Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop...

Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

There are 769 comments on the www.towleroad.com story from Dec 7, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis. In it, www.towleroad.com reports that:

The Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry , and one Defense of Marriage Act case , Windsor v. United States .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.towleroad.com.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#590 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no principled legal reason to deny polyamorist grouping the title and rights of marriage once you have accepted the "reasoning" that gets you to same-sex "marriage".
Your "just-so-story" about social change and Judges attitudes leaves no room for principled jurisprudence or the weight of logic, reason, precedent, international human rights laws, democracy, federalism, elementl biology, childrens rights or the constitution itself.
It fails to explain the justification for the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge or the Hawaii decision in Bear.
Society is not "moving towards greater equality for gays" rather social opinion is "being moved" in that direction through lawless judiciary that is both instigator and final decision maker.
One small detail you have missed is that principled people throughout the legal community are watching and learning.
There is nothing outside our own patience and principle that can stop us from taking the same results oriented approach twoards "interpreting" settled consitutional norms.
This is the shoe that has yet to drop, and as such it represents considerable leverage against a wholly politicized leftist "jurisprudence".
As if conservative "jurisprudence" isn't wholly politicized.....

Sounds like you're becoming a whiny little bitch because things aren't going your way.

Constitutional interpretation changes as justices change.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#591 Dec 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all precedents from more than 20 years ago.
Precedents on social issues are overturned as society changes.
Swell... Roe versus Wade is ovewr 40 years old and so is the Casey decision...

Society has changed since those decisions were issued. Ultra-sound technology, laws protecting the unborn abound in area's outside abortion policy specifically.... and the clear trend is twoards pro-life amoung youth..

Now all we need is for multiple state supreme courts to treat Roe the same way you treat Baker and those other precedents.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#592 Dec 20, 2012
Baker's precedent only applies in cases of those who are similarly situated in terms of the facts of their case AND whose questions are based on claims of equal protection and due process. It has been invoked in recent federal rulings challenging prohibitions on same sex marriage in Nevada and Hawaii, but has been rejected as controlling by every judge that has ruled in either the Prop 8 or DOMA cases. The difference being, the plaintiffs in Nevada and Hawaii are similarly situated to Baker, while the plaintiffs in Perry and Windsor (or any of the others) are not.

The odds of Baker surviving a challenge on its own merits are nil, the very basis for the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, that no such right existed anywhere is no longer true. The easiest route to a challenge to Baker isn't through the federal system, but through one of the states on whom Baker isn't the least bit binding. Cases currently at the trial level in New Jersey and Minnesota could signal the death knell for this obstacle to our equality in the next couple three years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#593 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Swell... Roe versus Wade is ovewr 40 years old and so is the Casey decision...
Society has changed since those decisions were issued. Ultra-sound technology, laws protecting the unborn abound in area's outside abortion policy specifically.... and the clear trend is twoards pro-life amoung youth..
Now all we need is for multiple state supreme courts to treat Roe the same way you treat Baker and those other precedents.
If that's what society wants, then Roe will be overturned.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#594 Dec 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what society wants, then Roe will be overturned.
How do you tell what "society" wants? Undr such a standard fundemental consititutional rights of the individual could be steamrolled.

Society wants the goverment to stop terrorists...but we dont elimninate due process and habius corpus protections?

Are you willing to relly on easily manipulated polls?

What about fundemenatal consitutional rights? What about democracy?

You have set up a system were all that has to be done is for a handfull of Judges and like minded ideologes in the press can paint a picture of "what society wants" and the people have no defense against tyranny.

It presisly the kind of system were politically popular causes can steamrole fundemantal human rights.

Future totalitarians are taking notes on this one. Its exactly the kind of thing that catches up to those who exspouse it.

