Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop...

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

There are 769 comments on the www.towleroad.com story from Dec 7, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis. In it, www.towleroad.com reports that:

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 .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.towleroad.com.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#672 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.
Even a decline in marriage rates would not prove allowing more people equal opportunities would be the cause.

Unsupported and unsupportable fear of the future also fails to qualify as a rational excuse.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as require by the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#673 Jan 21, 2013
The procreation excuse for denial of equal treatment fails on all levels. Procreation has never been required and marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even for people without the ability to have sex.(Turner) And yet many gay people can and do procreate. Harming same sex parent families provides nothing for opposite sex families.

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group." (Gill v OPM)
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#674 Jan 21, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It had no more "holes" than the multiple unsubstantiated studies that show gay "parenting" to be as good as or better than opposite sex households.

Indeed you seem unaware of the social scientific consensus on the best family form concerning child outcomes. It is based on 50 years of research and is uniformely acceded to by sociologists across the spectrum.

Gay parenting studies however remain in the infancy. The Regneus study was the first large scale random sample study. Sure gay advocates think they have attacked it, but gay advocates are not the social scientific community. Regenrus was exsonorated against all charges of scientific misconduct dispite a well organized political campaign against him. The prestigious journal that published his work has not published a retraction because it is solid social science that fortherightly admits the weaknessess such work always has.

Gay advocates would turn these inherint flaws into disqualification while taking there own non-random selection bias filled "studies" and not subjecting them to any rigor what so ever.

Unfortunatley for them the social scientific community itself does subject works to rigor and can distinguish advocacy from solid research.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#675 Jan 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a decline in marriage rates would not prove allowing more people equal opportunities would be the cause.
Unsupported and unsupportable fear of the future also fails to qualify as a rational excuse.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as require by the constitution.
Gay men and lesbians have the same equal rights as everyone else...including the right to get married.

Because they are not attracked to mebers of the opposite sex so they choose not to excercise this right.

No, your asking that we change the meaning of marriage for everyone to satiate your feelings of not being normal.

That act of naked subterfuge pretending to be a 14th amendment argument wont atract the number of votes needed to win this June.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#676 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay men and lesbians have the same equal rights as everyone else...including the right to get married.
Because they are not attracked to mebers of the opposite sex so they choose not to excercise this right.
No, your asking that we change the meaning of marriage for everyone to satiate your feelings of not being normal.
That act of naked subterfuge pretending to be a 14th amendment argument wont atract the number of votes needed to win this June.
Actually already HAVE changed the meaning of marriage.

You're about a decade too late.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#677 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
The Regneus study was the first large scale random sample study.
The study is flawed for many many reasons, the most being that it is NOT comparing Same-Sex parent households to opposite-sex parent households!!!

255 kids who answered a question stating that either one of their parents had a relationship with someone of the Same-Sex regardless of the duration of that relationship was being compared to intact biological family units.........WILL NOT yield any comparable data......just biased crap and it is!!!!

Kids raised by Same-Sex parents turn out just like kids raised by intact biological opposite-sex parents......smart, loved, emotionally stable and good citizens!!!
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#678 Jan 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The study is flawed for many many reasons, the most being that it is NOT comparing Same-Sex parent households to opposite-sex parent households!!!
255 kids who answered a question stating that either one of their parents had a relationship with someone of the Same-Sex regardless of the duration of that relationship was being compared to intact biological family units.........WILL NOT yield any comparable data......just biased crap and it is!!!!
Kids raised by Same-Sex parents turn out just like kids raised by intact biological opposite-sex parents......smart, loved, emotionally stable and good citizens!!!
#1. God does love you.

#2. The study compared what it claimed to compare. It never said it was comparig what YOU wish it compared. The reasons for this were listed in the study. You did not like the results so you are trying to attack it as biased. It is not.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#679 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
#1. God does love you.
#2. The study compared what it claimed to compare. It never said it was comparig what YOU wish it compared. The reasons for this were listed in the study. You did not like the results so you are trying to attack it as biased. It is not.
What does God loving me have to do with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples?

Sorry, but no it didn't......how could it? Some of the kids who stated that one of their parents had been in a Same-Sex relationship, also stated that they were not necessarily raised by that parent. Some even stated that the relationship was NOT necessarily long term.......so, it can not claim that Gays and Lesbians make bad parents.......and 255 kids outta of 3000........that is hardly a representative of any demographics!!!!

Why don't you concentrate on what the briefs are gonna say tomorrow......they will give us some idea of what to look forward to in March!!!
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#680 Jan 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
What does God loving me have to do with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples?
Sorry, but no it didn't......how could it? Some of the kids who stated that one of their parents had been in a Same-Sex relationship, also stated that they were not necessarily raised by that parent. Some even stated that the relationship was NOT necessarily long term.......so, it can not claim that Gays and Lesbians make bad parents.......and 255 kids outta of 3000........that is hardly a representative of any demographics!!!!
Why don't you concentrate on what the briefs are gonna say tomorrow......they will give us some idea of what to look forward to in March!!!
You dont seem to have a handle on what a random sample is.. out of 3000 people surveyed 255 responded who had a parent who was in a smae-sex relationship.

& the study did not claim that "that Gays and Lesbians make bad parents" it simply reported the facts.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#681 Jan 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually already HAVE changed the meaning of marriage.
You're about a decade too late.
Only as a matter of highly contentious "law" (like abortion), often through the Judiciary - and only in a small number of states.

