Homosexual marriage is legal

Homosexual marriage is legal

There are 2468 comments on the www.examiner.com story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Homosexual marriage is legal. In it, www.examiner.com reports that:

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

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

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2559 Sep 15, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny equal protection??????? OMG! Is the government "allowed" to deny equal protection? Under what conditions?
We can't deny equal protection because granting it might be complicated. That is what you have suggested. Because you are a hater.

"Roving bands of young men high on testosterone." Gimme a break. And then you whine when someone says something ridiculous like that about SSM. Classic hypocrite.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2560 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The "coat quip" is part of Jefferson's quote. Again, he knew at some point, we would view his time as one of our "barbarous ancestors".
Yes, there was much discussion about the details, but most everyone agreed in the cornerstone truth that all are equal under the law, and fundamental rights are human rights, not rights granted by the government.
I think we almost agree on the 9th. It was to preserve all rights not listed, as rights of humans, not rights of the government.
Marriage is one of those fundamental rights, as recognized by SCOTUS 14 times. There is no need to change the constitution. It is already protected under the 9th, via SCOTUS, as well as statutes.
Gender fails as a legitimate governmental excuse for denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.
Marriage was for the longest time defined as one man and one women. Amendment IX would certainly cover the traditional definition of marriage, but extending it to cover gay marriage is a stretch. I seriously doubt Amendment IX was intended to create additional rights that would not have been understood to exist when the amendment was ratified.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2561 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage was for the longest time defined as one man and one women. Amendment IX would certainly cover the traditional definition of marriage, but extending it to cover gay marriage is a stretch. I seriously doubt Amendment IX was intended to create additional rights that would not have been understood to exist when the amendment was ratified.
Tell that to Von Steuben.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2562 Sep 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to Von Steuben.
Von Steuben was never legally married to any man which makes it irrelevant to my point.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2563 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage was for the longest time defined as one man and one women. Amendment IX would certainly cover the traditional definition of marriage, but extending it to cover gay marriage is a stretch. I seriously doubt Amendment IX was intended to create additional rights that would not have been understood to exist when the amendment was ratified.
Again, there is no new right, no additional rights. The same right of marriage already firmly established and well defined by over 1,138 laws, was extended to opposite sex couples by removing the gender restriction. The gender restriction was finally recognized as unnecessary and harmful without providing any benefit. The gender restriction was removed, not established.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2564 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there is no new right, no additional rights. The same right of marriage already firmly established and well defined by over 1,138 laws, was extended to opposite sex couples by removing the gender restriction. The gender restriction was finally recognized as unnecessary and harmful without providing any benefit. The gender restriction was removed, not established.
Then why hasn't gay marriage been made the law of the land? It still remains a state's prerogative.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2565 Sep 16, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny equal protection??????? OMG! Is the government "allowed" to deny equal protection? Under what conditions?
OMG! My tweenaged grand daughters say that all the time too.

They're always all "OMG!"

OMG! Kewl!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2566 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Von Steuben was never legally married to any man which makes it irrelevant to my point.
Again, at the time they all still at least half-believed in witches, and that fellow humans could be the property of another.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2567 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Then why hasn't gay marriage been made the law of the land? It still remains a state's prerogative.
The court did not consider the discrimination by the states, because that question was not properly before them.

Prop 8 might have settled that question, but it was not properly before them because those supporting 8 were not able to show they were harmed by the finding 8 violated the 14th amendment. The only question considered was whether the federal government could deny equal protection based on gender. The court found gender was not a sufficient excuse for the feds, and therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

We will have to wait and see if another case can reach the Supreme court which addresses the question of what the states can do. Currently the trial court finding state marriage laws that deny equal protection based on gender are a violation of the 14th amendment, remains the non-binding precedent, and the law of California.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2568 Sep 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, at the time they all still at least half-believed in witches, and that fellow humans could be the property of another.
If you say so.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2569 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The court did not consider the discrimination by the states, because that question was not properly before them.
Prop 8 might have settled that question, but it was not properly before them because those supporting 8 were not able to show they were harmed by the finding 8 violated the 14th amendment. The only question considered was whether the federal government could deny equal protection based on gender. The court found gender was not a sufficient excuse for the feds, and therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.
We will have to wait and see if another case can reach the Supreme court which addresses the question of what the states can do. Currently the trial court finding state marriage laws that deny equal protection based on gender are a violation of the 14th amendment, remains the non-binding precedent, and the law of California.
If a case ever does come before the Supreme Court that forces them to choose between making gay marriage the law of the land or whether the states may decide, only three votes could be counted on to require all states to allow it. Judge Sotomayor would be a possibility and Kennedy a long shot to overrule the state's right to choose whether to allow it or not.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2570 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Then why hasn't gay marriage been made the law of the land? It still remains a state's prerogative.
Because no case advancing it as a federal question has reached the US Supreme Court. Don't worry, such a case will occur, and when it does those on your side of the argument will continue to fail to offer a rational defense of their position and they will lose.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#2571 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Then why hasn't gay marriage been made the law of the land? It still remains a state's prerogative.
And it's winning ...one state at a time. mmmm.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2572 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>If a case ever does come before the Supreme Court that forces them to choose between making gay marriage the law of the land or whether the states may decide, only three votes could be counted on to require all states to allow it. Judge Sotomayor would be a possibility and Kennedy a long shot to overrule the state's right to choose whether to allow it or not.
I don't want to predict but it could be the same line up on a prop 8 type case as on Windsor. Both the 5th and 14th prohibit denial of equal protection of the laws in effect. Walker established a well documented argument, showing there was no valid reason other than prejudice, and others federal courts have shown the same. We don't know why they left the other appelate court cases in place either, except that they support the Windsor finding, and don't address the states.

But you are unfortunately correct that the beliefs of the justices plays a role. Scalia has made it clear he believes a history of prejudice and "moral disapproval" alone is a sufficient condition to deny equal rights to gay people. Kennedy has said it is not. I think Kennedy is sure to uphold the 14th over the State, as no interest has been demonstrated that doesn't rely on tradition and "moral disapproval".

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2573 Sep 16, 2013

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2574 Sep 16, 2013
And from Gill:

"Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#2576 Sep 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG! My tweenaged grand daughters say that all the time too.
They're always all "OMG!"
OMG! Kewl!
A non-answer, because you are clueless.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#2577 Sep 17, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>If a case ever does come before the Supreme Court that forces them to choose between making gay marriage the law of the land or whether the states may decide, only three votes could be counted on to require all states to allow it. Judge Sotomayor would be a possibility and Kennedy a long shot to overrule the state's right to choose whether to allow it or not.
I suppose you think Supreme Court justices live forever.....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2578 Sep 17, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
A non-answer, because you are clueless.
OMG! Polygamy should stay illegal because Frankie is clueless!

OMG!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2579 Sep 17, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you think Supreme Court justices live forever.....
A non-answer, because you are clueless.

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 14 min tongangodz 7,185
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 20 min Old Kentuckin 2,831
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 45 min serfs up 539
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 56 min Frankie Rizzo 8,737
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 56 min serfs up 167
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 59 min Frankie Rizzo 25,587
News Standoff over gay marriage licenses wears on, d... 2 hr Jaysus Sharia 4
News Duke freshman says Jesus forbids him from readi... 2 hr Jaysus Sharia 47
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 3 hr too lazy to log in 980
More from around the web