Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases

Dec 6, 2012 Full story: NBC Miami 99

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide what it wants to do with a stack of cases filling its in-box on the subject of same-sex marriage as soon as Friday.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#22 Dec 6, 2012
IrishmanLA wrote:
<quoted text>

Also, the state constitution of any state is superceded by the US Constitution in ALL cases. If a state passes a law the directly impacts and violates the US constitution, regardless of how it is passed, it is not a valid law and the courts have a responsibility to remove that law.
In the case of Proposition 8 and California, we have a unique scenario..
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...

I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#23 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Federalism. Its not just ONE government.
The state has the power to define Marriage so DOMA fails simply because it is a federal statute attempting to define marriage...
So, overturning DOMA would be a strong STATE'S rights case, meanwhile it would provide very little by way of "gay rights".
I think you're a little confused here on "gay rights". We don't claim Marriage Equality as strictly a gay right. We claim, and the Supreme Court has stated, that ALL citizens have a right to marriage. So it's not a gay rights issue, although as citizens, we claim it as a citizen's right.

As to the Feds getting out of defining marriage, I would assume you would be o.k then with them getting rid of all Federal benefits for marriage also, since they are tied to marriage. You know, like Soc. Sec. spousal benefits, tax deductions, etc. After all, once the camel has his nose in the tent, it's not long before he enters completely. So either the feds should be in or out. I could go for out completely, just to see all those straight folks lose their federal benefits and protections.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#24 Dec 6, 2012
IrishmanLA wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, I live in California, and I want to enlighten you on why the voter intiatives, at least in this state, are a dismal failure.
Until about 15 or so years ago, they required a 60% majority to come into force, and this was good, because 60% is hard to get on most issues. However, someone got a voter intiative in place that reduced that to 50%+1 for a win.
Now, comes all the fun. California has had SO MANY voter initiatives that impact our state budget (and these can only be overturned by the courts or by voter initiatives), that we are legally OBLIGATED to dedicate more than 120% of our state budget to different funds. Every time this is brought up and someone wants to address it, "the will of the people" is the reason they can't correct it.
Also, the state constitution of any state is superceded by the US Constitution in ALL cases. If a state passes a law the directly impacts and violates the US constitution, regardless of how it is passed, it is not a valid law and the courts have a responsibility to remove that law.
In the case of Proposition 8 and California, we have a unique scenario. California courts has extended the right to civil marriage to same sex couples, and this was in practice for many months before the election occurred. Article IV, Section 1 and the 14th amendment, per each ruling, have been violated by voting to remove rights granted to citizens. This is the only state in the country where rights that had been extended to any group later were voted away. The purpose of the court system as it is set up in the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from stepping on any minority that has a history of discrimination. Thomas Jefferson's writings provide some great insight into this, if you've ever read them. He's the primary author of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
There is no true LEGAL reason for preventing same-sex couples from marrying, and, as far as CIVIL marriage goes, that's all that matters. If a law has no LEGAL reason for blocking access to state-sponsored activities for any group against which the courts can prove discrimination has occurred, the law is invalid. Whether you like it or not, the people voting laws into place does not guarantee that the laws are right, good or effective.
People are not educated enough to understand the impacts of the laws that they vote for, mostly because they CHOOSE not to learn what those laws will do. The people may speak, but it doesn't mean they spoke rightly.
So what you're saying is that you trust politicians MORE than you trust the average American.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#25 Dec 6, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that you trust politicians MORE than you trust the average American.
If you are representative of the "average American", yeah, I do.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#26 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but that doesn't stop you guys from trying to analogize RACIAL civil rights...
That's because they're the same, too.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
racial rights are not even close to gay marriage,
They're exactly the same. It's the tyranny of a majority against an unpopular minority using civil law as their weapon of choice. How much more alike can they be?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>whereas polygamy the denial of a marriage right, clearly is..
Agreed. And if the polygamists want to campaign for marital equality for multiple concurrent spouses, I won't stand in their way. They're welcome to it.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>either we have the right to marry ANY consenting adult we wish or we don't.
Exactly.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot fathom of ANY argument that justifies gay marriage that doesn't also justify polygamy...
That's because you must not have thought very much about the issue. Marriage equality for same-sex couples doesn't require the rewriting of any law already on the books because there are still only two parties involved. Polygamy would require rewriting EVERY law on the books to accommodate multiple spouses and rights of property and inheritance and a thousand other things that become more complex when there's more than one other person involved.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>it seems that's exactly what is happening in canada:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp...
That's not even close to what happened in Canada. The polygamists are making the claim, but it doesn't hold water. I can claim that the sky is green and grass is blue, but that doesn't mean it's true.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>frankly, the polygamists have religious freedoms at stake and to me their argument is even better than gays...
What makes you think that same-sex couples DON'T have a religious freedom argument that's equal to the polygamists? My religious beliefs include marriage equality for same-sex couples, yet I am denied it, just like the polygamists.

