However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NewsCenter 25

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Comments (Page 64)

Showing posts 1,261 - 1,280 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1333
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Sotomayor:“[T]here is an irony in that, which is the States that do more have less rights.”
Chief Justice Roberts:“So it’s got to happen right away in those States where same-sex couples have every legal right that married couples do. But you can wait in States where they have fewer legal rights.”

Justice Kennedy (addressing Perry’s counsel):“[The Ninth Circuit] basically said that California, which has been more generous, more open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any State in the Union, just didn’t go far enough, and it’s being penalized for not going far enough. That’s a very odd rationale on which to sustain this opinion.”

Justice Alito (same):“[A]re you seriously arguing that ... if the case before us now were from a State that doesn’t provide any of those benefits to same-sex couples, this case would come out differently?”

Not a single Justice jumped in to defend the federal government’s position. It is difficult to imagine that a majority of Justices will coalesce around the eight-state solution.

Keep reading....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1334
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Highly probable: There are four Justices ready to uphold traditional-marriage laws and four Justices ready to strike them down.

Going into the Hollingsworth argument, the prediction was that Justice Kennedy would be the swing vote. And in this respect, the pre-argument prediction appears to be correct. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor showed significant skepticism for Proposition 8’s proponents.

Justice Breyer:“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?...
[C]ouples that aren’t gay but can’t have children get married all the time.”

Justice Ginsburg:“[W]e [have] said that somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not going to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation.”

Justice Kagan:“[S]o you have sort of a reason for not including same-sex couples [in state-sanctioned marriage]. Is there any reason that you have for excluding them?”

Justice Sotomayor:“[O]utside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?”
Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Scalia showed considerable sympathy for the rational-basis theory that Proposition 8’s proponents have advanced.

Cont'd.........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1335
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody 'changed' anything...
'No' they don't...given a straight ssm or nothing...60% say nothing...
Link to that poll?

And no, we're not just going to take your word for it.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1336
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chief Justice Roberts:“[I]f you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the ... supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here....
[A]ll you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

Justice Alito:“The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It’s thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new.... But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?...
“[W]hy should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?” It can probably be safely assumed that Justice Thomas shares these sympathies.

Justice Scalia:“[W]hen did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”

So what will Justice Kennedy do?

Hmmmmmmmmmm...keep reading...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1337
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no one is stopping you from raising your kids, or loving anyone or boinking or even having any kind of ceremony or claiming you are married or the pope...
we just refuse to RECOGNIZE you as the same...
and this is rational since, in reality, you are not the same...
What you recognize is irrelevant. What you think is the same is also irrelevant.

So far 11 states recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples, with more states to come. Soon the federal government will as well.

Nothing you do or think or believe can stop us from advancing marriage equality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1338
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It does 'not' bother me that you are not willing to believe in the Truth of GOD..that is 'your' free will to do so...but your insults are childish and shows who 'you' really are...
Ride Moses, ride!!!!!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1339
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Highly improbable: The Court will DIG or dismiss based on standing.

All the Justices quizzed counsel about standing. But counsel for the Proposition 8 proponents appeared to weather the storm.

California undisputedly has standing to defend the constitutionality of its own constitution, and it also has the authority to delegate the authority to mount that defense. The California Supreme Court has already agreed, unanimously, that the proponents have been delegated that authority.

Justice Kennedy did not disagree. To the contrary, Justice Kennedy distinguished the proponents from ordinary citizens who might lack a unique injury sufficient to sustain standing. And later in the argument, Justice Kennedy criticized Perry’s counsel, suggesting that Perry’s position “allows governors and other constitutional officers in different States to thwart the initiative process.” Justice Kennedy appeared highly unlikely to find a standing problem.

Not done yet....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1340
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
are you talking about the number of studies that compares married gays to married straights?
say, isn't that one of your supposed flaws of studies you don't like?
why isn't one you accept as to the studies you do like?
how many studies are on point to this issue?
"not a single study"
you said it...
but you also think "science" supports you...
curious isn't it?
Correct, no study has ever shown children raised by same-sex couples are any worse off than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1341
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Many commentators have focused on the possibility of a DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted) based on Justice Kennedy’s comment that he “wonder[s] if – if the case was properly granted,” and his question to counsel for Proposition 8’s proponents at the beginning of rebuttal:“And you might address why you think we should take and decide this case.” These twenty-two words – in a sixty-eight-page transcript – constitute a thin reed on which to draw such a conclusion.

Cont'd....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1342
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, scietists and sociologists disagree with you...and I think they understand the scientific method better than either of us...
No, they don't, which is why you can't come up with a single study done anywhere by anyone which shows children raised by same-sex couples do any worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

None

Nada

Zip
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1343
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What you recognize is irrelevant.
since marriage IS recognition, you have merely spun yourself into a knot...

are polygamous people married even though the state doesn't recognize them?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1344
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Likely: Justice Kennedy will sustain Proposition 8.

Assuming no dismissal, everything comes down to Justice Kennedy’s vote on the merits. And here, there is not much to warm the hearts of Proposition 8 opponents. Justice Kennedy did reference the importance of California’s 40,000 children who “want their parents to have full recognition and full status.” But generally speaking, Justice Kennedy’s comments were much more sympathetic to Proposition 8’s supporters:

“[T]here’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”

“[Interracial marriage] was hundreds of years old in the common law countries.[A ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia] was new to the United States.”

