32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Plasmaball]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News

yeah so 32 states on Thursday want Scotus to just settle the matter once and for all. Given the recent ruling for WI and IL we kinda already know where this will go if Scotus ever decides to deal with this. Watch them punt back to the lower courts.

You mean that 32 states want SCOTUS to remind them what they wrote in Windsor last year? Why not just have the federal judges within the circuits brought into a room and be made to study and then pass an exam on Windsor 2013 in order to keep their positions on the bench?

Maybe what these 32 states are asking for is an end to judicial-fascism and "overruling from underneath"?

Lol....it's fun watching you cling to this like the matter is settled and you will come out right

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

 

[Silhouette]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News

yeah so 32 states on Thursday want Scotus to just settle the matter once and for all. Given the recent ruling for WI and IL we kinda already know where this will go if Scotus ever decides to deal with this. Watch them punt back to the lower courts.

You mean that 32 states want SCOTUS to remind them what they wrote in Windsor last year? Why not just have the federal judges within the circuits brought into a room and be made to study and then pass an exam on Windsor 2013 in order to keep their positions on the bench?

Maybe what these 32 states are asking for is an end to judicial-fascism and "overruling from underneath"?

Lol....it's fun watching you cling to this like the matter is settled and you will come out right

Either the wording of the Windsor Opinion exists and one can read it or not. You're contention is that it doesn't exist and that SCOTUS didn't use the hinge of "states decide" to find in favor of Windsor?

How did she win then? The High Court cited that New York's discreet community had years of debate and after long and thorough searching decided to grant this new and unusual form of "marriage" legitimacy. And as such, that state must have its decision respected federally. Just like the recognition of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire: not desireable but mandated upon a state's decision for the fed to recognize. Must 13 year olds be allowed to marry in all 50 states therefore? No, certainly not. Just that if they do in New Hampshire, the feds and other states must recognize these kids as married.

 

[Silhouette]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

BRAVO! Tom Sweetnam

According to the LGBT "logic" you are absolutely correct. If a muslim federal circuit judge ordered all homosexuals stoned to death against the will of the majority to not do so, according to the LGBT worship of the almighty "lower circuit court judge", that stoning should be allowed "by law". That is correct.

Only in this case we have the SCOTUS already having said that these lower court judges are wrong, that stoning isn't allowed for now, and those judges are going ahead and overruling from underneath saying "yes, go ahead and stone people to death until the SCOTUS" says you can't...again...

 

[Plasmaball]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

 

[Silhouette]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

 

[DiamondDave]

Not a federal issue

 

[Plasmaball]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

Um ok....but Ifor I married my girl in Nevada and we are both 20, it's still carries over if we moved to montana...same can't be said for gay marriage. Which shows the law does not give equal status..which is illegal..

You will loose....

 

[J.E.D]

"Gay marriage". The the next step for queers is to "adopt" a little boy, to get their hands on a little boy. That's what this insanity is really all about.

Urine idiot

 

[J.E.D]

If Judges are going to be the new (RULERS) in this country why are we paying for a Congress and get rid of the role of a president...AFTER this one it's pretty much a joke anyway.

And who needs Representation in our government we'll just bow to the judges

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"--refrain screamed by hundreds of gay males in Boston's 2008 "gay pride" parade.

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone doubt that gay marriage will be allowed?

My guess is 6-3

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I see on Al Jazeera today that queers in New York City successfully sued for participation in the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade. This is a parade dedicated to a Catholic saint and to Irish cultural heritage of which I am 1/2 a part.

Do queers want to don their Kelley green, kick back a beer or two, and join in refrains of cultural ditties? No, queers want to carry street-wide banners extolling the faux virtues of queer "marriage" , of child molestation the very second they can legally get their hands on kids, and of unsafe sex practices that have queers spreading STD's at a rate 17 times that of any other demographic.

In short, they don't give a fuck about the St. Patrick's Day Parade. It represents nothing more to queers than another social convention they want to shit all over. The more I see of queer militancy in the West, the more I understand why the Muslim world keeps all those crane booms so busy.

 

[bodecea]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

 

[bodecea]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

And....are you saying if an anti-gun measure passed 54%-48%...it's a mandate that no judge is permitted to overturn?

 

[bodecea]

I see on Al Jazeera today that queers in New York City successfully sued for participation in the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade. This is a parade dedicated to a Catholic saint and to Irish cultural heritage of which I am 1/2 a part.

Do queers want to don their Kelley green, kick back a beer or two, and join in refrains of cultural ditties? No, queers want to carry street-wide banners extolling the faux virtues of queer "marriage" , of child molestation the very second they can legally get their hands on kids, and of unsafe sex practices that have queers spreading STD's at a rate 17 times that of any other demographic.

In short, they don't give a fuck about the St. Patrick's Day Parade. It represents nothing more to queers than another social convention they want to shit all over. The more I see of queer militancy in the West, the more I understand why the Muslim world keeps all those crane booms so busy.

There are gay Irish and Irish-Americans, you know.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News

yeah so 32 states on Thursday want Scotus to just settle the matter once and for all. Given the recent ruling for WI and IL we kinda already know where this will go if Scotus ever decides to deal with this. Watch them punt back to the lower courts.

May as well. There will be lawsuits in every state sooner or later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to take this hot potato, they'll simply refer it back to the lower district courts....Cowards DO wear black robes, beside the scum of ISIS!

And vigilantes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

And....are you saying if an anti-gun measure passed 54%-48%...it's a mandate that no judge is permitted to overturn?

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

it is contrary to everything the five republicans on the SCOTUS believe in, it will be interesting how they vote and "coincidentally" as a block ... as all their previous rulings.

.

How is keeping with Constitution "contrary to everything five Republicans on the SCOTUS believe in"? Besides, it's not their beliefs that matter, but the law.

.
... how they vote and "coincidentally" as a block ... as all their previous rulings.


- no, they are not partisan in their rulings, not at all ...

.