Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Seawytch]

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, however; where denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the 14th Amendment.

Again no it isnt.

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

I am still waiting for a conservative to explain how allowing others to marry is an abuse of your liberty.

Still waiting.

Dummy it isnt allowing homosexuals to marry that is destroying freedom it is the manner of which facists like you bring it about.

You mean redressing our grievances through the judicial like the founders intended?

(Like the Lovings did regarding interracial marriage)

 

[Seawytch]

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Court after court after court after court after court after court etc...disagree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Well that is your opinion- but your opinion counts no more than mine- the courts opinion however does count.

That is why in over 30 states, same gender couples now have the same 'liberty' to marry as my wife and I enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, however; where denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the 14th Amendment.

Again no it isnt.

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

I am still waiting for a conservative to explain how allowing others to marry is an abuse of your liberty.

Still waiting.

Dummy it isnt allowing homosexuals to marry that is destroying freedom it is the manner of which facists like you bring it about.

 

[thanatos144]

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Court after court after court after court after court after court etc...disagree with you.

Cort after court gave us dred scott and jim crow

 

[Syriusly]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Court after court after court after court after court after court etc...disagree with you.

Cort after court gave us dred scott and jim crow

LOL....well at least you have heard about Dred Scott.

Dred Scott was a dreadful decision- but it was constitutional- and it took a constitutional amendment to fix it.
Jim Crow were laws enacted by the majority and that were subsequently overturned by Federal action and the courts.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.[citation needed]

 

[thanatos144]

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Court after court after court after court after court after court etc...disagree with you.

Cort after court gave us dred scott and jim crow

LOL....well at least you have heard about Dred Scott.

Dred Scott was a dreadful decision- but it was constitutional- and it took a constitutional amendment to fix it.
Jim Crow were laws enacted by the majority and that were subsequently overturned by Federal action and the courts.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.[citation needed]

And here you are willing to give them even more power because you think the world is better off authoritarian then free. Sad

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Court after court after court after court after court after court etc...disagree with you.

Seawytch
Regardless how many courts agree or disagree,
the issue of marriage involves BELIEFS.

That does not change.

What we are arguing about is not only
A. the CONTENT and impact of these beliefs
B. but whether GOVT has the AUTHORITY to decide a matter of BELIEFS for people.

Just like religion.

If you substitute marriage and religion, we are arguing if the GOVT can dictate the TERMS of religion or of marriage.

Sorry if you are too caught up in your own bias to see this.
You are quick to point out when Christians keep seeing their way as the law,
but you can't see when you are doing the same -- abusing govt to impose YOUR beliefs about marriage on others,
then complain when THEY impose their beliefs on you. How are you any different? in violating church and state separation?

=========

Regardless which view anyone takes of marriage, these are still beliefs. Beliefs in traditional marriage, beliefs in gay marriage, beliefs that marriage is a right or it is a private choice. So nobody in federal govt should be in the business of dictating beliefs for its citizens by law. The issue of marriage should remain a free choice, just like religion. And just as free to exercise without regulation by the state, neither being established nor prohibited, but respecting all beliefs equally that remain private choices, and not a matter for govt to decide.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, we are a Republic with democratic procedures. Your desire for bifurcated political and public social services is not workable in our environment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, we are a Republic with democratic procedures. Your desire for bifurcated political and public social services is not workable in our environment.

Hi JakeStarkey
1. Again, Jake, BELIEFS are not up to democratic vote to decide.

That is the mistake that both sides are making here, either banning gay marriage, then trying to force laws defending traditional marriage, now trying to use the govt to implement gay marriage which also violates separation of religion or private beliefs from govt.

This abuse of govt to impose beliefs is what isn't working, Jake. The LACK of separation.
Trying to make public policy on marriage the SAME for all people when clearly they don't agree.
How is that any different than trying to declare ONE RELIGION for people,
when they want to practice separate policies in private,
by dictating terms of marriage for all people,
when they don't agree and want different things? Wouldn't common sense tell you
to take that OUT of govt and leave it to the people to decide and practice privately like religion?

Both sides are trying to sue and litigate and legislate to protect their own beliefs,
which should NOT BE IN GOVT to begin with! That's why we keep beliefs OUT.

TO AVOID this very no-win conflict, where either way, if the court takes one side over the other,
then govt is ESTABLISHING a belief about either traditional marriage over gay marriage or gay marriage over traditional marriage.

Those are both VIOLATIONS of the equal religious freedom of the other!

2. What would work is just like separating Hindus and Muslims or Catholics and Baptists.
Let each have their own private programs and systems
and NOT LEGISLATE ANY THROUGH GOVT.

