Gay weddings: Will they be legal in J...

Gay weddings: Will they be legal in June?

There are 67 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Dec 10, 2012, titled Gay weddings: Will they be legal in June?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The Supreme Court on Friday set in motion its constitutional machinery on the issue of same-sex marriage, probably producing a result in June, the most popular month for weddings. Friday thus marked a bold beginning, especially in the face of the reality that the court could have chosen to stay away from the issue altogether, but deliberately chose not to do so.

But the path from this beginning to the June outcome will be, for the justices, more like finding their way through a garden maze: the end at times will seem quite elusive. And, in this instance, the end might not be a clearly defined one: either that gay weddings will be made legal nationwide, or that states will remain free to ban them if that is their choice.

Between now and one of those clear results, there is a daunting series of turns. Too much can be made of that fact, though, and that would take away from the historic importance of what the court has begun. Aside from a fleeting look 40 years ago at a legally forlorn plea to allow a Minnesota gay couple to marry, the court until now had never seriously pondered the question.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#34 Dec 11, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality of the matter, Fa$$ot, is there's only 9 states for you and 41 against you. I'd say you're the one that's freaked out, shiteater.
A journey begins with a single step.

Had gay marriage been as wrong as you claim not one of those 9 states would have approved it.

Given it is a growing understanding that gays marying represents a basic right it grew from one state to nine and does not seem to be in a pattern of stopping.

You're pretty stupid.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#37 Dec 11, 2012
That doesn't make SSM illegal Rastus. Thats a fact idiot.
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Fa$$ot, let me phrase it the way it's written: You want some facts: Same sex marriage is allowed in only 9 states and not allowed in 41 states, and out of the 41 states, 30 have written gay marriage bans in their state constitution. Thats The facts Fa$$ot, are you going to dispute that????
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#40 Dec 11, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, Fa$$ot, if that's the case, then I hope you and your Queer Lover gets married and engages in your perverted gay sexcapades all day and night long. Stupid A$$ Fa$$ot
Well Ace...given I'm a man who's married to a woman (which I doubt you can claim the same) I have my own personal ventures into naked "sexcapades" as do gays but neither is any of your business you weird peeping Tom bastard.

LOL!!!!!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#43 Dec 11, 2012
I have no earthly idea how they are going to rule. I'm not going to get my hopes up. I just wonder if they rule against marriage equality if it can ever be brought back to the scotus for another ruling when the justices are replaced over time. If they can rule again on Roe vs. Wade you think they could do the same on same-sex marriage issues. I don't see how they can rule against marriage equality without ruling that gays are second class citizens and if we are ruled as such why should we have to pay the same taxes?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#44 Dec 11, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
I believe it is almost certain that gay people will once again be allowed to marry in Calie in June after the Supremes make their decsion known in teh Prop. 8 case. I expect that either they will say the petitioners have no standing and dismiss the case, thus allowing the fedeal appeals court decision to stand, or, if they do rule on the merits of the case, they will affirm the appeals court ruling. Either way, I think gay marriages will resume in Cali in June.
In the DOMA case, they may also rule that the petitioners, in this case, Congress, also has no standing. While the standing of congress in such a case may seem obvious, I do not believe there has ever been a case where congress has petitioned SCOTUS, because the Solicitor General has refused todefend teh constitutionality of a federal law.
Thus, like the Prop. 8 case, the DOMA case may also be dismised by SCOTUS based on congress having no standing. If they do hear the case, I am 98% certain that SCOTUS will rule DOMA unconstitutioonal.
If they do that, then it's a shame we can't impeach that bastard Bill Clinton again for signing it in the first place.
On the BRIGHT SIDE, we COULD impeach The Obamaniac !
:)
Why would the SCOTUS waste their time by taking the Prop 8 case just to dismiss it on standing or to simply agree with the 9th circuit? They could have accomplished the exact same thing by simply rejecting the appeal.

The only reasons they would have taken the Prop 8 case would be to overturn the lower court ruling or to expand on it. Unfortunately the 1st scenario is the most likely one. They may not get the 5th vote needed, but I have no doubt their intent in taking the case was to uphold Prop 8.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Dec 11, 2012
equalityboy81 wrote:
I have no earthly idea how they are going to rule. I'm not going to get my hopes up. I just wonder if they rule against marriage equality if it can ever be brought back to the scotus for another ruling when the justices are replaced over time. If they can rule again on Roe vs. Wade you think they could do the same on same-sex marriage issues. I don't see how they can rule against marriage equality without ruling that gays are second class citizens and if we are ruled as such why should we have to pay the same taxes?
Of course it can be ruled on again- by this court or a future court. That's how previous SCOTUS rulings on segregation, inter-racial marriages, sodomy bans, etc were overturned.

A precedent is only a precedent until it's overturned by a future court.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#46 Dec 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would the SCOTUS waste their time by taking the Prop 8 case just to dismiss it on standing or to simply agree with the 9th circuit? They could have accomplished the exact same thing by simply rejecting the appeal.
The only reasons they would have taken the Prop 8 case would be to overturn the lower court ruling or to expand on it. Unfortunately the 1st scenario is the most likely one. They may not get the 5th vote needed, but I have no doubt their intent in taking the case was to uphold Prop 8.
We can speculate all we want, but again.....I have to disagree that SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8 especially with the 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples in place, especially without a real state interest to discriminate over a word!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
We can speculate all we want, but again.....I have to disagree that SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8 especially with the 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples in place, especially without a real state interest to discriminate over a word!!!
I agree. I don't think they'll get the 5th vote to uphold Prop 8, but I DO think that's why the 4 conservatives voted to take the case. That was their intent. I'm convinced of that more than ever now. They knew DOMA was going to be overturned, so they we're trying to blunt that ruling a bit by trying to uphold a state's right to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#48 Dec 11, 2012
REAL Straight Guy 4
Fake Straight NoQ 0

You can't man up against anyone can ya Troll? Bet you shower by standing in the toilet and flushing don't cha?
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange creatures, you Fa$$ots. LMFAO

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#49 Dec 11, 2012
It may be that they are more concerned about standing. Neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State would stand up for the case and so some folks in the bleachers came forward.