Not as a matter of a Federal Law, or constitiutional precedent and against the express consitutional amendmants of the vast majority of states.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#682 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You dont seem to have a handle on what a random sample is.. out of 3000 people surveyed 255 responded who had a parent who was in a smae-sex relationship.
& the study did not claim that "that Gays and Lesbians make bad parents" it simply reported the facts.
Actually the purpose of the Study was to show how having Gay and Lesbian parents was bad and why it shouldn't be allowed.......but it is allowed and you still don't get it.......preventing Gays and Lesbians from marrying will NOT prevent them from adopting children or raising children or make straights more responsible about ANYTHING!!!

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#683 Jan 21, 2013
You just keep on believing what you do, it's only to our benefit and we full well know that.
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
It had no more "holes" than the multiple unsubstantiated studies that show gay "parenting" to be as good as or better than opposite sex households.
Indeed you seem unaware of the social scientific consensus on the best family form concerning child outcomes. It is based on 50 years of research and is uniformely acceded to by sociologists across the spectrum.
Gay parenting studies however remain in the infancy. The Regneus study was the first large scale random sample study. Sure gay advocates think they have attacked it, but gay advocates are not the social scientific community. Regenrus was exsonorated against all charges of scientific misconduct dispite a well organized political campaign against him. The prestigious journal that published his work has not published a retraction because it is solid social science that fortherightly admits the weaknessess such work always has.
Gay advocates would turn these inherint flaws into disqualification while taking there own non-random selection bias filled "studies" and not subjecting them to any rigor what so ever.
Unfortunatley for them the social scientific community itself does subject works to rigor and can distinguish advocacy from solid research.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#684 Jan 21, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
#1. God does love you.
#2. The study compared what it claimed to compare. It never said it was comparig what YOU wish it compared. The reasons for this were listed in the study. You did not like the results so you are trying to attack it as biased. It is not.
It mislabeled it's categories, using terminology that NOBODY else in the Social Sciences would apply in those cases.

"NorCal" is correct.

Oh! and about #1 ... couldn't tell that from YOUR behavior.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#685 Jan 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It mislabeled it's categories, using terminology that NOBODY else in the Social Sciences would apply in those cases.
"NorCal" is correct.
Oh! and about #1 ... couldn't tell that from YOUR behavior.
Exactly:-)

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#686 Jan 22, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay men and lesbians have the same equal rights as everyone else...including the right to get married.
....
So, you believe that having ONLY the ability to marry people you can never be attracted to or romantically love is the societal ideal? That is exactly the same, and even preferable to marrying for love?

If you can honestly tell us that you have or will teach any children you have that a loveless marriage of convenience is the same or preferable to seeking out a loving life-mate, then we will at least acknowledge that you really believe this stuff.

If you have not taught it to your own kids, then you are just a silly hypocrite.

This same silly argument was used against interracial marriage. After all black and white people ALL had the SAME legal ability to marry someone of their own race. No need to create "special rights" for some interracial couple.

Why didn't that argument hold up back then? And why do you believe it's logical today?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#687 Jan 22, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Only as a matter of highly contentious "law" (like abortion), often through the Judiciary - and only in a small number of states.
Not as a matter of a Federal Law, or constitiutional precedent and against the express consitutional amendmants of the vast majority of states.
But changing federal law will make a HUGE difference.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#688 Jan 22, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Only as a matter of highly contentious "law" (like abortion), often through the Judiciary - and only in a small number of states.
Not as a matter of a Federal Law, or constitiutional precedent and against the express consitutional amendmants of the vast majority of states.
Change in society is always "contentious", just as it was with blacks voting & segregation & women voting, etc.

Actually MORE states have passed marriage equality for same-sex couples through either their duly elected legislatures or a vote of the people.

Better catch up, the country is changing rapidly on this issue.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#689 Jan 22, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay men and lesbians have the same equal rights as everyone else...including the right to get married.
Because they are not attracked to mebers of the opposite sex so they choose not to excercise this right.
No, your asking that we change the meaning of marriage for everyone to satiate your feelings of not being normal.
That act of naked subterfuge pretending to be a 14th amendment argument wont atract the number of votes needed to win this June.
Allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect for straight people does not change the marriages of straight couples in any legal way.

And still, you provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as require by the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#690 Jan 22, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you believe that having ONLY the ability to marry people you can never be attracted to or romantically love is the societal ideal? That is exactly the same, and even preferable to marrying for love?
If you can honestly tell us that you have or will teach any children you have that a loveless marriage of convenience is the same or preferable to seeking out a loving life-mate, then we will at least acknowledge that you really believe this stuff.
If you have not taught it to your own kids, then you are just a silly hypocrite.
This same silly argument was used against interracial marriage. After all black and white people ALL had the SAME legal ability to marry someone of their own race. No need to create "special rights" for some interracial couple.
Why didn't that argument hold up back then? And why do you believe it's logical today?
From the Washington Supreme Court decision upholding marriage..

“But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”

Note the court appropriately applies Loving, etc.

The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots. Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and a reflection of “the dominant political ideas of their legal community,” the concurrence says:“[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#691 Jan 22, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Washington Supreme Court decision upholding marriage..
“But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”
Note the court appropriately applies Loving, etc.
The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots. Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and a reflection of “the dominant political ideas of their legal community,” the concurrence says:“[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”
Regardless of what you believe, there are just as many lawyers who would argue that you are wrong and give court rulings proving their point......you are not an all knowing person or even lawyer......and if you have a reason to fight this fight, then file a brief with the court, I'm sure it will add to the pile of anti-gay marriage supporters who all believe as you do......in the end, what will matter the most is who's argument is more persuasive.......so far in regards to the Prop 8 case......Charles Cooper hasn't been overly stellar in that stance!!!!

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
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr No Surprise 8,436
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... 13 hr Penectomies4RCC P... 6
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Sat huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... Sat Carmine 1
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Sat Tex- 19
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding Aug 18 Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate Aug 18 Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
More from around the web