And lastly Jake
3. I am personally open to anybody's beliefs about marriage. Fine with gay marriage.

But just because I AM okay with that, does not give me or the govt the right to sign away and force OTHER people to change their beliefs if they disagree!

I'm just being honest, given that traditional marriage is a BELIEF and cannot be forced to change by govt.

The way the Christian beliefs and practices are, there will have to be a separation of some sort.

The Christians and especially those in Texas are already talking about civil disobedience
and not obeying if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

So I am just stating what I see going on with religion, and how it is people's nature to defend that
and not change it by govt force.

Jake is that clear -- I am NOT SAYING WE SHOULD CREATE this -- I am saying the problem already exists.
I'm not saying I want this to happen, I am saying that is what is happening, and why! Because both beliefs are EQUAL.

So I am trying to explain, prepare and work with people through this to resolve it.
That's the reality, Jake, both sides have equal rights to their beliefs, and govt cannot take one side over the other
without violating religious freedom of the other side and equal protection of the laws for all people regardless of creed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Well that is your opinion- but your opinion counts no more than mine- the courts opinion however does count.

That is why in over 30 states, same gender couples now have the same 'liberty' to marry as my wife and I enjoy.

Interestingly, though, this isn't about gay rights, this is about the pure redefinition of marriage as an institution. And the most compelling argument I've heard is that the Supreme Court is hesitant to itself redefine marriage on its own. Marriage is different across all cultures, who are they to set the standard?

And what gives homosexuals the right to set the standard for everyone else?

 

[emilynghiem]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My point- which I am glad to make again- is that Conservatives are embracing that 'moral decay'- i.e. the divorce rate.

You constantly bring up the divorce rate as a conservative embracement "moral decay," though, I don't think the divorce rate is unique to one party or another.

Funny how you make a deal out of divorce through marriage, when you seek to legally redefine it. I see moral decay in this country all the time. The most recent of which just occurred in Baltimore, and from all reports, the mayor was Liberal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

Voters cannot legally vote in unconstitutional laws- no more than North Carolina could vote to legalize slavery.

It is not unconstitutional dummy

Well that is your opinion- but your opinion counts no more than mine- the courts opinion however does count.

That is why in over 30 states, same gender couples now have the same 'liberty' to marry as my wife and I enjoy.

Interestingly, though, this isn't about gay rights, this is about the pure redefinition of marriage as an institution. And the most compelling argument I've heard is that the Supreme Court is hesitant to itself redefine marriage on its own. Marriage is different across all cultures, who are they to set the standard?

And what gives homosexuals the right to set the standard for everyone else?

TemplarKormac
Or it could be, as with weak presidents taking over govt,
the point is to empower the people to quit depending on govt to make decisions for us.

It could be a lesson in working toward self-govt, resolving our own conflicts,
and quit running to govt to try to settle them for us when we aren't happy with how that turns out we can't control.

If we want control, we may have to take back responsibility. That could be the reason this is happening.
to force change in more ways than we might think!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am still waiting for a conservative to explain how allowing others to marry is an abuse of your liberty.

There are some Christian cakemakers, pizzerias, T-Shirt makers, and photographers who would like to speak with you.

Oh by the way, if you force a state to recognize gay marriage, you run the risk of forcing churches to marry them. That, my friend, is a religious liberty issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Is there anyone who thinks that if put to a vote today, California wouldn't affirm gay marriage in a heart beat? For those under 40 in this state, support is nearly 80%. Even among the seniors, its roughly half.

Public sentiment swung toward gay marriage starting in about 2011. And hasn't shown any sign of slowing. With year over year polls typically setting a new record each time its measured.

I strongly suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to climb as the sheer attrition of time counters consistent opposition of gay marriage by seniors with inevitable dirt naps.

It would lose.

Californians Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage PPIC Publication