In the other case I wasn't aware the House had taken over fighting DOMA at the time it was heard. Again, it may partly be an issue of standing.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would the SCOTUS waste their time by taking the Prop 8 case just to dismiss it on standing or to simply agree with the 9th circuit? They could have accomplished the exact same thing by simply rejecting the appeal.
The only reasons they would have taken the Prop 8 case would be to overturn the lower court ruling or to expand on it. Unfortunately the 1st scenario is the most likely one. They may not get the 5th vote needed, but I have no doubt their intent in taking the case was to uphold Prop 8.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#50 Dec 11, 2012
equalityboy81 wrote:
I have no earthly idea how they are going to rule. I'm not going to get my hopes up. I just wonder if they rule against marriage equality if it can ever be brought back to the scotus for another ruling when the justices are replaced over time. If they can rule again on Roe vs. Wade you think they could do the same on same-sex marriage issues. I don't see how they can rule against marriage equality without ruling that gays are second class citizens and if we are ruled as such why should we have to pay the same taxes?
Like any struggle there is a beginning, middle and an end.

I'm some character that doesn't even LIKE gays marrying believe it or not but the fact remains it's a basic right...that any person attracted to the same sex should be able to marry the adult of their choice.

It's righteous.

And for being so will eventuially prevail in that gay marriage will eventually be allowed in all the states and the only grumblings will those who sit in the backdrop.

You're not there yet but will be. That is a fact.

Reasoning is your ally and those against gay marriage aren't friends with it.

Since: Jan 08

Chon Buri, Thailand

#51 Dec 11, 2012
Any chance getting Scalia to recuse himself?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#52 Dec 11, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
It may be that they are more concerned about standing. Neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State would stand up for the case and so some folks in the bleachers came forward.
In the other case I wasn't aware the House had taken over fighting DOMA at the time it was heard. Again, it may partly be an issue of standing.
<quoted text>
I just can't see the SCOTUS taking such a potentially landmark case just to resolve a standing issue. Especially since there wouldn't be any precedent set in the standing issue by the SCOTUS simply rejecting the appeal.

With so many cases petitioned to the court, I doubt they'd waste their valuable time & resources on a relatively inconsequential issue. It just doesn't make sense.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Dec 11, 2012
Dubya wrote:
Any chance getting Scalia to recuse himself?
Zero.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#55 Dec 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it can be ruled on again- by this court or a future court. That's how previous SCOTUS rulings on segregation, inter-racial marriages, sodomy bans, etc were overturned.
A precedent is only a precedent until it's overturned by a future court.
I've tried to explain that to "Jane D'Oh" a.k.a. "reality".

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#56 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Like any struggle there is a beginning, middle and an end.
I'm some character that doesn't even LIKE gays marrying believe it or not but the fact remains it's a basic right...that any person attracted to the same sex should be able to marry the adult of their choice.
It's righteous.
And for being so will eventuially prevail in that gay marriage will eventually be allowed in all the states and the only grumblings will those who sit in the backdrop.
You're not there yet but will be. That is a fact.
Reasoning is your ally and those against gay marriage aren't friends with it.
Just wanted to make sure you got the Big Red Heart I just voted you.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#57 Dec 11, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You fking ASSTROLLS are born liars. If you actually told the truth, it'd probably kill ya. Now go stick your head up another Fa$$ots A$$ so you can eat for free the rest of the night. Fking shiteater.
And once again it's R1, the so called straight guy, coming to a gay forum to post about gay male sex.

I've shown some of your posts to my straight male friends.

They think you're one weird person and agree you have an obsession with fecal matter.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#58 Dec 11, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Just wanted to make sure you got the Big Red Heart I just voted you.
Gracias.

I gave you one too.

Mine looks bigger.

Probably because my eyesight might be bad but there you go.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#59 Dec 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I don't think they'll get the 5th vote to uphold Prop 8, but I DO think that's why the 4 conservatives voted to take the case. That was their intent. I'm convinced of that more than ever now. They knew DOMA was going to be overturned, so they we're trying to blunt that ruling a bit by trying to uphold a state's right to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
I would tend to agree with your assessment and it was more than just the standing issue!!!

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#60 Dec 11, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And once again it's R1, the so called straight guy, coming to a gay forum to post about gay male sex.
I've shown some of your posts to my straight male friends.
They think you're one weird person and agree you have an obsession with fecal matter.
Your wrong, there are two of them. NoQ, is totally a misguided homophobe but is essentially OK. R1 is a stalker and a seriously mentally ill child sex offender under house arrest. He uses so many registered and unregistered aliases, it's scary. Just say'n

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 26 min Inquisitor 1,089
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 39 min June VanDerMark 13,070
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Truth 24,773
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 1 hr hbcman45 48
News Trans woman in Halifax questions if prejudice i... 2 hr Imprtnrd 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Truth 45,135
News Franklin Graham Condemns Gay-Inclusive Kiss Cam... 3 hr Imprtnrd 9
More from around the web