Justice Kennedy's the one to watch on gay marriage test

Aug 8, 2010 Full story: The Modesto Bee 32

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy eventually will get his hands on California's gay marriage ban.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#1 Aug 8, 2010
We got a few years before a gay marriage case makes it's way to SCOTUS, probably 4 or 5 years. The makeup of the court will probably change by then. And most people will have gotten used tot he idea of gay marriage being a normal thing without the sky falling as many of the righh-wing loons have predicted.

I think the tide has turned in our favor.

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#2 Aug 8, 2010
"The resulting evidence," Walker wrote, "shows that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the 14th Amendment."

well duhh
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#3 Aug 8, 2010
Travis A wrote:
"The resulting evidence," Walker wrote, "shows that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the 14th Amendment."
well duhh
Well, he HAD to state the obvious, for the future appeals.
unimpressed

Idyllwild, CA

#4 Aug 8, 2010
Next up...repeal the 14th amendment. Republican Senators Jon Kyl & Lindsey Graham are pushing the idea to simultaneously tackle the immigration "problem" and shut down the gays all at once.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#5 Aug 8, 2010
unimpressed wrote:
Next up...repeal the 14th amendment. Republican Senators Jon Kyl & Lindsey Graham are pushing the idea to simultaneously tackle the immigration "problem" and shut down the gays all at once.
They are not atlking about repeal of the 14th Amendment. They are talking about repeal of that one section of the 14th Amendment that gives citizenship to any person born in the U.S.

Clearly the writers of that amendment never envisioned the non-mlitray, but crimina, invasion of our country by Mexico and other Latin America peoples.

I DO support the repeal of that section and favor replacing it with:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside PROVIDED THAT BOTH NATURAL PARENTS, I.E. NOT ADOPTIVE PARENTS, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#6 Aug 8, 2010
unimpressed wrote:
Next up...repeal the 14th amendment. Republican Senators Jon Kyl & Lindsey Graham are pushing the idea to simultaneously tackle the immigration "problem" and shut down the gays all at once.
They are not talking about repeal of the 14th Amendment. They are talking about repeal of that one section of the 14th Amendment that gives citizenship to any person born in the U.S.

Clearly the writers of that amendment never envisioned the non-mlitray, but criminal, invasion of our country by Mexico and other Latin America peoples.

I DO support the repeal of that section and favor replacing it with:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside PROVIDED THAT BOTH NATURAL PARENTS, I.E. NOT ADOPTIVE PARENTS, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
G in SF

San Francisco, CA

#7 Aug 8, 2010
It is possible that this case won't go to SCOTUS. If Roberts can't count on Kennedy's vote, he might decide not to take the case so that marriage would be legal in California (a small 'loss') vs. marriage being legal in the whole country (a big 'loss'). Walker's opinion was brilliantly written. Everyone is talking about Kennedy, but it's just as much about the decision that Chief Justice Roberts is going to have to make also.

I think the case will either be accepted or rejected by SCOTUS in 2-3 yrs, not 4-5 as Frank suggested. Still, the makeup of the court might be different AND attitudes among the Supremes/nation might adjust in our favor by then.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Aug 8, 2010
G in SF wrote:
It is possible that this case won't go to SCOTUS. If Roberts can't count on Kennedy's vote, he might decide not to take the case so that marriage would be legal in California (a small 'loss') vs. marriage being legal in the whole country (a big 'loss'). Walker's opinion was brilliantly written. Everyone is talking about Kennedy, but it's just as much about the decision that Chief Justice Roberts is going to have to make also.
I think the case will either be accepted or rejected by SCOTUS in 2-3 yrs, not 4-5 as Frank suggested. Still, the makeup of the court might be different AND attitudes among the Supremes/nation might adjust in our favor by then.
I think the problem is entirely different, and it lies within the scope of the last sentence in your post.

I am not blaming you, not singling you out, and not directing this at you; it is a general comment. I am floored endlessly by the attitude among the pro-gay that one must "worry about the ideological makeup of a court" or that one must "attempt to get public opinion on one's side." The anti-gay speak in vociferous, uncompromising tones as if they *own the souls of gay people*; the pro-gay DO NOT match them in tone and determination, not by a long shot.