Not likely

• In the wake of the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision, support for same-sex marriage is at a new high.
  PPIC’s September 2013 statewide survey found that a record high 61% of Californians and 64% of likely voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (34% of adults and 32% of likely voters oppose). Solid majorities of Californians (59%) and likely voters (63%) approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling on Proposition 8 that allows gay marriage in California.
• Public opinion has undergone a reversal since 2000.
  In January 2000, the first time PPIC asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 39% of Californians were in favor and 55% were opposed. In October 2008, just before the passage of Proposition 8 (which banned same-sex marriage), 44% were in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Support for same-sex marriage moved above 50% in 2010, and the margin of support has continued to grow. Support has risen 5 points since May 2013, just before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling.
• Since October 2008, support has risen by double digits among Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
  Although support for allowing same-sex marriage is still far higher among Democrats (76%, up 20 points since October 2008) and independents (67%, up 14 points), it has nearly doubled among Republicans (from 23% to 44%, with 53% opposed).
• A majority of older Californians now favor allowing gay marriage; support is also up among other groups.
  For the first time, a majority of Californians age 55 and older favor allowing same-sex marriage (55% favor, 39% oppose)—a near reversal of opinion since October 2008 (34% favor, 58% opposed). Support for same-sex marriage has grown a considerable 15 points among younger Californians, age 18–34 (from 53% to 68%), and 13 points among those age 35–54 (from 45% to 58%). Majorities of women (66%, up 19 points) and men (55%, up 13 points) now support same-sex marriage. A majority of parents expressed opposition in 2008 (42% favor, 54% opposed), but now the reverse is true (53% favor, 42% oppose). There have been double-digit increases in support among Latinos (from 36% to 54%) and whites (from 50% to 65%).

Funny how California doesn't speak for everyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

My point- which I am glad to make again- is that Conservatives are embracing that 'moral decay'- i.e. the divorce rate.

You constantly bring up the divorce rate as a conservative embracement "moral decay," though, I don't think the divorce rate is unique to one party or another.

Funny how you make a deal out of divorce through marriage, when you seek to legally redefine it. I see moral decay in this country all the time. The most recent of which just occurred in Baltimore, and from all reports, the mayor was Liberal.

The divorce rate is not unique among Conservatives- Conservatives just are the ones who oppose gay marriage on the grounds of 'sanctity of marriage' at the same time they embrace legal divorce.

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

 

[Syriusly]

I am still waiting for a conservative to explain how allowing others to marry is an abuse of your liberty.

There are some Christian cakemakers, pizzerias, T-Shirt makers, and photographers who would like to speak with you.

Oh by the way, if you force a state to recognize gay marriage, you run the risk of forcing churches to marry them. That, my friend, is a religious liberty issue.

You mean business's that are being required to follow the same laws as everyone else is required to follow?

There is 'no risk' of churches being forced to marry anyone they don't want to- it has been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and no churches in that time have been forced to marry blacks, or forced to marry Jews, nor been required to make women priests, or required to make African Americans full church members.

Churches have always and will always be able to discriminate as they wish.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Is there anyone who thinks that if put to a vote today, California wouldn't affirm gay marriage in a heart beat? For those under 40 in this state, support is nearly 80%. Even among the seniors, its roughly half.

Public sentiment swung toward gay marriage starting in about 2011. And hasn't shown any sign of slowing. With year over year polls typically setting a new record each time its measured.

I strongly suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to climb as the sheer attrition of time counters consistent opposition of gay marriage by seniors with inevitable dirt naps.

It would lose.

Californians Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage PPIC Publication

Not likely

• In the wake of the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision, support for same-sex marriage is at a new high.
  PPIC’s September 2013 statewide survey found that a record high 61% of Californians and 64% of likely voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (34% of adults and 32% of likely voters oppose). Solid majorities of Californians (59%) and likely voters (63%) approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling on Proposition 8 that allows gay marriage in California.
• Public opinion has undergone a reversal since 2000.
  In January 2000, the first time PPIC asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 39% of Californians were in favor and 55% were opposed. In October 2008, just before the passage of Proposition 8 (which banned same-sex marriage), 44% were in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Support for same-sex marriage moved above 50% in 2010, and the margin of support has continued to grow. Support has risen 5 points since May 2013, just before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling.
• Since October 2008, support has risen by double digits among Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
  Although support for allowing same-sex marriage is still far higher among Democrats (76%, up 20 points since October 2008) and independents (67%, up 14 points), it has nearly doubled among Republicans (from 23% to 44%, with 53% opposed).
• A majority of older Californians now favor allowing gay marriage; support is also up among other groups.
  For the first time, a majority of Californians age 55 and older favor allowing same-sex marriage (55% favor, 39% oppose)—a near reversal of opinion since October 2008 (34% favor, 58% opposed). Support for same-sex marriage has grown a considerable 15 points among younger Californians, age 18–34 (from 53% to 68%), and 13 points among those age 35–54 (from 45% to 58%). Majorities of women (66%, up 19 points) and men (55%, up 13 points) now support same-sex marriage. A majority of parents expressed opposition in 2008 (42% favor, 54% opposed), but now the reverse is true (53% favor, 42% oppose). There have been double-digit increases in support among Latinos (from 36% to 54%) and whites (from 50% to 65%).

Funny how California doesn't speak for everyone else.

Since I was responding to a post by someone who claimed that gay marriage wouldn't pass today in California.....you are right- I was speaking only about California.

Funny how you misunderstood that.