32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[RKMBrown]

Hey what happened to anti-gay bigots' argument that same sex marriage was only legal in a few states?

Oops.

Going to be 39 states by the time Obama leaves office, possibly even more.

And Obama did nothing to help gays... other than saying he was for it.... and the SCOTUS who just voted not to hear these cases.. yeah it's run by a conservative justice and has more conservatives on it than libs. So eat that.

That you cannot engage in civil discourse exposes that you are still an AWG even if your have relabeled yourself as an unrealistic one who wants this nation to descend into anarchy.

You're an idiot.

 

[RKMBrown]

10th Amendment.

Windsor was affirmed on the State having the purview of marriage, where the State honored it, the Federal government could not discriminate in the form of DOMA.

Hey what happened to anti-gay bigots' argument that same sex marriage was only legal in a few states?

Oops.

Going to be 39 states by the time Obama leaves office, possibly even more.

And Obama did nothing to help gays... other than saying he was for it.... and the SCOTUS who just voted not to hear these cases.. yeah it's run by a conservative justice and has more conservatives on it than libs. So eat that.

I disagree. He advocated equality for gays and lesbians in regards to marriage and ordered the DOJ to no longer defend DOMA. That's pretty significant.

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't America have any guts? No to homosexual marriage. Hell NO. If you can't imaginably biology have babies, you don't need marriage. Why is this even an issue? Everyone has the same rights, period. marriage is about the children, not manipulation. But that is what gays are all about.

Marriage is "about the children". Then why can we get married with no children....or why can people have children without being married?

And why does no state have as part of their marriage law some clause about having to have a child within a set period of time or else be annulled?

 

[Skylar]

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

In terms of the defense of DOMA, a law restricting gays from getting benefits they were due, it was significant. As it meant that the US government formally and officially did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage.

His support added to the momentum on the issue.

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't America have any guts? No to homosexual marriage. Hell NO. If you can't imaginably biology have babies, you don't need marriage. Why is this even an issue? Everyone has the same rights, period. marriage is about the children, not manipulation. But that is what gays are all about.

Marriage is "about the children". Then why can we get married with no children....or why can people have children without being married?

And why does no state have as part of their marriage law some clause about having to have a child within a set period of time or else be annulled?

Because having children or being able to have children isn't a requirement for a valid marriage in any state.

 

[RKMBrown]

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

In terms of the defense of DOMA, a law restricting gays from getting benefits they were due, it was significant. As it meant that the US government formally and officially did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage.

His support added to the momentum on the issue.

Said another way... his lack of support during the prior decade delayed the issue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hey what happened to anti-gay bigots' argument that same sex marriage was only legal in a few states?

Oops.

Going to be 39 states by the time Obama leaves office, possibly even more.

And Obama did nothing to help gays... other than saying he was for it.... and the SCOTUS who just voted not to hear these cases.. yeah it's run by a conservative justice and has more conservatives on it than libs. So eat that.

That you cannot engage in civil discourse exposes that you are still an AWG even if your have relabeled yourself as an unrealistic one who wants this nation to descend into anarchy.

You're an idiot.

Ironic!

 

[Derideo_Te]

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

In terms of the defense of DOMA, a law restricting gays from getting benefits they were due, it was significant. As it meant that the US government formally and officially did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage.

His support added to the momentum on the issue.

Said another way... his lack of support during the prior decade delayed the issue.

Who knew that Obama had been the POTUS for the entire prior decade?

 

[Seawytch]

10th Amendment.

Windsor was affirmed on the State having the purview of marriage, where the State honored it, the Federal government could not discriminate in the form of DOMA.

Hey what happened to anti-gay bigots' argument that same sex marriage was only legal in a few states?

Oops.

Going to be 39 states by the time Obama leaves office, possibly even more.

And Obama did nothing to help gays... other than saying he was for it.... and the SCOTUS who just voted not to hear these cases.. yeah it's run by a conservative justice and has more conservatives on it than libs. So eat that.

I disagree. He advocated equality for gays and lesbians in regards to marriage and ordered the DOJ to no longer defend DOMA. That's pretty significant.

Yeah, for all the Obama haters "but Obama said he supported "traditional marriage"" bullshit...what I know is that there have been greater advances under THIS President than all others before him, combined.

 

[Skylar]

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

In terms of the defense of DOMA, a law restricting gays from getting benefits they were due, it was significant. As it meant that the US government formally and officially did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage.

His support added to the momentum on the issue.

Said another way... his lack of support during the prior decade delayed the issue.

As has already been pointed out, Obama wasn't president the 'prior decade'. He became president in 2009 and ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in 2011. About 2 and half years later. And since Obama's about face on the issue, momentum has swung heavily in favor of gays and lesbians.

