Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage for first time

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: Reuters 26

The Supreme Court stepped into the gay marriage debate for the first time on Friday by agreeing to review two challenges to federal and state laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Lance Winslow

San Jose, CA

#1 Dec 7, 2012
Sure gonna get a lot of bigots' panties bunched up. That pesky ol' Constitution just keeps getting in the way of wingnuts' agendas.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#2 Dec 7, 2012
Lance Winslow wrote:
Sure gonna get a lot of bigots' panties bunched up. That pesky ol' Constitution just keeps getting in the way of wingnuts' agendas.
Maybe those right wingers can finally secede from the union and leave the rest of non-stupid liberal America alone.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#3 Dec 8, 2012
Lance Winslow wrote:
Sure gonna get a lot of bigots' panties bunched up. That pesky ol' Constitution just keeps getting in the way of wingnuts' agendas.
No this is a good thing. It will tell us once and for all if Roberts is a sell out.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Dec 8, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>No this is a good thing. It will tell us once and for all if Roberts is a sell out.
Agreed. Will Justice Roberts follow the constitution or will he sell out to the anti-gays along with Scalia & Thomas & Alito.

I'm betting Roberts authors the majority opinion overturning DOMA.

Thank you George W. for appointing him to the SCOTUS!

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#5 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Will Justice Roberts follow the constitution or will he sell out to the anti-gays along with Scalia & Thomas & Alito.
I'm betting Roberts authors the majority opinion overturning DOMA.
Thank you George W. for appointing him to the SCOTUS!
Time will tell. If he does, we can kiss the constitution good by.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#6 Dec 9, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
lejimfraud cry-a-thon: Day 32

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7 Dec 9, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Time will tell. If he does, we can kiss the constitution good by.
yeah, because we don't need those homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else! it was bad enough allowing them Negroes to vote back in the 60's!

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8 Dec 9, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Time will tell. If he does, we can kiss the constitution good by.
Why in the world would you say that?

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#9 Dec 9, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>No this is a good thing. It will tell us once and for all if Roberts is a sell out.
Sellout to who? And why would he sellout to anyone? His job is permanent?

Will someone bribe him? Please explain.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Will Justice Roberts follow the constitution or will he sell out to the anti-gays along with Scalia & Thomas & Alito.
I'm betting Roberts authors the majority opinion overturning DOMA.
Thank you George W. for appointing him to the SCOTUS!
In finding Obamacare constitutional, Roberts pulled a little John Marshall (a Roberts hero) in giving the president an apparent victory but taking something from him at the same time.

In 1803, Marshall gave Jefferson a victory by preventing a Federalist federal appointee from taking office against Jefferson's wishes. But in turn, Marshall asserted the enormous power of judicial review for the Supreme Court.

In 2012, Roberts gave Obama a victory in upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But in doing so, he denied liberals the justification of using of an ever-expanding commerce clause. He upheld Obamacare through Congress' taxing power, but put an effective stop to the use of the Commerce clause to expand federal power. This was a huge victory for conservatives.

It could be that the next major goal of a conservative Supreme Court chief is putting the brakes on the use of "substantive due process" to limit executive and legislative power and authority. The ability to enforce unenumerated rights that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" through the 5th and 14th Amendment's Due Process clauses rankles conservatives as much if not more than the increasing use of the commerce clause since the New Deal.

Roberts could strike down DOMA as violative of state powers, perhaps in conjunction with an Equal Protection claim. This would hand liberals an apparent victory.

But he could also take from liberals the use the the substantive due process argument by specifically denying them that claim in Windsor, Perry, or both. If pro-gay counsel rely on substantive due process in any form in their briefs or arguments, it would present Roberts with a golden opportunity to shut the door on the use of the substantive due process theory in expanding unenumerated rights.

Under such a scenario, Roberts could again emulate his hero Marshall and hand his opponents an apparent victory in Windsor but a larger defeat in the Prop. 8 case.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Dec 9, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Time will tell. If he does, we can kiss the constitution good by.
Why? Because he rules equal protection actually means equal protection??