Are these inalienable rights, or not? I don't see the pro-gay or the activists themselves acting *at all* as if these are their god-given rights; they act as if abuse against them is institutionalized, and so common that they COULD ONLY EXPECT THAT THE ANTI-GAY would treat them like this. Maggie Gallagher, who has a big mouth and won't shut it, keeps talking about "culture war" and is now marshaling efforts to get NOM to nag congress for a constitutional amendment or a national ban to all gay marriage. I have seen zero pro-gay groups respond to her talking points by telling her that if she wants a cultural war, she's goddamn going to get one. The pro-gay keep legitimizing what the anti-gay say, over and over, by acting as if it'll go away or that they "must be angels" because they've been forced into a corner by the anti-gay.

But I have been over and over this on these boards and no longer have much interest except in a "have fun fighting for decades" kind of way. I was really, really cheering these people on, and I don't see why I should bother anymore.

There shouldn't be any talk of "public support" or "the court's makeup" in terms of an inalienable right. Instead, if the courts dare to render rulings against marriage equality, the pro-gay should have numerous far-reaching Plan B's in place to protest this OBVIOUS, PATENT inequality. They could boycott businesses, ask businesses to boycott other businesses, demand numerous things from Congress nonstop, set up web sites as command centers for purposes of numerous efforts; this could all have turned out soooo much differently. Instead, I believe quite strongly that the anti-gay are going to win. But no one's listening, so, ya know, why bother to care anymore. It's a pity that no one will wake up.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Aug 8, 2010
Just four ideas of seemingly infinite ideas, if the supreme court or a lower court should rule against marriage equality:

1. Set up web sites to allow gay people to make every purchase of imports possible by legal means, so that they are refusing to support all American businesses, to whatever extent possible, and avoiding legally all taxation possible on all imported purchases they make.

2. Lobby Congress, endlessly, and lobby all state legislatures, endlessly, to remove all economic and governmental rights from marriage, making it solely a religious institution with no rights appertaining thereto.

3. Pressure businesses nonstop to change their pay structures so that gay people in partnerships benefit in the same ways that married couples do now, and keep the pressure on them nonstop.

4. Ask Actors' Equity or other major Hollywood organizations/players to go on strike indefinitely. Exhort and lobby them to do so.

Hey, call me crazy. When black people were fighting for their rights, they took it deadly seriously. I don't see efforts like that in these cases; I see people afraid to demand their place in society.

It's a pity, really. I think there's a definite, definite fear that comes from having been marginalized and made to believe you're second-class ... all your life. That needs to change, and it needs to change now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Aug 8, 2010
G in SF wrote:
It is possible that this case won't go to SCOTUS. If Roberts can't count on Kennedy's vote, he might decide not to take the case so that marriage would be legal in California (a small 'loss') vs. marriage being legal in the whole country (a big 'loss'). Walker's opinion was brilliantly written. Everyone is talking about Kennedy, but it's just as much about the decision that Chief Justice Roberts is going to have to make also.
I think the case will either be accepted or rejected by SCOTUS in 2-3 yrs, not 4-5 as Frank suggested. Still, the makeup of the court might be different AND attitudes among the Supremes/nation might adjust in our favor by then.
Glad someone else has finally realized the SCOTUS may not even take this case. Everybody just assumes they are eager to jump in the middle of yet another Roe v Wade type decision. I think they are just as likely to leave it at the 9th circuit.

Btw, it takes 4 Justices to agree to hear a case- ANY 4. Roberts has no more say in the matter than any other justice, he only gets to decide who rights the decision if he is in the majority opinion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Aug 8, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Instead, if the courts dare to render rulings against marriage equality, the pro-gay should have numerous far-reaching Plan B's in place to protest this OBVIOUS, PATENT inequality. They could boycott businesses, ask businesses to boycott other businesses, demand numerous things from Congress nonstop, set up web sites as command centers for purposes of numerous efforts; this could all have turned out soooo much differently. Instead, I believe quite strongly that the anti-gay are going to win. But no one's listening, so, ya know, why bother to care anymore. It's a pity that no one will wake up.
Just what do you think we've BEEN doing for the past decade? The problem is we simply don't have the numbers necessary to make an effective boycott or change minds in Congress. Since we are indeed outnumbered, there IS a fine line between fighting for our rights and alienating those who would otherwise be our allies.

If the courts rule against us there isn't much we can do. Yell, scream, cry, bitch, moan, boycott, blah, blah, blah. In the end it doesn't matter because we still lost, and we may have actually made things worse.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Aug 8, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Just four ideas of seemingly infinite ideas, if the supreme court or a lower court should rule against marriage equality:
1. Set up web sites to allow gay people to make every purchase of imports possible by legal means, so that they are refusing to support all American businesses, to whatever extent possible, and avoiding legally all taxation possible on all imported purchases they make.
2. Lobby Congress, endlessly, and lobby all state legislatures, endlessly, to remove all economic and governmental rights from marriage, making it solely a religious institution with no rights appertaining thereto.
3. Pressure businesses nonstop to change their pay structures so that gay people in partnerships benefit in the same ways that married couples do now, and keep the pressure on them nonstop.
4. Ask Actors' Equity or other major Hollywood organizations/players to go on strike indefinitely. Exhort and lobby them to do so.
Hey, call me crazy. When black people were fighting for their rights, they took it deadly seriously. I don't see efforts like that in these cases; I see people afraid to demand their place in society.
It's a pity, really. I think there's a definite, definite fear that comes from having been marginalized and made to believe you're second-class ... all your life. That needs to change, and it needs to change now.
There is some truth to what you say, but again, we simply don't have the numbers to be effective. Not to mention that by fighting for our equal rights would cost many of us our jobs or housing or lives. The majority of blacks had no choice; it's not like they could hide the fact that they were black.

Of course if we risk nothing we stand to gain nothing. Maybe that is more indicative of how good the GLBT community actually has it in this country. I know I could certainly live my life comfortably even if we never achieve marriage equality or employment protections, etc.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Aug 8, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
We got a few years before a gay marriage case makes it's way to SCOTUS, probably 4 or 5 years. The makeup of the court will probably change by then. And most people will have gotten used tot he idea of gay marriage being a normal thing without the sky falling as many of the righh-wing loons have predicted.
I think the tide has turned in our favor.
It all depends on WHO gains Standing to file, and the exact wording of the Appeal.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#14 Aug 8, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Just four ideas of seemingly infinite ideas, if the supreme court or a lower court should rule against marriage equality:
1. Set up web sites to allow gay people to make every purchase of imports possible by legal means, so that they are refusing to support all American businesses, to whatever extent possible, and avoiding legally all taxation possible on all imported purchases they make.
2. Lobby Congress, endlessly, and lobby all state legislatures, endlessly, to remove all economic and governmental rights from marriage, making it solely a religious institution with no rights appertaining thereto.
3. Pressure businesses nonstop to change their pay structures so that gay people in partnerships benefit in the same ways that married couples do now, and keep the pressure on them nonstop.
4. Ask Actors' Equity or other major Hollywood organizations/players to go on strike indefinitely. Exhort and lobby them to do so.
Hey, call me crazy. When black people were fighting for their rights, they took it deadly seriously. I don't see efforts like that in these cases; I see people afraid to demand their place in society.
It's a pity, really. I think there's a definite, definite fear that comes from having been marginalized and made to believe you're second-class ... all your life. That needs to change, and it needs to change now.
You are absolutely right. Outside of TOPIX, I don't even think in terms of equal rights. I have a wonderful wife, a great job, lots of fun in my free time, the best daughters and the CUTEST grandson in the world. I have only been touched by bigotry a few times, and only one of those times was there violence. So.....I don't stand up for our rights as I should. For that I am sorry.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Aug 8, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what do you think we've BEEN doing for the past decade? The problem is we simply don't have the numbers necessary to make an effective boycott or change minds in Congress. Since we are indeed outnumbered, there IS a fine line between fighting for our rights and alienating those who would otherwise be our allies.
If the courts rule against us there isn't much we can do. Yell, scream, cry, bitch, moan, boycott, blah, blah, blah. In the end it doesn't matter because we still lost, and we may have actually made things worse.
Wisdom, indeed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Aug 8, 2010
G in SF wrote:
It is possible that this case won't go to SCOTUS. If Roberts can't count on Kennedy's vote, he might decide not to take the case so that marriage would be legal in California (a small 'loss') vs. marriage being legal in the whole country (a big 'loss'). Walker's opinion was brilliantly written. Everyone is talking about Kennedy, but it's just as much about the decision that Chief Justice Roberts is going to have to make also.
I think the case will either be accepted or rejected by SCOTUS in 2-3 yrs, not 4-5 as Frank suggested. Still, the makeup of the court might be different AND attitudes among the Supremes/nation might adjust in our favor by then.
Yeah ... but we got a clear STRICT SCRUTINY decision based on Findings of Fact.

That is SO huge !!!!
Your Smarter Brother

Roanoke, VA

#17 Aug 8, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Just four ideas of seemingly infinite ideas, if the supreme court or a lower court should rule against marriage equality:
1. Set up web sites to allow gay people to make every purchase of imports possible by legal means, so that they are refusing to support all American businesses, to whatever extent possible, and avoiding legally all taxation possible on all imported purchases they make.
2. Lobby Congress, endlessly, and lobby all state legislatures, endlessly, to remove all economic and governmental rights from marriage, making it solely a religious institution with no rights appertaining thereto.
3. Pressure businesses nonstop to change their pay structures so that gay people in partnerships benefit in the same ways that married couples do now, and keep the pressure on them nonstop.
4. Ask Actors' Equity or other major Hollywood organizations/players to go on strike indefinitely. Exhort and lobby them to do so.
Hey, call me crazy. When black people were fighting for their rights, they took it deadly seriously. I don't see efforts like that in these cases; I see people afraid to demand their place in society.
It's a pity, really. I think there's a definite, definite fear that comes from having been marginalized and made to believe you're second-class ... all your life. That needs to change, and it needs to change now.
One possible tactic that I'm surprised nobody's brought up yet is one that proved quite effective for the black civil rights movement: The sit-in. Instead of lunch counters, though, today that could be used at courthouses.

Say if a bunch of same-sex couples could head for the reddest of the red states, zero in on the most homophobic county in the state, line up at the county courthouse and declare they aren't going anywhere until the local justice of the peace gives them the marriage licenses that Perry v. Schwarznegger guarantees them the rights to. They could tour the country much like the Freedom Riders did.

Yes, this does carry the risk of incarceration and even police brutality, but so did the sit-ins used by the black civil rights pioneers way back when. And if by some chance it actually does come to police suppression -- well, we all know how well that helped the segregationists' cause back then, don't we?

Just thought I'd chime in with my two cents' worth.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Aug 8, 2010
Your Smarter Brother wrote:
<quoted text>
One possible tactic that I'm surprised nobody's brought up yet is one that proved quite effective for the black civil rights movement: The sit-in. Instead of lunch counters, though, today that could be used at courthouses.
Say if a bunch of same-sex couples could head for the reddest of the red states, zero in on the most homophobic county in the state, line up at the county courthouse and declare they aren't going anywhere until the local justice of the peace gives them the marriage licenses that Perry v. Schwarznegger guarantees them the rights to. They could tour the country much like the Freedom Riders did.
Yes, this does carry the risk of incarceration and even police brutality, but so did the sit-ins used by the black civil rights pioneers way back when. And if by some chance it actually does come to police suppression -- well, we all know how well that helped the segregationists' cause back then, don't we?
Just thought I'd chime in with my two cents' worth.
Nonsense. Those tactics are NOT warranted at this stage, and will only alienate moderates and add fuel to an already building right-wing backlash. Such tactics are designed to bring attention to an issue. We've GOT their attention. Now what matters is what we do with it. Make friends and supporters, or angry voters?

btw: Has everyone seen this? Talk about fuel! ROFL !!! Wanna piss off the Right? Spread this around -->

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsBettyBowers
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#19 Aug 8, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Those tactics are NOT warranted at this stage, and will only alienate moderates and add fuel to an already building right-wing backlash. Such tactics are designed to bring attention to an issue. We've GOT their attention. Now what matters is what we do with it. Make friends and supporters, or angry voters?
btw: Has everyone seen this? Talk about fuel! ROFL !!! Wanna piss off the Right? Spread this around -->
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsBettyBowers
LOL

Great !

(Yes, I'm a church-going Christian.:))

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#20 Aug 9, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Those tactics are NOT warranted at this stage, and will only alienate moderates and add fuel to an already building right-wing backlash. Such tactics are designed to bring attention to an issue. We've GOT their attention. Now what matters is what we do with it. Make friends and supporters, or angry voters?
btw: Has everyone seen this? Talk about fuel! ROFL !!! Wanna piss off the Right? Spread this around -->
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsBettyBowers
This is hilarious!! The more so, because it is true. LOLOLOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

University of Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Man claims kingdom so daughter can be princess Jul '14 Mechanic 11
Court To Consider 5 Gay Marriage Cases At Once Jun '14 DNF 11
Recalls becoming 'background noise' that owners... Jun '14 shawn 2
Tea partyer takes aim at Cantor in Va. primary Jun '14 Eighthman 7
Video appears to show Nigerian schoolgirls praying May '14 AFRICANOS 1
Kremlin pushes for dialogue after Ukraine vote May '14 youre sick mate 4
School of Music faculty, students to embark on ... (Apr '14) May '14 Cherokee 15

University of Richmond People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE