Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court

Nov 25, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WZVN-TV Fort Myers

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.

Comments
1 - 4 of 4 Comments Last updated Nov 25, 2012

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

The author of that piece, Lisa Leff, is NOT one of our friends.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••