So what do you have against polygamy anyway? How would that affect you any more or less than same-sex marriage equality?

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#27 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...
I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...
The point was lost on you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but that doesn't stop you guys from trying to analogize RACIAL civil rights...
racial rights are not even close to gay marriage, whereas polygamy the denial of a marriage right, clearly is..
either we have the right to marry ANY consenting adult we wish or we don't.
I cannot fathom of ANY argument that justifies gay marriage that doesn't also justify polygamy...
it seems that's exactly what is happening in canada:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp...
frankly, the polygamists have religious freedoms at stake and to me their argument is even better than gays...
Yes, they have the right to marry any consenting non-related adult of their choice- one at a time, just like everyone else.

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#29 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...
I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...
Let me clarify. A STATE constitutional amendment changes the STATE constitution, but MUST NOT VIOLATE the US Constitution, or it becomes invalid. This was a basic tenet taught in Civics class, which I took (and still take) very seriously.

If a STATE constitutional amendment violates the US Constitution, which supercedes it, then the state amendment is unconstitutional on the federal level, and is TRUMPED by the US Constitution. Any law which violates the US Constitution is invalid, regardless of where it is written or how it got into place.

There have been MANY cases of State Constitutional amendments, which were voted into place by the citizens of those states, being found in violation of the US Constitution, and were nullified by SCOTUS. This was done as recently as a couple of years ago in Colorado. Look up the details if you don't remember it.

The point is this: just because the people voted for something to modify their state constitution, it does not make the amendment a legal amendment, and if challenged at the federal level, it is weighed against the US Constitution. If it is found in violation of the US Constitution, it doesn't matter what it pertains to - it's bad law and SCOTUS (or an appellate court if SCOTUS declines to hear the case) removes it from the book of law that it pertains to.

VERY simple process. It's been working well for more than 200 years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#30 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Federalism. Its not just ONE government.
The state has the power to define Marriage so DOMA fails simply because it is a federal statute attempting to define marriage...
So, overturning DOMA would be a strong STATE'S rights case, meanwhile it would provide very little by way of "gay rights".
I don't want or need "gay rights". I just want the same 1100+ federal rights & benefits every other married coupes receives.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#31 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
oops, wish I had seen this first.
yes, I do not mind when the people get to make their own rules...
BUT recall the actual people's vote in CA...
overturning that I do not like to see for ANY reason...
The people don't have the right to vote for just anything they want to vote on. The 9th circuit found removing an existing right only from same-sex couples violated the US consitution. Once rights are given it's very hard to take them away, as it should be.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...
I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...
So you'd have no problem if the people of a state voted to amend their state constitution to ban women from voting, even though that would violate the US constitution?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Dec 6, 2012
Since all these marriage cases have some kind of procedural problem, I thing the SCOTUS is using that as an excuse to duck taking any of them for now.

I think they're waiting for a clean case to come through the circuit courts before they overturn DOMA.
hoodathunkit

Mount Gilead, OH

#34 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...
I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...
Then you live in the wrong country. One of the biggest misconceptions about the US and the states is that we are a democracy and the "will" of the people rules. The US is a Republic and, in a Republic, the people do NOT have the last word. The people can vote on anything that makes it to the ballot and, if passed, it becomes law...with exceptions. The legislature of the state can pass a law that circumvents the "will" of the people. The national legislature can pass a law that circumvents the "will" of the people. The courts can overturn a law passed by either the "will" of the people or any legislature based on whether that law passes constitutional muster. Amendments to state constitutions must pass federal constitutional muster and can be challenged in the court system.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#35 Dec 6, 2012
Isn't SCOTUS employing Judicial activism every time it refuses to hear a case and every time it accepts a case?

