Supreme Court to take up Same Sex Marriage...

[mal]

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics

Well then... It's apparently on.



peace...

 

[Koios]

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics

Well then... It's apparently on.



peace...

Fingers crossed they do right. But I think they will, since this is the stuff of history, having to do with civil rights. I doubt any want to be on the wrong side of history.

Marriage equality should win the day. I'd bet on it.

 

[g5000]

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics

Well then... It's apparently on.



peace...

Yes it is. It is on.

Very exciting. Can't wait until June!

.

 

[g5000]

I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...

.

 

[Seawytch]

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue - NBC Politics

Well then... It's apparently on.



peace...

Yes it is. It is on.

Very exciting. Can't wait until June!

.

June is a great month for weddings...

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[percysunshine]

"Supreme Court to take up Same Sex Marriage... "

I am going to assume that this thread is not about which Justices are gay....

 

[mjollnir]

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.

Your rank pig-ignorance of history duly noted.

 

[Mr Natural]

I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...

.

Not a bad idea.

What the fuck, as long as you're handing out rights may as well hand out some useful ones.

 

[percysunshine]

Once Sharia law is established in the US, none of this stuff will matter.

 

[Freewill]

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

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Freewill]

I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...

.

Not a bad idea.

What the fuck, as long as you're handing out rights may as well hand out some useful ones.

Are we not already past that point?

It is amazing to see "rights" spelled out that do not exist.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You really pay no attention to the world around you do you?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

 

[Article 15]

Denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law was fun while it lasted.