Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of G...

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

There are 3875 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 15, 2014, titled Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

For foes of same-sex marriage, their losing streak keeps growing. Some sense a lost cause, others vow to fight on.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1113 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you want to make a bet because the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with SCOTUS that Baker v Nelson still stands as precedent just like the Family Law Lawyers here in Indiana have confirmed and were right that Gay Marriages were coming to a halt here in Indiana because Baker v Nelson does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which has been reaffirmed.
Court Puts Indiana Gay Marriage Ruling on Hold
INDIANAPOLIS Jun 27, 2014, 6:59 PM ET
By TOM LoBIANCO Associated Press
A federal appeals court on Friday put on hold a judge's order striking down Indiana's gay marriage ban, bringing same-sex marriages to a halt and leaving those who've already tied the knot in legal limbo.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-gran...
All the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did was place a stay on the Judge's ruling until the appeals process is done.....NO WHERE did the 7th agree with Baker vs Nelson or even mentioned it!!!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1114 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You just proved your not cohernet thought and your retardnation that you suffer from is confirmed in your reply.
Your response is clear and convincing proof that you can't refute accurate legal analysis.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1115 Jun 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The overwhelming majority of children married before age eighteen are married monogamously. Aw hell there goes your whole dopey theory eh? Ban child marriage. Don't ban marriage.
So to solve the problem of children marriage, ban monogamy.
I was just pointing out that your statement about marriage being for "consenting adults" was incorrect.

Marriage has NEVER been limited to just consenting adults.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1116 Jun 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the person who doesn't know when to use "you're" instead of "your".
<quoted text>
My understanding of constitutional law far exceeds yours, cupcake. For instance, I know SCOTUS ignored Baker v. Nelson when they ruled in the same sex marriage case of Windsor v. Nelson and they will continue to ignore Baker because it's moot. The 10th Circuit also ruled Baker irrelevant when they upheld the ruling against Utah's same sex marriage ban last week. You're oblivious to both of those facts.
Continue copying and pasting your spam since you aren't bright enough to formulate your own thoughts on the topic; it will still be irrelevant.
Why would SCOTUS cite a case that they refused to hear since it lacked a Constitutional Question?(That WAS the majority opinion unless I'm mistaken)

LMAO

Your attempt at being a legal eagle is amusing.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1117 Jun 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The ruling in Baker v. Nelson that there was no violation of the 1st, 8th, 9th or 14th amendments applied only to the state of Minnesota since that was a ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. That case is now moot as precedent in Minnesota since Minnesota now gives legal recognition to same sex marriages.
As for the federal presidential value of the SCOTUS dismissal of the appeal of Baker v. Nelson for "want of a substantial federal question", it also is moot in fact despite not have been formally ruled so by SCOTUS. SCOTUS itself has laid out rules to guide lower courts regarding the applicability of summary dispositions like Baker v. Nelson. One of the rules is the precedent value is based only on the issues presented, not the reasoning of the lower court. A second and more applicable rule here is subsequent developments in the law and SCOTUS rulings can undermine the legal doctrines on which the original summary disposition was based. The fact SCOTUS accepted the appeal of same sex marriage case of Windsor v. United States, ruled in favor of the gay plaintiff and didn't dispute the lower Court of Appeal's finding that Baker v. Nelson was not controlling indicates SCOUS agrees with the Appeals Court assessment.
As usual, you're ignorant of constitutional law and merely state your uninformed and erroneous personal opinions.
Very good interpretation of case law surrounding Baker. I agree. Baker is toast.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1118 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>they are still in court and here in Indiana same couple marriages have come to a halt and onto the SCOTUS it will go.
Want to make a wager on it? I'll take SCOTUS upholding the lower court's ruling 22 to 1.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1119 Jun 29, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
All the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did was place a stay on the Judge's ruling until the appeals process is done.....NO WHERE did the 7th agree with Baker vs Nelson or even mentioned it!!!
I'm laughing so hard that anyone is even bringing up Baker vs Nelson.

It's like watching re-runs from last Fall.

Maybe we should compose a song for them to play as their ship sinks.

Oh I know:
Gomer Pyle, USMC - The Impossible Dream
&li st=FLXtNC_GBUNBIbqs6jnLl2PA &index=34

or better yet:
The Dixie Cups Chapel Of Love Lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1120 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals are in FantasyLand.
We aren't discussing liberals. Please try to pay more attention to the topic.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1121 Jun 29, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you proved my point that liberals will be advocating for incest next.
Is your State still enforcing it's ban on clergy performing religious ceremonies and facing 180 in jail and $1000 fine?

I ask since the Presb Church of the USA now grants SSC's the right to marry as do many other churches. So you still favor locking up ministers because of their religion?