Frankly I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that mandates SCOTUS hear every case that reaches it.

But then I don't have a government job that says I get to decide when to do my job and when to sit on my ass and do nothing.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#36 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I agree with most people that the court will take up at least 2 of the DOMA case and punt that California train wreck as far away as possible...
So now you're saying BAKER didn't establish a Federal Legal Precedent.

Thanks for clearing that up.

LMAO

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#37 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but that doesn't stop you guys from trying to analogize RACIAL civil rights...
racial rights are not even close to gay marriage, whereas polygamy the denial of a marriage right, clearly is..
Wait polygamy has racial overtones?
Since when?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>either we have the right to marry ANY consenting adult we wish or we don't.
And that is where your polygamy claim fails. We are asking to marry one person not multiple people.. Just like blacks did. Just like he Lovings did.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>I cannot fathom of ANY argument that justifies gay marriage that doesn't also justify polygamy...
You can't fathom that two people getting married is different from more than two people getting married. You're a lousy lawyer then.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#38 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but that doesn't stop you guys from trying to analogize RACIAL civil rights...
racial rights are not even close to gay marriage, whereas polygamy the denial of a marriage right, clearly is..
either we have the right to marry ANY consenting adult we wish or we don't.
I cannot fathom of ANY argument that justifies gay marriage that doesn't also justify polygamy...
it seems that's exactly what is happening in canada:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp...
frankly, the polygamists have religious freedoms at stake and to me their argument is even better than gays...
It is doltishness to a frightening degree to insist like an automaton that *denying marriage* between two consenting adults based on race is unrelated to *denying marriage* between two consenting etc. etc. It's so manipulative and so literally stupid that I can't fathom WHAT YOU GAIN, what *YOU* and people like *YOU* gain by lying about it nonstop every hour of every day.

You have stopped not *ONE* person from comparing the two whenever and wherever they think it's appropriate, including me; *NO ONE* alive will stop me from comparing the two, including voices I have heard who are "deeply offended." They seem to have their heads stuck up their assholes and fail to realize that it is *DEEPLY* offensive that over thirty states have "banned" the right of gay couples to have a normal life. Those people can choke on their vomit before I stop comparing these two issues or, so I fervently hope before GOD HIMSELF, before anyone else does. Imagine. "Offended." Goddamn morons, it's like they *forget* was REALLY being offended is.

And if polygamy is legalized, I will n-e-v-e-r stop pointing the finger at people like you; it will be entirely due to the antigay that it ever happened. You're the only people talking about it and defending it. No one else but polygamists themselves is ever mentioning the subject.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
Isn't SCOTUS employing Judicial activism every time it refuses to hear a case and every time it accepts a case?
Frankly I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that mandates SCOTUS hear every case that reaches it.
But then I don't have a government job that says I get to decide when to do my job and when to sit on my ass and do nothing.
LOL, honestly, LOL, after the conversations between "sheeple" and me over the past week, my *one* thought about the constitution is that it should be amended to literally force the court to render *decisions* on what it will do with cases within a strict timeframe. They would literally have zero choice but to follow what the constitution says they *must* when prospective cases come before them. That's the #1, first, instant, not-even-blink matter that I would be amending posthaste. I literally see it as a very real problem and am shocked at the *lack* of this sentiment in people around me.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#40 Dec 6, 2012
"His" decision? Were the other 8 justices at band camp or something?
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Roberts is definitely NOT a "conservative" as evidenced by his Marxist-Leninist-Obamaniac decision to uphold the the Stalinist "Obamacare". Socialists brook NO DISSENT !

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#41 Dec 6, 2012
under the law, they are.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and men are the same as women...

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 21 min Cali Girl 2014 50,053
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 27 min DaveinMass 1,008
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 30 min Reverend Alan 675
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min Terra Firma 3,491
SF gay pride event celebrates 40th anniversary (Jun '10) 52 min MarmotaCaligata 95
Divorce Law Out Of Synch With Same-Sex Marriage 1 hr Fundies R Mentall... 37
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 1 hr Sgt Common Sense 161
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 2 hr NorCal Native 1,027
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,269
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 3 hr Fundies R Mentall... 12

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE