Supreme Court urged to support gay ma...

Supreme Court urged to support gay marriage limits

There are 287 comments on the WTAX-AM Springfield story from Jan 22, 2013, titled Supreme Court urged to support gay marriage limits. In it, WTAX-AM Springfield reports that:

The Supreme Court was urged on Tuesday to uphold the constitutionality of two laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as it prepares to hear arguments in the historic same-sex marriage cases two months from now.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WTAX-AM Springfield.

Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#116 Jan 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure which of the many judges that have supported equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution you are addressing, but it is the job of the judges to uphold the constitution against them many legislative attempts to impose unconstitutional laws.
The judges have been holding hearings where mountains of evidence have been presented. The written decisions explain their reasoning, based on the evidence and law.
And again, while the majority gets to make the rules, those rules must apply equally to everyone to satisfy the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
"In the courtÂ’s final analysis, the governmentÂ’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:...DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Based on evidence and Jury when in court.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#117 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But abraham lincoln was a republican. Years later the republicans were dominant and forced what was equal, and blocked vile affections! Don't tell me that lie! Bring me proof that Abraham Lincoln had a relationship with him, and don't cherrypick!
They have found VERY graphic love letters, Abe and Josh would sleep together, Lincoln admitted it in his diaries, and many other incidences.

Some defend him, saying that the 19th century WAS sort of homoerotic, but come on, LOVE letters? Supposedly Josh Speed was very handsome and Abe, not so, but his intelligence made up for it. I can see it happening. Would YOU prefer Mary Lincoln? Yikes.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#118 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Customs for close friends to do that! They were simply very close friends!
So, having one of your pals sleep over this evening? How CHARMING. Are you going to cuddle and do reach arounds?
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#119 Jan 25, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>They have found VERY graphic love letters, Abe and Josh would sleep together, Lincoln admitted it in his diaries, and many other incidences.
Some defend him, saying that the 19th century WAS sort of homoerotic, but come on, LOVE letters? Supposedly Josh Speed was very handsome and Abe, not so, but his intelligence made up for it. I can see it happening. Would YOU prefer Mary Lincoln? Yikes.
Sleep together doesn't always mean sex. And he may be good looking, but he might have been chosen for his looks and intellect traditionally. And show me the letters.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#120 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Sleep together doesn't always mean sex. And he may be good looking, but he might have been chosen for his looks and intellect traditionally. And show me the letters.
Look them up yourself, you lazy sot. PROVE me wrong.

And NO one I know sleeps with a non sexual pal. Even my gay friends would NOT sleep with someone they were not sexually active with.
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#121 Jan 25, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Look them up yourself, you lazy sot. PROVE me wrong.
And NO one I know sleeps with a non sexual pal. Even my gay friends would NOT sleep with someone they were not sexually active with.
Custom for them to be room mates. I never said they were sexually active.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#122 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Custom for them to be room mates. I never said they were sexually active.
Bed-mates, dear, bed-mates. I had many room mates in my younger years, but anyone who jumped in bed with me was expected to have sex with me. And I was never disappointed in that expectation.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#123 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Customs for close friends to do that! They were simply very close friends!
We still follow that 'custom' today ;o))
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#124 Jan 25, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Bed-mates, dear, bed-mates. I had many room mates in my younger years, but anyone who jumped in bed with me was expected to have sex with me. And I was never disappointed in that expectation.
Didn't customs in a different time. Abraham lincolns time, gay turd!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#125 Jan 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
(big sigh)
I ... I just thought you didn't want to quibble with me anymore ...
(This thread has beaten itself to death. NEXT!)
We still quibble......but not over a silly thing like standing/intervene.......lol!! !

Hugs:-)
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#126 Jan 25, 2013
Evil!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#127 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The right is reasonable to let people have the right to decide with their opinions. The judge has no right, and no proof, to make it acceptable to overturn the ban, except being mr know it all.
Wow. You really don't get American legal theory.
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#128 Jan 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You really don't get American legal theory.
The Judge decides only based on Evidence, and the Jury.
TheTroll Stopper

Vinton, VA

#129 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
Evil!
Yes, we know you are.
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#130 Jan 25, 2013
Evil you!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#131 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The Judge decides only based on Evidence, and the Jury.
There isn't a jury in Federal Appeals cases, or at the Supreme Court for that matter.

But thanks for showing everyone in cyberspace what a clueless dimwit you really are.

WELL DONE GRASSHOPPER!
Gays Run the World

Alpharetta, GA

#132 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The Judge decides only based on Evidence, and the Jury.
That may be true in your homoland; but in the USA it works like this:
.
In the case of a jury trial; the jury decides based on the evidence and the law
.
In the case of a trial without jury; the judge(s) decide(s) based on the evidence and the law

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#133 Jan 25, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The Judge decides only based on Evidence, and the Jury.
Your understanding of the American legal system is rudimentary. You have a few poorly-understood concepts and are drawing incorrect conclusion from that.

You could start by actually reading the U.S. Constitution, but that would only show you the result, not the causes for why and how it was written the way that it was. There are other works, radical at the time, that influenced the framers in their thinking. Alsop, there were historical events, recent in their memories and those of their near ancestors, which both informed and impelled many of their ideals as expressed in the Constitution.

Law is a bit more complex than your understanding of it, and far more dynamic.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#134 Jan 25, 2013
Gays Run the World wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true in your homoland; but in the USA it works like this:
.
In the case of a jury trial; the jury decides based on the evidence and the law
.
In the case of a trial without jury; the judge(s) decide(s) based on the evidence and the law
Even in a jury trial the Judge can over-rule the jury's verdict if he can show they mis-applied the law..

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#135 Jan 25, 2013
US District Courts (trial courts) use juries. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in criminal cases.

Appellate courts, such as the US Courts of Appeals Circuit Courts and the US Supreme Court, do not use juries because they are not triers of fact. Appellate courts only review cases to determine whether trials were conducted according to law and constitutional protections, in an attempt to ensure the party or parties in the case received a fair hearing.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_federal_courts_u...

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man charged with threatening Riverview church o... 4 min Wondering 50
News Court rules California bakeries may REFUSE to d... 5 min Wondering 44
News Trump dating site used sex offender as a model 23 min DaveinMass 8
News Connecticut LGBT Advocate Says Military's Trans... (Jul '17) 31 min Haters 8
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 41 min RiccardoFire 18,839
News How Franklin Graham took the reins from his leg... 49 min Imprtnrd 2
News This homophobic magistrate was just paid $325,0... 1 hr DaveinMass 9
News A Gay College Dean Takes on Betsy DeVos's Trans... 2 hr Melvin 3
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 14 hr Ratzo Rizzo Rules 27,402
More from around the web