Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 769

The Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry , and one Defense of Marriage Act case , Windsor v. United States .

Full Story

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#652 Dec 24, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats a bit silly, is it not enough to simply reserve marriage to the one and only coupling of individuals (male/female) capable of reproduction?
So those poor opposite sex folks who are infertile, or too old, or unable to have children must spend their lives as spinsters, according to you? Wow. Cold. Who died and made YOU king of the marriage rules?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#653 Dec 24, 2012
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>So those poor opposite sex folks who are infertile, or too old, or unable to have children must spend their lives as spinsters, according to you? Wow. Cold. Who died and made YOU king of the marriage rules?
Those who adopt or use assisted reproduction would also be denied the equal protections of marriage under that rule.

It simply fails to address real people and real life situations, harming those denied equality while providing no additional benefit for those who do reproduce without help.
AzAdam

United States

#654 Dec 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I choose the most likely option, which would be option C.
C. Roe v Wade is upheld as constitutional and bans against same-sex couples marrying are ruled unconstitutional.
No fair.
AzAdam

United States

#655 Dec 24, 2012
For Fitz et al, if you have no argument beyond biological procreation as to why same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying, you should really concede. You have nothing.

All it takes is one advantage of marriage not related to procreation and your argument crumbles. There are many.

You have to show how withholding marriage from same sex couples affects fertile couples ability to procreate. You can't. It doesn't.

Marriage is not a legal requirement for procreation and procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. Your assertion cannot be reconciled with these facts.

Please do not confuse this for a 3 pronged argument. EACH of these points, in and of itself, is a spear to the heart of your assertion.

You have NO game. Your highest powered attorneys have no game (although they do have a half million dollars of tax dollars).

In June 2013 the Supreme Court is going to wipe away all barriers to same sex marriage. The writing is on the wall. The more I read these ass hat's posts the more obvious it is.

The bigots don't want to believe it and the pro equality folks are afraid to hope too strongly. You disagree? List the 9 justices with your forecasted vote and show me how you come up with an anti-equality decision?

Why did they take the prop 8 case? The pro gay keep asking. It's because they are going to broaden it to include all circuits and all gay marriage bans in every state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#656 Dec 25, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you see..instead of the law poking around and asking if anyone is infertile or ordering medical tests or asking if they intend to have children..
Instead you simpley reserve marriage to the one and only coupling of individuals capable of producing children together.
That way when you go an expect Fathers (for instance) to take responsibility for the children they sire, you can do it with an ounce of integrity.
For instance the Maryland Supreme Court..
The majority next rejected the idea “that a right to same-sex marriage has taken hold to the point that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in history and tradition of Maryland.” In fact, the court noted that previous cases recognizing a fundamental right to marry “infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species.” In fact, the court said that virtually all of the cases “indicate[] as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”
In terms of the justifications for the current marriage law, the court ruled “fostering procreation is a legitimate government interest” and the “‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).” The court held “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”
And other courts- notably the Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, & California supreme courts- have ruled otherwise.

It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS rules the remaining state bans unconstitutional.

It's only a matter of time......

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#657 Jan 9, 2013
Is there something wrong with this thread? There has been no activity on it and I left a comment here yesterday which is now gone.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#658 Jan 9, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
Is there something wrong with this thread? There has been no activity on it and I left a comment here yesterday which is now gone.
No, nothing wrong with this thread........obviously people move on and threads tend to die off.

Peace!!!
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#659 Jan 19, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
For Fitz et al, if you have no argument beyond biological procreation as to why same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying, you should really concede. You have nothing.
All it takes is one advantage of marriage not related to procreation and your argument crumbles. There are many.
You have to show how withholding marriage from same sex couples affects fertile couples ability to procreate. You can't. It doesn't.
Marriage is not a legal requirement for procreation and procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. Your assertion cannot be reconciled with these facts.
Please do not confuse this for a 3 pronged argument. EACH of these points, in and of itself, is a spear to the heart of your assertion.
You have NO game. Your highest powered attorneys have no game (although they do have a half million dollars of tax dollars).
In June 2013 the Supreme Court is going to wipe away all barriers to same sex marriage. The writing is on the wall. The more I read these ass hat's posts the more obvious it is.
The bigots don't want to believe it and the pro equality folks are afraid to hope too strongly. You disagree? List the 9 justices with your forecasted vote and show me how you come up with an anti-equality decision?
Why did they take the prop 8 case? The pro gay keep asking. It's because they are going to broaden it to include all circuits and all gay marriage bans in every state.
I wish...

