Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Menerva Lindsen]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

 

[Silhouette]

..Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.

People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

"Marriage equality" for lifestyles like homosexual, monosexual (singles) and polysexual don't have Constitutionally-protected rights. Each state's discreet community may regulate what is normal in marriage. And states do this to make sure kids have both genders as parental role models. Otherwise the state-incentive program known as "a marriage license and its perks" is a net loss for the state.

Of course lifestyle-marriage is up to the states. Who else would it be up to? We are looking in the maw of a massive shift of powers in the Union if states can no longer regulate behaviors in order to protect children. It's pretty much game over at that point. Gay marriage guarantees the same structure as single parents (monosexuals) 100% of the time: the complete lack of one of the genders represented to the children as a role model. Some of those kids may find that missing gender and vital source of self esteem is their own..

The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that young people without a positive figure of the same gender are 67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts.
The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[JoeB131]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have heard some conservatives -- one of whom, in particular, I greatly admire -- make the claim that the "issue" of "gay marriage" should NOT be decided judicially -- particularly by the Federal Judicial Branch. The claim is that it is a political concern of the respective STATES.

I hate to buck the conservative tide, but not only have I concluded that I don't personally care whether folks who are gay are married, but I have also come to the conclusion that it is a perfectly appropriate topic for the Courts to take up. The danger, of course, is that they might decide wrong. A 5-4 vote one way or the other would become the effective constitutional law of the land. And it could too easily go the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

That said, I HOPE the SCOTUS ultimately does rule on this case and that the decision is that a ban on gay marriage constitutes a denial of equal protection.

I believe it is prejudice akin to (if not exactly the same as) racial prejudice. And since our Constitution mandates equal protection, I don't see why gays should be denied the right to "marry." (The problem here is that the FEDERAL government doesn't normally preside over the institution of marriage. The marriage license is a creature of the respective States. The flip side is: I also agree in principle with the SCOTUS determinations on equal racial rights. So if one State were again to attempt to ban inter-racial marriage, maybe the Federal Government would have no valid say in that, if the purist Federalist view stood firm.)

I am a Federalist. Yet, I think the Republic has some right to tell the States that discrimination based on such prejudices is not allowed.

 

[Silhouette]

I have heard some conservatives -- one of whom, in particular, I greatly admire -- make the claim that the "issue" of "gay marriage" should NOT be decided judicially -- particularly by the Federal Judicial Branch. The claim is that it is a political concern of the respective STATES.

I hate to buck the conservative tide, but not only have I concluded that I don't personally care whether folks who are gay are married, but I have also come to the conclusion that it is a perfectly appropriate topic for the Courts to take up. The danger, of course, is that they might decide wrong. A 5-4 vote one way or the other would become the effective constitutional law of the land. And it could too easily go the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

That said, I HOPE the SCOTUS ultimately does rule on this case and that the decision is that a ban on gay marriage constitutes a denial of equal protection..

And the civil rights of children to have two genders as parents? (See my last post)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have heard some conservatives -- one of whom, in particular, I greatly admire -- make the claim that the "issue" of "gay marriage" should NOT be decided judicially -- particularly by the Federal Judicial Branch. The claim is that it is a political concern of the respective STATES.

I hate to buck the conservative tide, but not only have I concluded that I don't personally care whether folks who are gay are married, but I have also come to the conclusion that it is a perfectly appropriate topic for the Courts to take up. The danger, of course, is that they might decide wrong. A 5-4 vote one way or the other would become the effective constitutional law of the land. And it could too easily go the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

That said, I HOPE the SCOTUS ultimately does rule on this case and that the decision is that a ban on gay marriage constitutes a denial of equal protection..

And the civil rights of children to have two genders as parents? (See my last post)

I am not sure there exists any "civil right" of anybody to have parents of two different genders (or any reason FOR it to exist). Is there some corresponding "civil right" to have a parent of two different races?

 

[deltex1]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

Call the real one "Holy Matrimony". Call the manufactured one "Civil Marriage". Then stfu about it.

 

[Silhouette]

I am not sure there exists any "civil right" of anybody to have parents of two different genders (or any reason FOR it to exist). Is there some corresponding "civil right" to have a parent of two different races?

Well that's interesting...because I'm not sure there exists any "civil right" for homosexuals or polysexuals to co-opt the word "marriage" and utterly gut the meaning of its structure to insert their lifestyles into it against the Will of the Majority in a sovereign state that finds that concept repugnant.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I am not sure there exists any "civil right" of anybody to have parents of two different genders (or any reason FOR it to exist). Is there some corresponding "civil right" to have a parent of two different races?

Well that's interesting...because I'm not sure there exists any "civil right" for homosexuals or polysexuals to co-opt the word "marriage" and utterly gut the meaning of its structure to insert their lifestyles into it against the Will of the Majority in a sovereign state that finds that concept repugnant.

Marriage HAS been understood as meaning one man and one women (not counting polygamy).

But there is nothing that demands this interpretation.

Perhaps the GOVERNMENT should get out of this primarily religious institution.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage HAS been understood as meaning one man and one women (not counting polygamy).

But there is nothing that demands this interpretation.

Perhaps the GOVERNMENT should get out of this primarily religious institution.

Uh, yes there is something that demands this interpretation. They are called "registered voters". Lifestyles do not have Constitutional protections. And this is especially so where it can be shown that certain lifestyles post a threat of harm to children. See my first post on this thread for details..

 

[deltex1]

I am not sure there exists any "civil right" of anybody to have parents of two different genders (or any reason FOR it to exist). Is there some corresponding "civil right" to have a parent of two different races?

Well that's interesting...because I'm not sure there exists any "civil right" for homosexuals or polysexuals to co-opt the word "marriage" and utterly gut the meaning of its structure to insert their lifestyles into it against the Will of the Majority in a sovereign state that finds that concept repugnant.

Marriage HAS been understood as meaning one man and one women (not counting polygamy).

But there is nothing that demands this interpretation.

Perhaps the GOVERNMENT should get out of this primarily religious institution.

You could say the same for muslim goat fuckers...

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the civil rights of children to have two genders as parents? (See my last post)

No such civil right for children, dear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uh, yes there is something that demands this interpretation. They are called "registered voters". Lifestyles do not have Constitutional protections. And this is especially so where it can be shown that certain lifestyles post a threat of harm to children. See my first post on this thread for details..

Silly, you are not authority, just a goof ball with an opinion, like your sock, Where r my Keys. We will let you know when you are the law. Oh, take your hetero-fascist militia with you.

 

[OKTexas]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

 

[Menerva Lindsen]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

 

[OKTexas]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.[/QUOTE]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Kennedy was the deciding vote in favor of gays in Lawrence vs. Texas, (which overturned the remaining Sodomy laws) Romner vs Evans (Which found gays were entitled to protection under the equal protection clause) Hollingsworth vs. Perry (which struck down Prop H8 In California) and US v. Windsor (which struck down DOMA).

Do you really, really think he's going to say, "Whoa, I'm going to totally invalidate hundreds of thousands of gay marriages" now?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Guy, you haven't won any recent victories on this issue in a decade. The only reason Prop Hate won is because the Mormons lied their asses off as to what the implications were.

 

[thanatos144]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

 

[JoeB131]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

You mean why should people give up the right of people like you to treat them like shit?

Frankly, I have to ask, why does gay marriage effect your life at all.