Benefits fight brings lesbian couple ...

Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court

There are 4 comments on the WZVN-TV Fort Myers story from Nov 25, 2012, titled Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court. In it, WZVN-TV Fort Myers reports that:

A San Francisco couple is waiting to find out if the U.S. Supreme Court will take their case challenging the 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WZVN-TV Fort Myers.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Nov 25, 2012
The author of that piece, Lisa Leff, is NOT one of our friends.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 Nov 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
The author of that piece, Lisa Leff, is NOT one of our friends.
She does point out however that the last two cases SCOTUS ruled on involving the gay question supported gays and lesbians.

"The last time the court confronted a gay rights case was in 2010, when the justices voted 5-4 to let stand lower court rulings holding that a California law school could deny recognition to a Christian student group that does not allow gay members.

The time before that was the court's landmark 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared state anti-sodomy laws to be an unconstitutional violation of personal privacy."

To me it's ironic so many are convinced SCOTUS will rule against us, when one considers they sided with us twice in the last 9 years.

But you never know. SCOTUS has tried to avoid this question for years.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3 Nov 25, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>She does point out however that the last two cases SCOTUS ruled on involving the gay question supported gays and lesbians.
"The last time the court confronted a gay rights case was in 2010, when the justices voted 5-4 to let stand lower court rulings holding that a California law school could deny recognition to a Christian student group that does not allow gay members.
The time before that was the court's landmark 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared state anti-sodomy laws to be an unconstitutional violation of personal privacy."
To me it's ironic so many are convinced SCOTUS will rule against us, when one considers they sided with us twice in the last 9 years.
But you never know. SCOTUS has tried to avoid this question for years.
Read closely how she words her statements, and which aspects of the anti-Marriage Equality problems she highlights. They play into the prevailing pet memes that trigger antipathy in our opposition, while appearing on the surface to be impartial. It's what she doesn't mention as problems as much as the ones she does.

The SCOTUS did not rule "for us". It ruled on a particular principle in line with a specific Constitutional doctrine. If you follow the cases since then, a number of cases have been assayed which lay the groundwork for a different doctrine. It's not all in place yet, but it's getting there.

We are in a tight race to get our cases presented, in the right order, to reinforce the older doctrine on Civil Rights and to establish the necessary precedents for our own liberation.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Nov 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Read closely how she words her statements, and which aspects of the anti-Marriage Equality problems she highlights. They play into the prevailing pet memes that trigger antipathy in our opposition, while appearing on the surface to be impartial. It's what she doesn't mention as problems as much as the ones she does.
The SCOTUS did not rule "for us". It ruled on a particular principle in line with a specific Constitutional doctrine. If you follow the cases since then, a number of cases have been assayed which lay the groundwork for a different doctrine. It's not all in place yet, but it's getting there.
We are in a tight race to get our cases presented, in the right order, to reinforce the older doctrine on Civil Rights and to establish the necessary precedents for our own liberation.
You're correct about my "ruled for us" statement and the mindset behind it.

I'm trying to be better at detecting the nuances of what is written by these reporters.

Your last paragraph is certainly true.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 37 min Robert Laity 12,850
News Ex-Michigan assistant AG fired for stalking gay... 2 hr Evilgelicalling 1
News Trump pledges fealty to religious values, a oeM... 3 hr Sandra 124
News Well-Known Singer's Disappearance Linked to Tor... 5 hr Roman 1
News How the Supreme Court's Upcoming Ruling in Same... 6 hr Orville 1
News NHS sex quiz plans branded 'inappropriate' 7 hr NoahLovesU 20
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr TomInElPaso 26,118
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 10 hr NoahLovesU 292
News Is Hollywood's Rape Culture Like a Gay Bar? 13 hr Evilgelicalling 22
VP Mike Pence says gays should be hung 16 hr Hautboy 3
More from around the web