Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Daily Democrat

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Comments
1 - 20 of 220 Comments Last updated Feb 27, 2013
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The core question is and remains,

"Is sexual orientation sufficient grounds to deny Citizens the Equal Rights, Equal Access, Equal Participation and Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America?"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

snyper wrote:
The core question is and remains,
"Is sexual orientation sufficient grounds to deny Citizens the Equal Rights, Equal Access, Equal Participation and Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America?"
Actually the core question is- "does sexual orientation rise to the level of a protected class".

Without an elevated level of scrutiny which comes from being declared a protected class, the other state bans will likely remain.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Everything hinges on the level of scrutiny.

If the SCOTUS agrees with the 2nd circuit ruling which based their decision on an intermediate scrutiny (similar to gender), then every state ban is at risk either with this decision or in future lawsuits.

If they stick with rational basis, they can still overturn DOMA & Prop 8, but all the other state bans would likely remain.
Willis

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the core question is- "does sexual orientation rise to the level of a protected class".
Without an elevated level of scrutiny which comes from being declared a protected class, the other state bans will likely remain.
Protected class?

Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people. You want to be classified as a separate BETTER type of people.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Willis wrote:
<quoted text>
Protected class?
Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people. You want to be classified as a separate BETTER type of people.
No, we just don't want to be discriminated against because we're part of a particular class.

Just as women & men are a protected class (gender).

Just as whites & blacks & asians etc are a protected class (race).

Just as christians & jews & muslims etc are a protected class (religion).

And sexual orientation will be a protected class, which will include heterosexuals as well as homosexuals & bisexuals.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Willis wrote:
<quoted text>
Protected class?
Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people. You want to be classified as a separate BETTER type of people.
Btw, protected class doesn't mean you get "elevated rights"; it means any laws which attempt to discriminate against you based on your being part of such a class (whether it's race, gender, religion, etc) must meet a higher level of scrutiny to be constutional.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Willis wrote:
<quoted text>
Protected class?
Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people. You want to be classified as a separate BETTER type of people.
I know you're stupid, so I'll explain it a 3rd time.

Protected class means it's harder to discriminate against someone just because they're white or black or a woman or a jew or in this case a homosexual or a even a heterosexual.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Willis wrote:
<quoted text>
Protected class?
Thanks for admitting that homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights but demand special, elevated rights over normal people. You want to be classified as a separate BETTER type of people.
Another false name? Wow. Do you keep one of those old "What to name the baby" books at hand to think up new ones?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

(from Golinski v.)

"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

"In July 2010 Judge Tauro ruled section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in a summary judgment decision stating,“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” He later stayed the implementation of his decision pending appeal and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered an appeal on October 12, 2010. While the plaintiffs had asked Tauro to find that sexual orientation was a suspect class and therefore properly treated with strict scrutiny, Tauro found that Section 3 was unconstitutional on rational basis grounds. He did not address the question of whether heightened scrutiny was warranted. Tauro issued a decision in Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services, which found the same provision of DOMA on the same day he released his opinion in Gill. Tauro entered his final judgment–a document developed in consultation with the parties to the case–on August 18 and granted a stay for the duration of the appeals process."
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...
Beverly

Cleveland, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
The core question is and remains,
"Is sexual orientation sufficient grounds to deny Citizens the Equal Rights, Equal Access, Equal Participation and Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America?"
Aren't gay Americans citizens of the US? Do you deny anybody equal rights in this country? NO! Everyone living in this country ought to have the same rights. To do otherwise is criminal.
Beverly

Cleveland, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Everyone in this country should be treated equally under the law. Gay Americans should have the same rights as all other Americans. And it will happen, but as with anything decent in this country, it happens so slow.
I propose that we take away the rights of heterosexuals to get married. Let the squealing commence.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 22, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
The core question is and remains,
"Is sexual orientation sufficient grounds to deny Citizens the Equal Rights, Equal Access, Equal Participation and Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America?"
Of course that's not the core question at all, no matter how often you lie and claim that it is. But perhaps the fact that you do obviously lie may explain why your tantrums have not gotten you what you want, to wit: acceptance. If anybody on your side would deny that, I'd see that as yet more evidence as to your side's dishonesty, at least those who would deny that. Obviously not all are so dishonest.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 22, 2013
 
Beverly wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't gay Americans citizens of the US? Do you deny anybody equal rights in this country? NO! Everyone living in this country ought to have the same rights. To do otherwise is criminal.
Not really. Equal treatment under the law is a bit of a myth. For instance, a graduated income tax is exactly opposite of equal treatment. But it's popular among those who like being a victim, so it is conveniently ignored.

By the way, those convicted of felonies do not have the same rights. Those in the military do not have the same rights. Those with celebrity are not restricted to equal rights. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's just the way it is.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 22, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Of course that's not the core question at all, no matter how often you lie and claim that it is.
Not according to SCOTUS, but then I'm sure you think you know better than SCOTUS, don't you?
Beverly

Cleveland, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 22, 2013
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Not really. Equal treatment under the law is a bit of a myth. For instance, a graduated income tax is exactly opposite of equal treatment. But it's popular among those who like being a victim, so it is conveniently ignored.
By the way, those convicted of felonies do not have the same rights. Those in the military do not have the same rights. Those with celebrity are not restricted to equal rights. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's just the way it is.
Every group that you mentioned has the right to marry if they are heterosexual.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 22, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to SCOTUS, but then I'm sure you think you know better than SCOTUS, don't you?
I love stupid and dishonest people like yourself who are so "sure" about that which they know nothing about. When you can quote where I actually said I knew better than SCOTUS (and of course you can't), get back to me with that which so many liberals run in terror from. Facts.

Other than that, your post was a self-indulgent waste of time.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 22, 2013
 
Beverly wrote:
<quoted text>
Every group that you mentioned has the right to marry if they are heterosexual.
Irrelevant, but that's okay. Doesn't change a thing. I'm all for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. And no, gays and straights are not the same. Neither are men and women, regardless of how many tantrums are thrown.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Not really. Equal treatment under the law is a bit of a myth. For instance, a graduated income tax is exactly opposite of equal treatment. But it's popular among those who like being a victim, so it is conveniently ignored.
By the way, those convicted of felonies do not have the same rights. Those in the military do not have the same rights. Those with celebrity are not restricted to equal rights. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's just the way it is.
Those similarily situtated are treated equally under the law, for example:

-those making over $1 million pay the same tax rate as everyone else making over $1 million
-those making less than $30k pay the same tax rate as everyone else making less than $30k
-every servicemember is treated the same as every other servicemember in the same situation.
-anyone convicted of a felony loses their right to vote, just like every other convicted felon.

And each married couple should be treated the same as every other married couple, but the married same-sex couples aren't.

That's what makes it unequal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Irrelevant, but that's okay. Doesn't change a thing. I'm all for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. And no, gays and straights are not the same. Neither are men and women, regardless of how many tantrums are thrown.
Then you should have a civil union or domestic partnership.

I'll stick with my marriage and fight till I'm treated equally to all other marriages.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
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.

•••
•••