Prediction: Same Sex Marriage Will be the Law of the Land

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

 

[Sunni Man]

We should have been able to move on a long time ago but the right wingnuts would not allow it and they won't allow it now either. They will persist in trying to pass these new Jim Crow laws in the name of religious freedom and trying to do away with marriage as we know it. There is likely to be decades more of litigation in some of the states

Interesting that the same people who are all for queers having pretend marriage are also against the Confederate flag. .....

 

[Freewill]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

 

[Syriusly]

We should have been able to move on a long time ago but the right wingnuts would not allow it and they won't allow it now either. They will persist in trying to pass these new Jim Crow laws in the name of religious freedom and trying to do away with marriage as we know it. There is likely to be decades more of litigation in some of the states

Interesting that the same people who are all for queers having pretend marriage are also against the Confederate flag. .....

Interesting that the same people who want to deny homosexuals the right to marriage are also big Confederate Flag fans.

 

[rightwinger]

We can only hope it goes through. Make it the law of the land, end the fight and move it to more important issues.

We should have been able to move on a long time ago but the right wingnuts would not allow it and they won't allow it now either. They will persist in trying to pass these new Jim Crow laws in the name of religious freedom and trying to do away with marriage as we know it. There is likely to be decades more of litigation in some of the states

Agree

Republicans have already started Round 2 in the Same Sex Marriage debate

They have lost the issue nationwide and now they are starting the "you don't have to deal with fags if your religion tells you so" <wink, wink>

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

IF marriage is entirely a state's right- as you claim- then you logically would object to Loving v.Virginia- as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's marriage law.

But if you support the courts decision in Loving but suddenly have a passion for state's marriage rights when it comes to 'gay' marriage- then your concern is only 'gay' thick.

 

[guno]

A side question is , will white christians set themselves on fire when that happens like they have been threatening too?

Christian Pastor If Gay Marriage is Legalized We Should Be Ready to Burn to Death

Will it be on pay per view?

 

[Freewill]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

IF marriage is entirely a state's right- as you claim- then you logically would object to Loving v.Virginia- as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's marriage law.

But if you support the courts decision in Loving but suddenly have a passion for state's marriage rights when it comes to 'gay' marriage- then your concern is only 'gay' thick.

the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is no equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.

 

[rightwinger]

I think it is obvious the court will support gay marriage next week

The mystery remains the scope of the decision and the application of the 14th Amendment and requiring states to acknowledge marriages issued in other states

It could result in an overall expansion of the 14th amendment and I'm not sure the court wants to go there

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter

 

[rightwinger]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

IF marriage is entirely a state's right- as you claim- then you logically would object to Loving v.Virginia- as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's marriage law.

But if you support the courts decision in Loving but suddenly have a passion for state's marriage rights when it comes to 'gay' marriage- then your concern is only 'gay' thick.

the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is on equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.

The Equal Rights Amendment never passed

 

[Freewill]

We should have been able to move on a long time ago but the right wingnuts would not allow it and they won't allow it now either. They will persist in trying to pass these new Jim Crow laws in the name of religious freedom and trying to do away with marriage as we know it. There is likely to be decades more of litigation in some of the states

Interesting that the same people who are all for queers having pretend marriage are also against the Confederate flag. .....

Interesting that the same people who want to deny homosexuals the right to marriage are also big Confederate Flag fans.

What right?

 

[rightwinger]

A side question is , will white christians set themselves on fire when that happens like they have been threatening too?

I guess it is an improvement. There was a time when Christians set gays on fire

 

[Freewill]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter

States have always set marriage laws not the federal government. In all of the SCOTUS decisions do not state that marriage was to whomever. Every one that I read was a decision between a man and women. Anything else, until recently, was never even considered. 10 years ago who would have thought we would be having such discussions?

If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those? But not to worry you will get the decision you desire and the country will continue its fall. Funny liberals they brag about winning all the battles, except the 2014 mid-terms, yet decry the decay of the country as the fault of the rightwing. Takes a whole lot of denial to do so.

 

[Freewill]

A side question is , will white christians set themselves on fire when that happens like they have been threatening too?

I guess it is an improvement. There was a time when Christians set gays on fire

Really jake? Could you name that time?

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

IF marriage is entirely a state's right- as you claim- then you logically would object to Loving v.Virginia- as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's marriage law.

But if you support the courts decision in Loving but suddenly have a passion for state's marriage rights when it comes to 'gay' marriage- then your concern is only 'gay' thick.

the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is no equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.

LOL- Is marriage a state's right- or not?

 

[rightwinger]

A side question is , will white christians set themselves on fire when that happens like they have been threatening too?

I guess it is an improvement. There was a time when Christians set gays on fire

Really jake? Could you name that time?

Violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, all male homosexual activity was increasingly repressed, often on pain of death. In 342 CE, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. Shortly after, in the year 390 CE, emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive

 

[Freewill]

A side question is , will white christians set themselves on fire when that happens like they have been threatening too?

I guess it is an improvement. There was a time when Christians set gays on fire

Really jake? Could you name that time?

Violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, all male homosexual activity was increasingly repressed, often on pain of death. In 342 CE, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. Shortly after, in the year 390 CE, emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive

You be funny if not predictable Jake. The reason you quoted nothing, in my opinion, is there is nothing in that link that I could find in a quick read that supports what you said. Instead it lists Islamic countries that are persecuting gays because of their religion. I chuckled when I read that site knowing you were trying to be deceptive.

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.

How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter

If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

 

[martybegan]

>

Live blog from SCOTUSBlog -->> SCOTUSblog


>>>>

Thinking they will hold that one till monday.

But my bet is no on forcing states to issue said licenses, yes to forcing them to accept ones from other states.

I actually think it will either be yes/yes or no/no- based upon the oral arguments.

The Justices seemed very skeptical on the idea in oral arguments of requiring states to accept marriages from other states IF marriage was not considered a right.

I am going yes/yes- but am going to hedge my bet and say- I would never put serious money on a Supreme Court decision- both Roberts and Kennedy are too unpredictable.

States are forced all the time to accept marriages that differ from the ones they sign off on. In a state where someone marrying a cousin is allowed moves to a state where it is not, the marriage is still valid.