Supreme Court - gay marriage

[Delta4Embassy]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Good article here,
U.S. Supreme Court set for historic gay marriage case

 

[Marianne]

A secular government has to be fair to all according to the Constitution. The church isn't required to be PC only follow scripture. This is why I think gays have a right to marry but religious people should have the right to refuse catering to gay events.

 

[Skylar]

Good article here,
U.S. Supreme Court set for historic gay marriage case

The only possible reservation I have on the ruling is Kennedy's heavy emphasis on the States defining this issue. I think its unlikely, but conceivable that Kennedy might split the ruling. Finding in favor of the State gay marriage bans but against the States ability to deny gay marriages from other States.

But both I and Justice Scalia find this *really* unlikely. I think a 5-4 ruling in favor of gay marriage is very likely. With a 6-3 ruling plausible. And a 7-2 ruling a definite possibility. As every denial of cert and preservation of rulings overturning gay marriage bans was done on a 7-2 basis.

Plus, this case screams 'legacy'. Roberts is a conservative but he's also extremely invested in the integrity of the court. Most of your landmark cases were made with strong majorities or outright unanimity. The latter isn't possible. But I think Roberts may side with Kennedy and the court's left leaning wing to help maintain the former.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

 

[g5000]

Today is the big day.

There are only two logically consistent positions to take on same sex marriages. The first is to legalize them across the entire nation. The second is to not only ban them, but to take a giant leap backward and reinstate a ban on gay sex itself.

We see from the OP link, the opposition to gay sex is what is really at the base of all opposition to gay marriages:

"Homo sex is a sin" and "Perverts are an abomination to God" were among the messages on signs brandished by opponents of gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

Not in court.

 

[g5000]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

On Judgement Day, not at the Social Security office.

You might want to take a look at that beam in your eye of your own sins before pointing out the mote in others' eyes, though.

 

[paperview]

Live Blogging @ ScotusBlog:
Live blog Obergefell v. Hodges

 

[mdk]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

Exactly. That is why it is illegal to toil on the sabbath.

 

[g5000]

Live Blogging @ ScotusBlog:
Live blog Obergefell v. Hodges

From that link:

Bursch: Marriage did not develop to deny dignity to anyone, but to serve purpose that arise by their nature from biology.

The procreation argument.

John Bursch is the solicitor general for Michigan, and he is tasked with convincing the Supreme Court that Michigan has a rational basis for banning same sex marriages.

And on that note, I defy anyone to explain to me how allowing same sex marriage affects the ability of heterosexuals to mate and have kids.

As we all know, the human race was nearly wiped out before the government started bestowing cash and prizes on us for getting married, right? People weren't procreating before the joint tax return and Social Security survivors benefits. If we allow gays those same legal protections, heterosexuals will become flaccid.

 

[paperview]

“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts said. “Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Kennedy Sends Mixed Signals as Supreme Court Debates Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics

 

[g5000]

It has to be difficult to be a lawyer making arguments you know are stupid, but you have to make because it is your job as the state solicitor to defend your state's laws, no matter how idiotic they are.

 

[Skylar]

“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts said. “Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Kennedy Sends Mixed Signals as Supreme Court Debates Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics

I'm telling you.....a 7-2 ruling isn't out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Skylar]

It has to be difficult to be a lawyer making arguments you know are stupid, but you have to make because it is your job as the state solicitor to defend your state's laws, no matter how idiotic they are.

I've always had a certain sympathy for gay marriage opponents. As in most cases, their actual motivations aren't admissible. So they're left with these half assed second tier arguments that are embarassing.

I know. I've argued them. They are like a termite riddled row boat.

 

[g5000]

“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts said. “Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Kennedy Sends Mixed Signals as Supreme Court Debates Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics

I'm telling you.....a 7-2 ruling isn't out of the realm of possibility.

It would go a long way toward healing the country if it is that definitive.

 

[Syriusly]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

Yeah- that is what the Muslim's killing gays are saying.

 

[bodecea]

Gonna rule against states' banning it. Is no legal reason to ban gay marriage. All the arguements against it being religious.

14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law. Not God's law, but man's.

Gods law trumps mans law.

Not in this country it doesn't. It did in Catholic Europe during the DARK Ages. It did in Puritanical New England. It did in the Pograms of Germany and Russia...............BUT...NOT...HERE! Thank the gods.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Doesn't matter to me how they rule, I'll personally never view two people of the same sex as equals as far as marriage is concerned.
And I'm agnostic by the way.

 

[Kosh]

It has to be difficult to be a lawyer making arguments you know are stupid, but you have to make because it is your job as the state solicitor to defend your state's laws, no matter how idiotic they are.

I've always had a certain sympathy for gay marriage opponents. As in most cases, their actual motivations aren't admissible. So they're left with these half assed second tier arguments that are embarassing.

I know. I've argued them. They are like a termite riddled row boat.

Says the far left drone!