ABC News

They clearly 'heard' the case- since they literally heard the arguments.

They decided the case on the standing issue.

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing. There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

 

[Czernobog]

But they did hear the case.

That is why they had oral arguments.

They reviewed oral arguments and decided not to hear the case on the grounds it lacked standing.

Supreme Court Hearing Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Case This Week - ABC News

They clearly 'heard' the case- since they literally heard the arguments.

They decided the case on the standing issue.

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing. There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

So, again, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing. Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice - that is, a ruling from a court that is under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS ruling on a case that it should never have heard in the first place - was to do nothing rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do. That is your position? Really???? And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling? REALLY???

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

 

[Czernobog]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

 

[Boss]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling

Also did not uphold the ruling!

 

[Czernobog]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.

Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

1, *SIGH* They did hear the case. A Writ of Certiorari was submitted to the SCOTUS and they accepted the case. They determined that there were two questions to be answered. The first was on standing, the second on the merits of Prop 8. They answered the first question and determined that proponents didn't have standing, the second question was not addressed. But the court did issue an opinion.

2. Never said that Hollingsworth v. Perry was a decision on the constitutionality of SSCM. It didn't, but the court did issue an opinion and that was linked for you. You should scroll past the syllabus to the section entitled "Opinion of the Court".

3. To the person that thinks that Constitutional Amendments are passed by 2/3rd's of the States based on state ballots, you really should take a basic civics class and try to understand judicial process of the SCOTUS and how the Constitutional amendment process works.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling

Also did not uphold the ruling!

In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case the SCOTUS overturned the 9th's ruling as being void since they shouldn't have accepted the proponents as having standing. They could have also vacated the District Court Judges ruling (leaving Prop 8 as active), they choose not to do that. Instead they allowed the District Courts ruling to stand that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

They result? SSCM's resumed in California.


>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling

Also did not uphold the ruling!

Really? I didn't know there was any other alternative. Either a ruling is upheld - meaning it stays in place - or it's overruled - meaning it goes away. It didn't go away, so guess what that means? You see, a ruling that is not overruled is, by default, and definition, upheld.

 

[Inevitable]

Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.

More liberty is more than less liberty.

It's really simple.

I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?

 

[Boss]

No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.

How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?

There was no ruling by SCOTUS.

Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>

*SIGH* What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to NOT HEAR THE CASE!
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing.

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is NOT the case. They made NO such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!

Actually, the 9th Circuit did that. What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court. Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - Did. Not. Overturn the ruling, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was? That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.

For now... In the state of California.

Actually, "for now"...in all of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit. Thanks for playing.

No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.

 

[Boss]

Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.

More liberty is more than less liberty.

It's really simple.

I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?

Because it is akin to saying that flying a rocket ship is the same as driving a car... then declaring you have a right to blow down the highway on a rocket because you have a driver's license and your rocket is a car. In your restaurant analogy, it's like saying that you have the right to serve food made of plastic instead of real food, but you call the plastic food real because it looks real to you.

Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.

I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?

 

[Inevitable]

Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.

More liberty is more than less liberty.

It's really simple.

I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?

Because it is akin to saying that flying a rocket ship is the same as driving a car... then declaring you have a right to blow down the highway on a rocket because you have a driver's license and your rocket is a car. In your restaurant analogy, it's like saying that you have the right to serve food made of plastic instead of real food, but you call the plastic food real because it looks real to you.

Incorrect, flying a rocket down a road built for automobiles is dangerous, as with your cockimamie restaurant analogy.

Same sex marriage risks nothing. My analogies were apt. You just don't like them because they point out that your position is irrational.

Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.

Because of your fallacious appeal to tradition? The government should not really be concerned with your false propriety claim on any word. And it seems it isn't.

I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will.

Ironic.

Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people.

That is the court's duty. Not to be swayed by popular opinion.

I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?

Much much more.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BOSS SAID:

“Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years.”

As a fact of law this is irrelevant.

That something is perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is not justification to deny citizens their civil rights.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.

You have proposed Civil Unions for everyone and that the government recognize those under the law and that "marriage" not be used by the government.

That is government recognition (or in your term - sanctioning). So your "idea" really doesn't change anything as the government would still recognize their "activity".

I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?

Actually I'm onboard with the idea that the government recognize only Civil Unions and do so irregardless of the gender of the couple. I could give a rats ass what the government calls the legal family relationship between my wife and I, our marriage is based on the commitment we made 27 years ago and not government terminology.

However, the largest push-pack you will have from such an idea will be from different-sex couples that insist on government recognition of their marriage and not wanting to call it a "Civil Union" instead.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

Actually I'm onboard with the idea that the government recognize only Civil Unions and do so irregardless of the gender of the couple. I could give a rats ass what the government calls the legal family relationship between my wife and I, our marriage is based on the commitment we made 27 years ago and not government terminology.

However, the largest push-pack you will have from such an idea will be from different-sex couples that insist on government recognition of their marriage and not wanting to call it a "Civil Union" instead.

THEY can call it whatever they want to, so can gay couples, so can churches. No one has proposed that "marriage" would no longer exist or that "marriages" would no longer be performed. The only aspect changed is the governmental recognition of domestic relationships period.

Most of the "traditionalists" are right-wing small government conservatives who want government out of our lives. Well... there you are! *POOF* The government is out of your life! No more government sanctioning what you can or can't call a "marriage!"