I truly wish that SCOTUS would have the courage of their convictions and use a 14th amendment equel protection argument to
impose same-sex "marriage" on the entire country.

As a defender of the institution of marriage I actually want this to be the outcome. It would deligitimize the outcome as undemocraic and legally indefensable.

Poltically it would create a situation very much like Roe v. Wade were large percentages of the population would never accept it as tenable or legitimante excercise of state power.

Unfortunatley this is probably not going to be how they rule. Much more likley is a ruling were they allow a federalsit "solution" in order to buy more time and make an eventual imposition of same-sex "marriage" on the entire country look as if it was choosen by the people and had political legitamacy rooted in self goverment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#660 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish...
I truly wish that SCOTUS would have the courage of their convictions and use a 14th amendment equel protection argument to
impose same-sex "marriage" on the entire country.
As a defender of the institution of marriage I actually want this to be the outcome. It would deligitimize the outcome as undemocraic and legally indefensable.
Poltically it would create a situation very much like Roe v. Wade were large percentages of the population would never accept it as tenable or legitimante excercise of state power.
Unfortunatley this is probably not going to be how they rule. Much more likley is a ruling were they allow a federalsit "solution" in order to buy more time and make an eventual imposition of same-sex "marriage" on the entire country look as if it was choosen by the people and had political legitamacy rooted in self goverment.
Well DUH!

Why do you think we're doing this in an incremental approach and specifically NOT bringing cases to the SCOTUS which would encourage such a broad over reaching ruling??

We DO have a plan you know. And despite a few setbacks here and there it's been going pretty good for the past 20 years.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#661 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well DUH!
Why do you think we're doing this in an incremental approach and specifically NOT bringing cases to the SCOTUS which would encourage such a broad over reaching ruling??
We DO have a plan you know. And despite a few setbacks here and there it's been going pretty good for the past 20 years.
Indeed..

I zing my law proffesor freinds who support ths agenda by calling them "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

The problem with "your plan" is that it exsposes the utter lack of intellectual & moral integrity that is "living constitutionalism"

The problem you more pedestrain arguers for same-sex "marriage" encounter is that you dont realize that most of your best and most serious minds dont subscribe to the very arguments that people on this board will go to their graves thinking actual legal scholars take seriously.

They are well aware that the arguments of their opposition are the superior and winnig argumets and admit this in closed circles all the time. Its an "end justifies the means" type of rational in their minds.

For insitance you wont find the like of Lawrence Tribe engaging in the "legal" arguments used to support same-sex "marriage". Indeed hen asked such questions in public forums he will go to great leanghts to divert such questions from the legal to the poltical & social.

This is because he takes himself seriously as a legal mind and wont let himself be caught publicly making arguments that make him look foolish to other trained legal minds. At the same time however, he's not going to go to the matt in defense of consitutional rights and incure the rath of the cultural left and gay identity Politics. So you have the aversion strategey that he and most notable consitutional scholars take on these issue's.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#662 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed..
I zing my law proffesor freinds who support ths agenda by calling them "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"
The problem with "your plan" is that it exsposes the utter lack of intellectual & moral integrity that is "living constitutionalism"
The problem you more pedestrain arguers for same-sex "marriage" encounter is that you dont realize that most of your best and most serious minds dont subscribe to the very arguments that people on this board will go to their graves thinking actual legal scholars take seriously.
They are well aware that the arguments of their opposition are the superior and winnig argumets and admit this in closed circles all the time. Its an "end justifies the means" type of rational in their minds.
For insitance you wont find the like of Lawrence Tribe engaging in the "legal" arguments used to support same-sex "marriage". Indeed hen asked such questions in public forums he will go to great leanghts to divert such questions from the legal to the poltical & social.
This is because he takes himself seriously as a legal mind and wont let himself be caught publicly making arguments that make him look foolish to other trained legal minds. At the same time however, he's not going to go to the matt in defense of consitutional rights and incure the rath of the cultural left and gay identity Politics. So you have the aversion strategey that he and most notable consitutional scholars take on these issue's.
Whatever dude.

