Federal Judge: Nevada Can Bar Gay Couples from Marrying

Nov 30, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 26

In a ruling in Sevcik v. Sandoval made public late yesterday, Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found Nevada's laws limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex are Constitutional.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1 Nov 30, 2012
It will be appealed......and probably overturned!!!

Since: Feb 09

Southern California

#2 Nov 30, 2012
It will definitely be overturned Nevada of all places. It would "Scare straight people" not to marry ? Thats a joke in itself. And still this old dinosauer uses the old line their not able to procreate , well I can name examples of straights not being able to procreate. I wish these judges would check there religious beliefs at the door their a court of law is a court of law not God's Temple of law.

Since: Apr 11

Holland, MI

#3 Nov 30, 2012
He needs to be removed from the bench. There is no legal out for him in his conclusions...esp scaring straight ppl from marrying. How idiotic.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4 Nov 30, 2012
Juanpaul wrote:
It will definitely be overturned Nevada of all places. It would "Scare straight people" not to marry ? Thats a joke in itself. And still this old dinosauer uses the old line their not able to procreate , well I can name examples of straights not being able to procreate. I wish these judges would check there religious beliefs at the door their a court of law is a court of law not God's Temple of law.
Seriously, does the old goat think they are procreating when paying for a hooker?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#7 Nov 30, 2012
tiqueboy wrote:
He needs to be removed from the bench. There is no legal out for him in his conclusions...esp scaring straight ppl from marrying. How idiotic.
"removed from the bench" ??? How would you do that and why ?

There's a REASON federal judges are given the job FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES OR AS LONG AS THEY WANT IT.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#8 Nov 30, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a very smart and fair judge, don't ya think.
He is your equal

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Nov 30, 2012
The judge is correct: Baker is the controlling precedent in this case. The judge really needed go no further in his opinion.

The only way to obtain a different ruling through federal courts will be to appeal to SCOTUS. I don't think timing is right.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#11 Nov 30, 2012
Ifs,ifs and maybe if dont a decision make.

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

#14 Nov 30, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Dumbo.
Did you forget an "I" in your name?

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

#15 Nov 30, 2012
I am not surprised that he ruled against equality, but his reasoning is so indefensible. He has to realize that he will be overturned based on his reasoning.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#16 Nov 30, 2012
long live aids wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey homo,do you want to marry your dog too....Isn't AIDS GREAT! Do you have it yet? Let's hope you get it very soon...If your not a fruitcake sorry,but you sure sounf like one...
What a Frucking idiot you are........sorry, not into animals and I don't have to worry about HIV/AIDS because I'm a Lesbian and married to my wife and we don't play with others in that way!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Nov 30, 2012
A Mormon ruling marriage is only for procreation, and that if gays can marry the heteros won't want to anymore.

Gee, what a suprise.

Btw, the SCOTUS released their list of cases, and once again took no action on any of the marriage cases. We'll have to wait till Monday to see if they outright rejected any appeals.

I'm betting they're just on permanent hold.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#18 Nov 30, 2012
Hmmmmm. Interesting! A hold on everything?
WeTheSheeple wrote:
A Mormon ruling marriage is only for procreation, and that if gays can marry the heteros won't want to anymore.
Gee, what a suprise.
Btw, the SCOTUS released their list of cases, and once again took no action on any of the marriage cases. We'll have to wait till Monday to see if they outright rejected any appeals.
I'm betting they're just on permanent hold.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Nov 30, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
Hmmmmm. Interesting! A hold on everything?
<quoted text>
We'll find out on Monday, but that's my bet.

There is simply no reason for the SCOTUS to take up the issue right now. They are under no deadlines to act and can just issue a permanent stay on all cases until they do feel like acting.

We literally have ZERO options at this point.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#20 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
A Mormon ruling marriage is only for procreation, and that if gays can marry the heteros won't want to anymore.
Gee, what a suprise.
Btw, the SCOTUS released their list of cases, and once again took no action on any of the marriage cases. We'll have to wait till Monday to see if they outright rejected any appeals.
I'm betting they're just on permanent hold.
Somebody made a suggestion that gives me a new worry--although I don't take it too seriously. The premise is that the originalists will overturn DOMA in order to bolster their infatuation with states' rights. Hence, we might actually be looking at a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 decision overturning DOMA.

The danger here is that SCOTUS insert a poison pill in the majority opinion which forces the Ninth Circuit to reverse itself if Perry is sent back.

Frankly, however, I don't foresee the feigned regard for states rights overwhelming the conservative's desire to deal a blow to gays.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#21 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody made a suggestion that gives me a new worry--although I don't take it too seriously. The premise is that the originalists will overturn DOMA in order to bolster their infatuation with states' rights. Hence, we might actually be looking at a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 decision overturning DOMA.
The danger here is that SCOTUS insert a poison pill in the majority opinion which forces the Ninth Circuit to reverse itself if Perry is sent back.
Frankly, however, I don't foresee the feigned regard for states rights overwhelming the conservative's desire to deal a blow to gays.
I think there's a good chance you're wrong. IF the conservatives on SCOTUS truly believe in states' rights, then they will find DOMA unconstitutional, which I believe it is.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#22 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody made a suggestion that gives me a new worry--although I don't take it too seriously. The premise is that the originalists will overturn DOMA in order to bolster their infatuation with states' rights. Hence, we might actually be looking at a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 decision overturning DOMA.
The danger here is that SCOTUS insert a poison pill in the majority opinion which forces the Ninth Circuit to reverse itself if Perry is sent back.
Frankly, however, I don't foresee the feigned regard for states rights overwhelming the conservative's desire to deal a blow to gays.
On the other hand, I have a suspicion that since ALL of the most conservative justices are Roman Catholics, their adherence to Roman Catholic doctrine may outweigh their adherence to faithfully interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#23 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
The judge is correct: Baker is the controlling precedent in this case. The judge really needed go no further in his opinion.
The only way to obtain a different ruling through federal courts will be to appeal to SCOTUS. I don't think timing is right.
Judge Jones hasn't dismissed the plaintiffs entire case, only their claim that the law is in violation of their right to equal protection. Baker submarined the claim from the start and then he spends the next 30 odd pages rationalize basising their claims to bits with some pretty darn odd rationalizations. After all that, he is allowing them to proceed with their argument that the law violates Romer. Of course it would be in front of him.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#24 Nov 30, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, I have a suspicion that since ALL of the most conservative justices are Roman Catholics, their adherence to Roman Catholic doctrine may outweigh their adherence to faithfully interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote our Constitution and he wrote all men he meant all heterosexual white men. Today with more people striving to find their Objective Impartial Reason and base their behaviour on it those words all men are starting to mean all human beings.

White heterosexual males are not happy about the evolution in thinking that has kicked them off the pedestal they believe they deserved, by GOd's will, to exist upon.

Good I say, let us knock them off and pee on them.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#25 Nov 30, 2012
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
When Thomas Jefferson wrote our Constitution and he wrote all men he meant all heterosexual white men. Today with more people striving to find their Objective Impartial Reason and base their behaviour on it those words all men are starting to mean all human beings.
White heterosexual males are not happy about the evolution in thinking that has kicked them off the pedestal they believe they deserved, by GOd's will, to exist upon.
Good I say, let us knock them off and pee on them.
It's ignoamuses like you who make me worry about the longevity of our republic, and the wisdom of allowing the average person to vote.

Thomas Jefferson did NOT "write our constitution" [sic], nor do the two words you cite, "all men" appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. I've studied Constitutional Law in college, and have read books on the Founders' writing of the U.S. constitution. If you had the SLIGHTEST knowledge about American history, you would know that it was our fourth President, James Madison, who largely wrote the U.S. Constitution. Have you ever even READ the text of the document at all ?! Even once ?!

Since you obviously have never done so before, here's a link to the text of the U.S. Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...

Take some time out of your very busy schedule to read it some time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 4 min Reverend Alan 591
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr Reverend Alan 2,461
Study Suggests But Doesn't Prove Genetic Link t... 1 hr Wondering 135
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr KiMare 25,975
Juanita Bynum gay lesbian | Breaking News for B... 2 hr Dollar Tumaka 1
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Brian_G 4,283
Jehovah's Witness Leader Lets Loose on Tight At... 4 hr Blue Danube 313
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,207
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,838
Judge overturns Montana's gay marriage ban 7 hr Fa-Foxy 50

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE