Comments
1 - 20 of 132 Comments Last updated Jul 1, 2013
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 26, 2013
 
...watch all of the homosexual activists claim that they now have a right to marriage -- in the same way that the Obama/Jackson crowd claimed yesterday that SCOTUS approved of racial discrimination in voting.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Wow...since SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection -- and not states rights, as I believe it clearly is -- then Prop 8 will be struck down.

The homosexual activists will be correct today in stating that no state can legally prevent them from entering into marriage.

And, as a matter of equal protection, no state will be able to prevent any other citizen from doing such as well.

Welcome to chaos.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 26, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
...watch all of the homosexual activists claim that they now have a right to marriage -- in the same way that the Obama/Jackson crowd claimed yesterday that SCOTUS approved of racial discrimination in voting.
Go to the basement and thump yer bible.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 26, 2013
 
OK...they're saying SCOTUS will dismiss Prop 8 on its standing.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 26, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
Wow...since SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection -- and not states rights, as I believe it clearly is -- then Prop 8 will be struck down.
The homosexual activists will be correct today in stating that no state can legally prevent them from entering into marriage.
And, as a matter of equal protection, no state will be able to prevent any other citizen from doing such as well.
Welcome to chaos.
But, from Roberts:

"The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States ... may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 26, 2013
 
From SCOTUSblog:

"To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress's disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage."

But...it's the crack in the dam.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 26, 2013
 
Hollingsworth v. Perry (Californiaís Prop 8):

Opinion by Chief: Prop 8 proponents donít have standing. 5-4. Dissent (on standing point only evidently) by Kennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor. That means that Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan found jurisdiction/standing in DOMA case but not in Prop 8 case. Hmmm.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Very excited to see the response from the federal gov (what kind of timeline is going to be set for adjustments on their end) and the legal actions that follow.

Good on them for framing it as a state's rights issue.

Hell, good on them for all of it.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 26, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
Very excited to see the response from the federal gov (what kind of timeline is going to be set for adjustments on their end) and the legal actions that follow.
Good on them for framing it as a state's rights issue.
Hell, good on them for all of it.
Particularly the legal actions of US military chaplains.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 26, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Chaos? How so?
Well, all the webcams I'm flicking past seem to have some pretty loud parties going on in them.

But that's going to last till the wee hours, not much longer.

Only a night or so of lovely, jubilant chaos.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 26, 2013
 
While not a love feed, this one is pretty adorable!



You know you're at a LBGTQ event when you've got the ASL interpreter right on stage with the action.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Interesting decisions from the Supreme Court the past couple o' days.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

GlitterSucks wrote:
Interesting decisions from the Supreme Court the past couple o' days.
They're just greasing the skids for the national divorce that's coming.
mike

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 26, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
...watch all of the homosexual activists claim that they now have a right to marriage -- in the same way that the Obama/Jackson crowd claimed yesterday that SCOTUS approved of racial discrimination in voting.
The question the court answered, correctly, is by what legal precedent does the court have to deny gays the right to marry. Basically, those opposed to gay marriage can no longer use animus - or moral disapproval - to enact laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same sex. And yes - the question of wether or not polygamy can be made illegal will inevitably follow on the same grounds.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 26, 2013
 
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>They're just greasing the skids for the national divorce that's coming.
The way I see their recent decisions, lob back to the individual states to let them decide, which is how it should be. You don't go to your boss's boss before talking to your boss, bad move. If people, in a state, vote and decide that is what they want, no reason for the feds to get involved.

Happy with the baby Veronica ruling too.
mike

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 26, 2013
 
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>The way I see their recent decisions, lob back to the individual states to let them decide, which is how it should be. You don't go to your boss's boss before talking to your boss, bad move. If people, in a state, vote and decide that is what they want, no reason for the feds to get involved.
Happy with the baby Veronica ruling too.
That is pretty much the case - except in each state no one can put up an argument against gay marriage based soley on moral disapproval. Without that - there is no basis to deny gays the right to marry.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 26, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
Wow...since SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection -- and not states rights, as I believe it clearly is -- then Prop 8 will be struck down.
The homosexual activists will be correct today in stating that no state can legally prevent them from entering into marriage.
And, as a matter of equal protection, no state will be able to prevent any other citizen from doing such as well.
Welcome to chaos.
Somehow this has turned -tip-'s life upside down. No more avoiding that commitment, I guess.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 26, 2013
 
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>The way I see their recent decisions, lob back to the individual states to let them decide, which is how it should be.
However, SCOTUS' Prop 8 decision flies in the face of this statement:

The residents of California voted to ban same-sex marriage;
opponents filed suit, and the state opted not to defend the ban. Now, SCOTUS has affirmed the state's dereliction of duty.

In other words, the people of California have no voice.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 26, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
However, SCOTUS' Prop 8 decision flies in the face of this statement:
The residents of California voted to ban same-sex marriage;
opponents filed suit, and the state opted not to defend the ban. Now, SCOTUS has affirmed the state's dereliction of duty.
In other words, the people of California have no voice.
Correct me if I'm wrong Tip, obviously this is recent news that is convoluted with legal mumbo jumbo, just posting my interpretation at this point in time.

I think that if you were married in CA before prop 8, you are okay. If you are married in a state that allows same sex marriage yet move to a state that does not it will not be recognized when it comes to benefits. I told hubby when he came home for lunch, this is going to turn into an assimilation nation...if I say Utah, you think__________

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 26, 2013
 
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Correct me if I'm wrong Tip, obviously this is recent news that is convoluted with legal mumbo jumbo, just posting my interpretation at this point in time.
I think that if you were married in CA before prop 8, you are okay. If you are married in a state that allows same sex marriage yet move to a state that does not it will not be recognized when it comes to benefits. I told hubby when he came home for lunch, this is going to turn into an assimilation nation...if I say Utah, you think__________
SCOTUS' decision rendered California's Prop 8 unenforceable.

http://www.yubanet.com/california/Governor-Br...

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry):

"After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state's counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted," said Governor Brown.

The effect of today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that the 2010 federal district court's decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is left intact and the law cannot be enforced.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
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.

Other Recent Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
When Will Obama DIE? 52 min Get Gone 3
Where are all the original legacy posters? 1 hr Wait what 29
Debate: Ferguson - Columbus, OH 4 hr They cannot kill ... 66
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 5 hr Jerry K 30,231
ISIS beheads James Foley 6 hr Free Pizza 4 U 89
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 6 hr Neutral Party 3,113
Apartments in good neighborhood 6 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Do you agree with Obama's plan to fundamentally... 8 hr Duke for Mayor 223

Search the Columbus Forum:
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••