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Dec 9, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
In finding Obamacare constitutional, Roberts pulled a little John Marshall (a Roberts hero) in giving the president an apparent victory but taking something from him at the same time.
In 1803, Marshall gave Jefferson a victory by preventing a Federalist federal appointee from taking office against Jefferson's wishes. But in turn, Marshall asserted the enormous power of judicial review for the Supreme Court.
In 2012, Roberts gave Obama a victory in upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But in doing so, he denied liberals the justification of using of an ever-expanding commerce clause. He upheld Obamacare through Congress' taxing power, but put an effective stop to the use of the Commerce clause to expand federal power. This was a huge victory for conservatives.
It could be that the next major goal of a conservative Supreme Court chief is putting the brakes on the use of "substantive due process" to limit executive and legislative power and authority. The ability to enforce unenumerated rights that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" through the 5th and 14th Amendment's Due Process clauses rankles conservatives as much if not more than the increasing use of the commerce clause since the New Deal.
Roberts could strike down DOMA as violative of state powers, perhaps in conjunction with an Equal Protection claim. This would hand liberals an apparent victory.
But he could also take from liberals the use the the substantive due process argument by specifically denying them that claim in Windsor, Perry, or both. If pro-gay counsel rely on substantive due process in any form in their briefs or arguments, it would present Roberts with a golden opportunity to shut the door on the use of the substantive due process theory in expanding unenumerated rights.
Under such a scenario, Roberts could again emulate his hero Marshall and hand his opponents an apparent victory in Windsor but a larger defeat in the Prop. 8 case.
I could live with that outcome, because I think it's much more important to get DOMA overturned right now. The state bans aren't likely to be overturned with this court no matter what happens with Prop 8. It will take a solid liberal majority on the court to overturn state bans, and that will take another appointment by President Obama or President Hillary. Once that happens it doesn't matter what Robert's opinion of state's rights is; he will be in the minority then.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#13 Dec 9, 2012
Whats the basis for the arguement againest same sex marriage?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14 Dec 9, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Whats the basis for the arguement againest same sex marriage?
One place to research controversial issues is Procon.org

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#15 Dec 10, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, because we don't need those homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else! it was bad enough allowing them Negroes to vote back in the 60's!
Name one constitutional right that is denied them. Waiting pookie.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#16 Dec 10, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Whats the basis for the arguement againest same sex marriage?
It doesn't fall into the 4000 year old definition of Marriage, and it doesn't follow the natural order of nature. Nothing you say or do will change that. This isn't about rights, it's about uncle sugars money you want.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#17 Dec 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
It doesn't fall into the 4000 year old definition of Marriage
Made up numbers mean nothing, and we can see how they don't work in getting tea baggers elected.

How's those 14 swing states working out for you, Dumbo?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18 Dec 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
Waiting pookie.
I'm waiting for those 14 swings states you told us about, ScrotumSniff.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Dec 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Name one constitutional right that is denied them. Waiting pookie.
Equal treatment & due process.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#20 Dec 10, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't fall into the 4000 year old definition of Marriage, and it doesn't follow the natural order of nature. Nothing you say or do will change that. This isn't about rights, it's about uncle sugars money you want.
Good Grief! Marriage has done nothing BUT change over the millennia. Where did you get the idea that it has not?

And marriage has no place in the "natural order of nature", whatever that means.

It's a human construct that serves human purposes. And, fortunately, it serves the same purposes for gay couples and their families that it serves for straight couples.

That's the point of this civil rights struggle.

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
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 2 min lou 32
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 min chris toal 26,896
Christmas Day NE Jade Thread 8 min Gremlin 1
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Reverend Alan 6,060
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 16 min BIG BOSS MAN 68,585
26 'Gay' Men Arrested at Cairo Bathhouse Caged ... 46 min Harold 3
Christmas Eve NE Jade Party 48 min Harold 8
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 1 hr Dennis 16
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr Pietro Armando 5,136
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr KiMerde 3,004
More from around the web