I'd even go so far as to say that Obama's legal and vocal support for marriage equality may have been the tipping point on the issue, culturally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BHO did what he could, terrified Gov Herbert last year when the dum dum said he would not cooperate with post DOMA benefits, and waffled when BHO told him that Utah would get no federal monies at all.

That's what you do with bullies. kick the crap out those bullies! And, when you are done, you say "Hey I'm sorry for that!" And then kick the crap out them again. If that doesn't work, repeat as necessary.

 

[RKMBrown]

So he was an advocate, and ordered someone to not do their job... yeah that's impressive.

In terms of the defense of DOMA, a law restricting gays from getting benefits they were due, it was significant. As it meant that the US government formally and officially did not support discrimination against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage.

His support added to the momentum on the issue.

Said another way... his lack of support during the prior decade delayed the issue.

As has already been pointed out, Obama wasn't president the 'prior decade'. He became president in 2009 and ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in 2011. About 2 and half years later. And since Obama's about face on the issue, momentum has swung heavily in favor of gays and lesbians.

I'd even go so far as to say that Obama's legal and vocal support for marriage equality may have been the tipping point on the issue, culturally.

It's really funny that you think the folks in the middle and right listen to Obama. My point about prior decade was that he did not support it prior to "switching." More particularly he was vocal in his rejection.

Looking into it further, I see that "in 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire saying he supported same-sex marriage. But when he ran for Congress four years later, he had shifted to "undecided," according to the Times. Eight years after that, as he was campaigning for his first term as president, he was opposed."

IOW Obama's view on Gays bends with the wind.

 

[Skylar]

IOW Obama's view on Gays bends with the wind.

It certainly seems that political necessity played a role in his public position. With the major exception being his change in position in 2011. There was no particular need to do so. And with the Tea Party having recently taken the House, some pretty significant risks. As it may have forced Obama to expend political capital on an issue that wouldn't reap him much political gains.Yet he did anyway.

I suspect Biden's vocal support for gay marriage wasn't a litmus test. It was Uncle Joe shooting off at the mouth. And once Biden had claimed his ground on the issue, the costs of silence were as great as the risk of taking a stand. So Obama switched sides and expressed his actual opinion rather than an official one. And once he did, Obama's support was vocal, committed, and in the case of the DOJ, authoritative.

I think the switch was well timed. As it either coincided with or sparked a major shift in America's thinking about gay marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't America have any guts? No to homosexual marriage. Hell NO. If you can't imaginably biology have babies, you don't need marriage. Why is this even an issue? Everyone has the same rights, period. marriage is about the children, not manipulation. But that is what gays are all about.

You're at liberty to express your ignorance, fear, stupidity, and hate; you are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify your ignorance, fear, stupidity, and hate.

 

[Skylar]

In my opinion, the strongest arguments against gay marriage are issues of self determination of the States and government policy being used to encourage a specific end that gays and lesbians can't create within their unions.

Oh, there are holes you could drive trucks through on both fronts and either falls apart if you look to hard at it. But the arguments are at least tangentially reasonable and principled. If fallible and ultimately untenable.

 

[RKMBrown]

IOW Obama's view on Gays bends with the wind.

It certainly seems that political necessity played a role in his public position. With the major exception being his change in position in 2011. There was no particular need to do so. And with the Tea Party having recently taken the House, some pretty significant risks. As it may have forced Obama to expend political capital on an issue that wouldn't reap him much political gains.Yet he did anyway.

I suspect Biden's vocal support for gay marriage wasn't a litmus test. It was Uncle Joe shooting off at the mouth. And once Biden had claimed his ground on the issue, the costs of silence were as great as the risk of taking a stand. So Obama switched sides and expressed his actual opinion rather than an official one. And once he did, Obama's support was vocal, committed, and in the case of the DOJ, authoritative.

I think the switch was well timed. As it either coincided with or sparked a major shift in America's thinking about gay marriage.

Nonsense... the public opinion had already shifted. He jumped on the bandwagon for votes during an election season..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

10th Amendment.

Windsor was affirmed on the State having the purview of marriage, where the State honored it, the Federal government could not discriminate in the form of DOMA.

This doesn't make any sense.

But the 10th Amendment is applicable to neither Windsor nor the Marriage Cases, and is consequently irrelevant, having nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples accessing marriage law:

'[W]hile it is true that what made section 3 of DOMA unusual was its departure from the tradition of deference to state marital status determinations,66 that departure itself was not what rendered section 3 unconstitutional. This deviance or departure was simply a trigger for more careful equal protection review. Ultimately, what rendered DOMA unconstitutional was that it failed equal protection review because its purpose was to mark a class of people as less worthy of dignity and respect. Or, stated another way, the problem with DOMA was not that it regulated an area of law solely reserved to the states. Instead, the ultimate problem with DOMA—and what rendered it unconstitutional—was that the law was enacted for the purpose of marking a group of people as less worthy.67 DOMA, the Court explained, treated the marriages of same-sex couples as “second-class marriages,”68 and thereby “wr[ote] inequality into the entire United States Code.”69 It also denied these couples “the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”70 This, the Court reaffirmed, is impermissible under principles of equal protection and due process.'


Columbia Law Review 8211 Windsor Federalism and Family Equality

 

[Skylar]

IOW Obama's view on Gays bends with the wind.

It certainly seems that political necessity played a role in his public position. With the major exception being his change in position in 2011. There was no particular need to do so. And with the Tea Party having recently taken the House, some pretty significant risks. As it may have forced Obama to expend political capital on an issue that wouldn't reap him much political gains.Yet he did anyway.

I suspect Biden's vocal support for gay marriage wasn't a litmus test. It was Uncle Joe shooting off at the mouth. And once Biden had claimed his ground on the issue, the costs of silence were as great as the risk of taking a stand. So Obama switched sides and expressed his actual opinion rather than an official one. And once he did, Obama's support was vocal, committed, and in the case of the DOJ, authoritative.

I think the switch was well timed. As it either coincided with or sparked a major shift in America's thinking about gay marriage.

Nonsense... the public opinion had already shifted. He jumped on the bandwagon for votes during an election season..

Polls in 2009 showed 33% support. 2010 it was 49%. 2011, 45%. Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA early in 2011, insisting that the law was unconstitutional. That's a huge step in support of gay marriage. In 2012 was the first year that support was a majority. The same year that Obama expressed public support for gay marriage.

Chicken, egg, I dunno. His actions either sparked the increased support, or coincided with it. Either way, his timing was excellent.

 

[OODA_Loop]

10th Amendment.

Windsor was affirmed on the State having the purview of marriage, where the State honored it, the Federal government could not discriminate in the form of DOMA.

This doesn't make any sense.

But the 10th Amendment is applicable to neither Windsor nor the Marriage Cases, and is consequently irrelevant, having nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples accessing marriage law:

'[W]hile it is true that what made section 3 of DOMA unusual was its departure from the tradition of deference to state marital status determinations,66 that departure itself was not what rendered section 3 unconstitutional. This deviance or departure was simply a trigger for more careful equal protection review. Ultimately, what rendered DOMA unconstitutional was that it failed equal protection review because its purpose was to mark a class of people as less worthy of dignity and respect. Or, stated another way, the problem with DOMA was not that it regulated an area of law solely reserved to the states. Instead, the ultimate problem with DOMA—and what rendered it unconstitutional—was that the law was enacted for the purpose of marking a group of people as less worthy.67 DOMA, the Court explained, treated the marriages of same-sex couples as “second-class marriages,”68 and thereby “wr[ote] inequality into the entire United States Code.”69 It also denied these couples “the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”70 This, the Court reaffirmed, is impermissible under principles of equal protection and due process.'


Columbia Law Review 8211 Windsor Federalism and Family Equality

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage and ... injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity

 

[RKMBrown]

IOW Obama's view on Gays bends with the wind.

It certainly seems that political necessity played a role in his public position. With the major exception being his change in position in 2011. There was no particular need to do so. And with the Tea Party having recently taken the House, some pretty significant risks. As it may have forced Obama to expend political capital on an issue that wouldn't reap him much political gains.Yet he did anyway.

I suspect Biden's vocal support for gay marriage wasn't a litmus test. It was Uncle Joe shooting off at the mouth. And once Biden had claimed his ground on the issue, the costs of silence were as great as the risk of taking a stand. So Obama switched sides and expressed his actual opinion rather than an official one. And once he did, Obama's support was vocal, committed, and in the case of the DOJ, authoritative.

I think the switch was well timed. As it either coincided with or sparked a major shift in America's thinking about gay marriage.

Nonsense... the public opinion had already shifted. He jumped on the bandwagon for votes during an election season..

Polls in 2009 showed 33% support. 2010 it was 49%. 2011, 45%. Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA early in 2011, insisting that the law was unconstitutional. That's a huge step in support of gay marriage. In 2012 was the first year that support was a majority. The same year that Obama expressed public support for gay marriage.

Chicken, egg, I dunno. His actions either sparked the increased support, or coincided with it. Either way, his timing was excellent.

Yeah and I suppose you could say his timing was excellent when he switched to say he was against it... uh huh... or maybe he was and is just saying what he thinks will get him more votes.