Besides...I thought youy guys were asserting constitutional rights as a matter of Justice...not rellying on the tea leaves of "what society wants"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#595 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you tell what "society" wants? Undr such a standard fundemental consititutional rights of the individual could be steamrolled.
Society wants the goverment to stop terrorists...but we dont elimninate due process and habius corpus protections?
Are you willing to relly on easily manipulated polls?
What about fundemenatal consitutional rights? What about democracy?
You have set up a system were all that has to be done is for a handfull of Judges and like minded ideologes in the press can paint a picture of "what society wants" and the people have no defense against tyranny.
It presisly the kind of system were politically popular causes can steamrole fundemantal human rights.
Future totalitarians are taking notes on this one. Its exactly the kind of thing that catches up to those who exspouse it.
Besides...I thought youy guys were asserting constitutional rights as a matter of Justice...not rellying on the tea leaves of "what society wants"
Fundamental constitutional rights are whatever society determines them to be, either through legislation, the courts, constitutional amendments, general consensus, etc.

At one time the "fundamental right" to vote only applied to white male property owners. Society changed that.

At one time the "fundamental right" to marry only applied to same-race couples. Society changed that.

At one time the "fundamental right" to sexual privacy only applied to married opposite-sex couples. Society changed that.

At one time the "fundamental right" to reproductive privacy (i.e. birth control pills) only appled to married women. Society changed that.

Again, fundamental rights are whatever we as a society though our constitutional processes say they are. Those fundamental rights have changed over time as society has changed, and they will continue to change going forward. We are getting closer & closer to the ideal of equal protection set out in our constitution. We may never get there entirely, but we shall always strive to make that our goal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#596 Dec 20, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you tell what "society" wants? Undr such a standard fundemental consititutional rights of the individual could be steamrolled.
Society wants the goverment to stop terrorists...but we dont elimninate due process and habius corpus protections?
Are you willing to relly on easily manipulated polls?
What about fundemenatal consitutional rights? What about democracy?
You have set up a system were all that has to be done is for a handfull of Judges and like minded ideologes in the press can paint a picture of "what society wants" and the people have no defense against tyranny.
It presisly the kind of system were politically popular causes can steamrole fundemantal human rights.
Future totalitarians are taking notes on this one. Its exactly the kind of thing that catches up to those who exspouse it.
Besides...I thought youy guys were asserting constitutional rights as a matter of Justice...not rellying on the tea leaves of "what society wants"
I'm curious, just how do YOU think "fundamental constitutional rights" are determined, if not through the democratic process we have set up?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#597 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you tell what "society" wants? Undr such a standard fundemental consititutional rights of the individual could be steamrolled.
Society wants the goverment to stop terrorists...but we dont elimninate due process and habius corpus protections?
Are you willing to relly on easily manipulated polls?
What about fundemenatal consitutional rights? What about democracy?
You have set up a system were all that has to be done is for a handfull of Judges and like minded ideologes in the press can paint a picture of "what society wants" and the people have no defense against tyranny.
It presisly the kind of system were politically popular causes can steamrole fundemantal human rights.
Future totalitarians are taking notes on this one. Its exactly the kind of thing that catches up to those who exspouse it.
Besides...I thought youy guys were asserting constitutional rights as a matter of Justice...not rellying on the tea leaves of "what society wants"
Go fitz go!

but they can't handle the truth...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#598 Dec 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all precedents from more than 20 years ago.
Precedents on social issues are overturned as society changes.
This is my favorite of the knucklehead arguments...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#599 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
A case is either "binding federal precedent" or it is not. It cannot be "questionable at best".
You further demonstrate your ignorance of the law when you claim that a "legitimante state interest" needs to be served by denying same-sex couples the "right to mary".
The legal analysis simply bears no relation to that twisted analysis.
Homosexual men and woman have the same right to mary as everyone else. Becuase they find members of their own sex attractive and not the opposite sex, the dont have any real interest in marriage.
Instead they want to change the definition of marriage itself, something the law cannot permit given the fact that it is a fundemental consitutional right.
My point exactly. Multiple federal and appellate courts have ignored Baker. None of their decisions has been overturned.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#601 Dec 21, 2012
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...
Cool Hand Luke

Anonymous Proxy

#602 Dec 21, 2012
AMEN!
Richie T wrote:
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#603 Dec 21, 2012
Richie T wrote:
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...
By the way.....SCOTUS ISN'T approving or disapproving of Homosexuality.......the questions and issues before the high Court involve Discriminatory practices with regard to legally married Same-Sex Couples(DOMA, SECTION 3) and whether a right can be ELIMINATED after being granted by a popular vote......and both cases have Article 3 standing issues!!!
Anonymous

Phoenix, AZ

#604 Dec 21, 2012
Richie T wrote:
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...
It doesn't need to. It doesn't make US law. I know that chaps your hide. The audacity! That anyone would question your invisible sky court! That even those who believe in it don't agree what it says or what relevance it should have to the law in a country without an official or endorsed religion.

"The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." You're not as bright as you think.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#605 Dec 21, 2012
Richie T wrote:
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...
So you pray, but if God doesn't approve of homosexuality, why does he keep making more homosexuals? Not even Dan Dougherty will be able to save you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#607 Dec 21, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
This is my favorite of the knucklehead arguments...
History proves me right.

What logical reason can you come up with to think this issue will be different than other social issues like segregation, abortion, birth control, sodomy, inter-racial marriage, etc, etc?

Stick your head in the sand and ignore the sweeping societal changes taking place. You & Fritz will be the only people suprised when the SCOTUS eventually overturns all remaining marriage bans.

It likely won't happen before the end of the decade, but it will happen sooner or later.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#608 Dec 21, 2012
Richie T wrote:
The Highest Court in the universe will NEVER approve of homosexuality!!!
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017/Salvation ...
Irrelevant to civil law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#609 Dec 21, 2012
Caleb wrote:
<quoted text>Hick, God made no homosexuals.
In fact he repeatedly commanded against anyone engaging the in unspeakable acts that alone define and identify homosexuals.
Sexual acts may define you, but I'd still be gay even if I've never had sex in my entire life.
Anonymous

Scottsdale, AZ

#610 Dec 21, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Swell... Roe versus Wade is ovewr 40 years old and so is the Casey decision...
Society has changed since those decisions were issued. Ultra-sound technology, laws protecting the unborn abound in area's outside abortion policy specifically.... and the clear trend is twoards pro-life amoung youth..
Now all we need is for multiple state supreme courts to treat Roe the same way you treat Baker and those other precedents.
Ok. I'm going to go off topic and chase you down the rabbit hole. If you had to choose

A. Gay marriage was found to be a constitutional right but Roe v. Wade is overturned and unborn children were given legal protection.

Or

B. gay marriage is declared unconstitutional but Roe v Wade is upheld and reaffirmed.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#611 Dec 21, 2012
Caleb wrote:
<quoted text>Hick, God made no homosexuals.
In fact he repeatedly commanded against anyone engaging the in unspeakable acts that alone define and identify homosexuals.
Gosh, I might take your "purty" words more seriously if you could just ONCE quote Jesus' words on homosexuality. Please, just ONE word is all it will take to change my mind and make me repent and turn straight over night. Just one little tiny old word.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is decent, please DON'T trot out your over tired cut and paste of Leviticus. You trot that out more often than a whore trots out her red underpants. Please, that is NOT Jesus' words, since Jesus wasn't even a twinkle in Joseph's eye yet. No Leviticus, JESUS.

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 Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 4 min NorCal Native 1,862
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 4 min Poof1 8,233
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 11 min Tre H 220,263
News Oregon issues final order in gay wedding cake case 11 min Mitts Gold Plated... 50
News Craig James Sues Fox Sports Alleging Network Fi... 11 min WeTheSheeple 9
News How is it that cake became a favourite platform... 19 min WeTheSheeple 19
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 20 min Pietro Armando 60,820
News Feds release updated strategy against AIDS in A... 25 min Fa-Foxy 28
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 3 hr PointBlankPeriod 1,265
More from around the web