Do you think SCOTUS will ignore your law's infringement on religious freedom especially now that religious freedom is your new mantra?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1122 Jun 29, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is clear and convincing proof that you can't refute accurate legal analysis.
Baker was a State Supreme Court Ruling. Not binding on SCOTUS junior.

And as Terra Firma so clearly illustrated, only a fool would think Baker applies today.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1123 Jun 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Is your State still enforcing it's ban on clergy performing religious ceremonies and facing 180 in jail and $1000 fine?
I ask since the Presb Church of the USA now grants SSC's the right to marry as do many other churches. So you still favor locking up ministers because of their religion?
Do you think SCOTUS will ignore your law's infringement on religious freedom especially now that religious freedom is your new mantra?
Clearly that is a first amendment violation.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1124 Jun 29, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I was just pointing out that your statement about marriage being for "consenting adults" was incorrect.
Marriage has NEVER been limited to just consenting adults.
Red herring. If consenting adult polygamists can't marry because they might not be consenting adults, neither can you Bozo.

Do you understand this simple concept son? Child marriage is a RED HERRING. And it happens mostly in monogamy, yet you don't want to ban monogamy. If you don't like children marrying, you must ban monogamy.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1125 Jun 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring. If consenting adult polygamists can't marry because they might not be consenting adults, neither can you Bozo.
Do you understand this simple concept son? Child marriage is a RED HERRING. And it happens mostly in monogamy, yet you don't want to ban monogamy. If you don't like children marrying, you must ban monogamy.
Throwing out the baby with the bath water is a good idea?

Standardizing age of consent laws might be a simpler and more effective solution to the "child marriage" issue.

You however fail to explain why SSM isn't fair as the same rules would apply toheterosexuals and homosexuals equally.

BTW Check out my new avatar I just picked up.

"Gay Pride wasn't born of a need to celebrate being gay, but our right to exist without persecution. So instead of wondering why there isn't a straight pride movement, be thankful you don't need one"

I think it's pretty good.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1126 Jun 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Baker was a State Supreme Court Ruling. Not binding on SCOTUS junior.
And as Terra Firma so clearly illustrated, only a fool would think Baker applies today.
You really should pay closer attention to the content of the posts to which you respond so you don't foolishly attack posters (me and Conservative Democrat) that are on your side and make erroneous assertions about the law which you clearly don't understand.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1127 Jun 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Throwing out the baby with the bath water is a good idea?
Standardizing age of consent laws might be a simpler and more effective solution to the "child marriage" issue.
You however fail to explain why SSM isn't fair as the same rules would apply toheterosexuals and homosexuals equally.
BTW Check out my new avatar I just picked up.
"Gay Pride wasn't born of a need to celebrate being gay, but our right to exist without persecution. So instead of wondering why there isn't a straight pride movement, be thankful you don't need one"
I think it's pretty good.
Why should I explain why SSM "isn't fair"? I fully support same sex marriage. I never said it "isn't fair".

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1128 Jun 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You really should pay closer attention to the content of the posts to which you respond so you don't foolishly attack posters (me and Conservative Democrat) that are on your side and make erroneous assertions about the law which you clearly don't understand.
I agree. DNF shoots from the hip eh?

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1129 Jun 30, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. DNF shoots from the hip eh?
yup and I was wrong

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1130 Jun 30, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You really should pay closer attention to the content of the posts to which you respond so you don't foolishly attack posters (me and Conservative Democrat) that are on your side and make erroneous assertions about the law which you clearly don't understand.
It was not my intent to attack you and apologize that I gave offense.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1132 Jun 30, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Baker was a State Supreme Court Ruling. Not binding on SCOTUS junior.

And as Terra Firma so clearly illustrated, only a fool would think Baker applies today.
Junior? LMAO!

Maybe you should read some of my posts on the matter.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1133 Jun 30, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring. If consenting adult polygamists can't marry because they might not be consenting adults, neither can you Bozo.
Do you understand this simple concept son? Child marriage is a RED HERRING. And it happens mostly in monogamy, yet you don't want to ban monogamy. If you don't like children marrying, you must ban monogamy.
Just as polygamy is a red herring or green squid or purple urple when talking about marriage equality for same-sex couples.

If you want to talk about polygamy, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with marriage equality for same-sex couples.

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) 45 min SuperHealthyProstate 13,270
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 49 min SuperHealthyProstate 398
News Australians embarrassed to be shown up by NZ on... 21 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News 15 weird wedding rituals from all across the gl... Sun Parden Pard 4
News Tanzania suspends NGO for 'promotion' of gay ma... Sat Newt G s Next Rel... 3
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Oct 21 paully 32,030
News From Jamaica to Knees Oct 21 Team Kelly 1
More from around the web