The only thing that matters is it's currently the WINNING strategy. Your fellow "great legal minds" can sit around arguing the finer points of constitutional law till the cows come home, while we "lesser minds" achieve our goal of marriage equality nationwide.

Society is changing how they view same-sex couples, in no small part because we are PART of society and refuse to be hidden anymore or accept the status quo simply because it doesn't meet your standards of "intellectual and moral integrity".

Deal with it.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#663 Jan 19, 2013
Thats the "only thing that matters" to gays ("winning")

It reveals them as self centered and narrsasistic, encapable of empathizing with the needs of the larger society or accomadating their desires with the greater good.

We on the other hand (those who defend the insiitution of marriag) have multiple dogs in this fight. We are not transfixed on "winning" because were mature enough to know that nothing is finally won because nothing is finally lost.

One dog is "living Consitutionalism" and the prestige it is losing as it reveals itself to be single minded and results oriented. This same "living consitutionalism" is the rationale for other interelated issues like abortion and Roe vs Wade..

We appreciate the larger context and larger intellectual debates occuring and how the determination to "win" at all costs is revealing the untenable nature of that legal camp and its arguments.

We are also building a pro-marriage family movment that is international in scope. Much like the pro-life movment it is authentically grass roots and has learned multiple approaches to expanding its reach and influence despite its lack of popularity amoung elites in the media and acadamia.

These movements are looking at the larger picture and are willing to accept momentary losses as we concentrate on their effects on the marathon race that is promoting and producing actual marriages for the next generation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#664 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
Thats the "only thing that matters" to gays ("winning")
It reveals them as self centered and narrsasistic, encapable of empathizing with the needs of the larger society or accomadating their desires with the greater good.
We on the other hand (those who defend the insiitution of marriag) have multiple dogs in this fight. We are not transfixed on "winning" because were mature enough to know that nothing is finally won because nothing is finally lost.
One dog is "living Consitutionalism" and the prestige it is losing as it reveals itself to be single minded and results oriented. This same "living consitutionalism" is the rationale for other interelated issues like abortion and Roe vs Wade..
We appreciate the larger context and larger intellectual debates occuring and how the determination to "win" at all costs is revealing the untenable nature of that legal camp and its arguments.
We are also building a pro-marriage family movment that is international in scope. Much like the pro-life movment it is authentically grass roots and has learned multiple approaches to expanding its reach and influence despite its lack of popularity amoung elites in the media and acadamia.
These movements are looking at the larger picture and are willing to accept momentary losses as we concentrate on their effects on the marathon race that is promoting and producing actual marriages for the next generation.
Have fun with that.

You'll be remembered in history right along those who defended the institution of marriage from those evil inter-racial couples.

Meanwhile we'll continue to expand marriage equality across the country and across the globe.

Up next- Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, & New Jersey; plus France & England.

Better hurry, before you have nothing left to defend........
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#665 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Have fun with that.
You'll be remembered in history right along those who defended the institution of marriage from those evil inter-racial couples.
Meanwhile we'll continue to expand marriage equality across the country and across the globe.
Up next- Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, & New Jersey; plus France & England.
Better hurry, before you have nothing left to defend........
That was the thoughts of the cultural left when it came to abortion.

All anyone will ever need to say when it comes to the spurious racial anology with same-sex "marriage" is "children need their Mothers & Fathers.

The overwelming majority of the population is heterosexual and only opposite sex couples can have children together.

Your busy proving us right about the nature of homosexuality.. The forces of reason, faith, family, and western civilization have outlasted and seen the ruin of monarchies, nations, empires, and despots for 5000 years.

The concepts of marriage and the family cannot be destroyed no matter how many civil laws you may change.

Homosexuality is and always will be a marginal practice...the radicilized elites of the 1960's put you guys up to this in the same way they put women up to feminism.

A United States Senator I was speaking with (& a Democrat)said concerning same-sex "marriage" - "when you stir the pot alot of things come to the surface"

I predict that same-sex "marriage" will spell the end and rupudiation of the sexual revolution, feminism, abortion and the cultural left in general.

Some people can see the forest for the tree's.

You guys will end up feeling used at the end of the day....because you were.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#666 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
That was the thoughts of the cultural left when it came to abortion.
All anyone will ever need to say when it comes to the spurious racial anology with same-sex "marriage" is "children need their Mothers & Fathers.
The overwelming majority of the population is heterosexual and only opposite sex couples can have children together.
Your busy proving us right about the nature of homosexuality.. The forces of reason, faith, family, and western civilization have outlasted and seen the ruin of monarchies, nations, empires, and despots for 5000 years.
The concepts of marriage and the family cannot be destroyed no matter how many civil laws you may change.
Homosexuality is and always will be a marginal practice...the radicilized elites of the 1960's put you guys up to this in the same way they put women up to feminism.
A United States Senator I was speaking with (& a Democrat)said concerning same-sex "marriage" - "when you stir the pot alot of things come to the surface"
I predict that same-sex "marriage" will spell the end and rupudiation of the sexual revolution, feminism, abortion and the cultural left in general.
Some people can see the forest for the tree's.
You guys will end up feeling used at the end of the day....because you were.
Blah, blah, blah.......

Old people always think the current generation will spell the ruin of civilization- women voting, blacks voting, rock n roll, inter-racial marriage, birth control, women working outside the home, hiphop music, gays marrying, etc, etc, etc...

Blah, blah, blah........

Every generation thinks THEIRS was the greatest and the next will ruin our civilization.

Hint, you're old.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#667 Jan 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.......
Old people always think the current generation will spell the ruin of civilization- women voting, blacks voting, rock n roll, inter-racial marriage, birth control, women working outside the home, hiphop music, gays marrying, etc, etc, etc...
Blah, blah, blah........
Every generation thinks THEIRS was the greatest and the next will ruin our civilization.
Hint, you're old.
Except I am in my 30's?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#668 Jan 20, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Except I am in my 30's?
Which only proves ignorance has no age limit either.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#669 Jan 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which only proves ignorance has no age limit either.
Your ignorance of the bigger picture here is whats at issue. You took a gamble (that I was "old") and lost. No, young people as likley to be against gay marriage, once they here the arguments as anyone.

The future is not "inevitable" and even a loss brings with it plenty of upswing..(like proving us right in your tactics and predictions)

Remeber, we are now on record as opposing same-sex "marriage" as being destructive of marriage and the family.

Thats an impiracle question that can be proved through the statistics of marriage in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" the longest.

The truth of that question will continue to be verifiable long before the Supreme Court imposes marriage on the entire country.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#670 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance of the bigger picture here is whats at issue. You took a gamble (that I was "old") and lost. No, young people as likley to be against gay marriage, once they here the arguments as anyone.
The future is not "inevitable" and even a loss brings with it plenty of upswing..(like proving us right in your tactics and predictions)
Remeber, we are now on record as opposing same-sex "marriage" as being destructive of marriage and the family.
Thats an impiracle question that can be proved through the statistics of marriage in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" the longest.
The truth of that question will continue to be verifiable long before the Supreme Court imposes marriage on the entire country.
Have fun proving your "truth".

Last time I checked more people support marriage equality this year than did last year.

And more supported marriage equality last year than did the year before.

And more supported marriage equality the year before that than did the year before that.

See ya at the SCOTUS!

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#671 Jan 21, 2013
Planning yet another study comparing apples to oranges won't serve you any better than the parenting study released last fall. It had so many holes in it a Swiss cheese manufacturer bought the patent on it.

You could use the "scientists" who developed the "Christian" evolution museum where they show primitive men walking around in fields with dinosaurs.

You folks are the laughing stock of the scientific community.
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance of the bigger picture here is whats at issue. You took a gamble (that I was "old") and lost. No, young people as likley to be against gay marriage, once they here the arguments as anyone.
The future is not "inevitable" and even a loss brings with it plenty of upswing..(like proving us right in your tactics and predictions)
Remeber, we are now on record as opposing same-sex "marriage" as being destructive of marriage and the family.
Thats an impiracle question that can be proved through the statistics of marriage in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" the longest.
The truth of that question will continue to be verifiable long before the Supreme Court imposes marriage on the entire country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 1 hr GUMP finder 4
Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... 1 hr Lukashenko is Dr ... 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr Jonah1 49,838
Pakistan flood sinks boat carrying wedding party 3 hr NITiN 3
There was 'blood everywhere' says witness of Or... 3 hr Elaphant Man 1
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr Jonah1 25,022
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 6 hr Infidel 18
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••