“[T]he problem with the case is that you’re really asking ... for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there’s a wonderful destination, it is a cliff.”

Justice Kennedy even questioned the fundamental premise of whether the same-sex marriage issue “can be treated as a gender-based classification.”“It’s a difficult question that I’ve been trying to wrestle with.”

Almost......
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1345
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, no study has ever shown children raised by same-sex couples are any worse off than children raised by opposite-sex couples.
are you even trying to be honest anymore?

no study shows married gays are not FIFTY times more likely to be abusive to their kids...

no study shows that gays don't eat their young...
Francisco dAnconia

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1346
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they don't, which is why you can't come up with a single study done anywhere by anyone which shows children raised by same-sex couples do any worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.
None
Nada
Zip
he says as he rips into the study that says just that...
so, no study with which you agree does, right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1347
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It has always been understood that not 'every child' will have this opportunity...the idea behind the studies is for the government to get behind strengthening the 'traditional, nuclear family', rather than coming up with ideas to keep more and more children away from that situation....
<quoted text>
Would they do better in a nuclear biological home?? More than likely 'yes', but that's not always possible...what we as a country should be aiming for is the best possible situation for our kids...not just 'what will do'....
<quoted text>
No, you can not tie a 'family' to someone's wealth or status...for one reason and one alone...you can not regulate fertility...this isn't China...
Allowing same-sex couples to marry does NOTHING to stop opposite sex couples from having kids.

Banning same-sex couples from marrying won't stop us from raising children.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1348
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If Justice Kennedy believes that same-sex marriage laws are not about gender classifications, but instead a state’s policy decision to uphold as a model what the state considers to be the family structure (both a father and a mother who are biologically connected to their children), then it is likely that he will vote to uphold Proposition 8.

Such a vote would not portend a belief that same-sex couples cannot have committed relationships or act as wonderful parents; they clearly can. It would simply acknowledge as rational some states’ recognition that men and women bring something different to marriage and to parenting, a point that Justice Ginsburg made long ago in a very different context, in Duren v. Missouri:

“Yes, men and women are persons of equal dignity and they should count equally before the law but they are not the same. There are differences between them that most of us value highly....
I think that we–perhaps all understand it when we see it and we feel it but it is not that easy to describe, yes, there is a difference.”

Last one coming up...hang in there.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1349
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
are you even trying to be honest anymore?
no study shows married gays are not FIFTY times more likely to be abusive to their kids...
no study shows that gays don't eat their young...
You and your fellow anti-gays keep claiming gays raising kids is harmful, so the onus is on you to prove that.

Otherwise we get the benefit of the doubt just like every other parent.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1350
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Indeed, such deference to state authority is entirely consistent with Justice Kennedy’s comments in today’s Windsor argument:

“[Y]ou are at — at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

“The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.”

“You think Congress can use its powers to supercede the traditional authority and prerogative of the States to regulate marriage in all respects?”

The view of some is that marriage is only about satisfying the emotional fulfillment of adults, and has little or nothing to do with encouraging a legal attachment between children and their natural parents.

Others believe that sexual identity is inconsequential, rendering mothers and fathers entirely interchangeable. Some communities disagree with both views.

It seems entirely likely that Justice Kennedy will leave that debate to the political process rather than dismiss as animus some of the most ancient and cherished beliefs of half of the country.

As the Justice himself recently remarked at a speech in Sacramento,“A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”

Then again, these are only tea leaves.

Posted in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Featured, Merits Cases, Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Citation: John Bursch, Reading tea leaves: Why the Court will uphold Proposition 8, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 28, 2013, 11:59 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reading-tea...

Now wasn't that great????????

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1351
Apr 10, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same-sex couples to marry does NOTHING to stop opposite sex couples from having kids.
Banning same-sex couples from marrying won't stop us from raising children.
No one is telling you you 'can't' raise children...it's not a question of what's best for 'you', but what's best for 'the children'....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1352
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
he says as he rips into the study that says just that...
so, no study with which you agree does, right?
Nope, the Renergus study didn't look at kids raised by same-sex couples. They looked at kids raised by OPPOSITE-SEX couples where one of the parents had an affair at some point during the marriage with someone of the same sex.

Even you aren't dishonest enought to claim that is anywhere near the same as being raised by a committed same-sex couple.

So the only relevance the study has is to the effects of infidelity on kids.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,261 - 1,280 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

21 Users are viewing the Autos Forum right now

Search the Autos Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 48 min Pete 9,207
First Coast Gears: 'The Judge' proudly holds court 11 hr Mike and Wanda 1
LINCOLN vs CADILLAC: Which is better??? (Jan '08) 13 hr CADDYJP4 241
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 22 hr Wondering 1,692
Mexico's auto industry looks to luxury cars 22 hr Concerned 4
Gingrich warns GOP to not be the 'anti' party 23 hr Go Blue Forever 28
Arizona to get unaccompanied immigrant youths Mon shakey 37
•••

Buy a New Car


Zipcode:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••