Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay M...

Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases

There are 99 comments on the NBC Miami story from Dec 6, 2012, titled Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases. In it, NBC Miami reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Miami.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#62 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
don't be silly...
there are 32 states which seem to prove you wrong...
and you do get that polygamy is illegal?
so....
we vote on marriage rights all the time...
barring close relatives etc...
So if a group of people in a certain area all voted that Roman Catholics were banned from civilly marrying, and you KNOW there are TONS of places in the U.S. where such a law could *easily* get voted it, you would consider that to be a just and reasonable law, simply because the people voted it in?

How about slavery? I would LOVE to have a couple of slaves to do my housework. If I could convince enough people to vote slavery back in as law, would it okay for me to start enslaving people and make them do my housework for me? You would consider that to be a just and reasonable law worthy of defending simply because the people voted it in??

Unconstitutional laws get voted in by passionate but misguided voters every day. The place that unconstitutional laws are MOST likely to get voted in are at town council meetings or any other state or local government. Those are generally run by people with very little legal or constitutional experience and often no legal consultation. They can easily vote in all sorts of unconstitutional laws that would have to be overturned by the courts in order to get rid of them. But until a court overturns a bad law, it's still a law, bad or otherwise.

Then there are the constitutional but STUPID laws that get voted in. Take a look at the history of California's "50% plus 1" voter initiative law and see just how insanely stupid voters can be. A few years back, they voted in a law to levy a $10,000 fine to auto dealers for every non-zero-emissions car they sold over a certain number. Who the hell did they think would be paying those fines?? The dealers??? The intent was to "force" car dealers to "work harder" to sell electric vehicles. The reality was that car dealers were forced to add ten grand to the price of every non-electric vehicle they sold. OOPS!!! They didn't want *THAAAAAAT* to happen!!! So much for auto sales in the State of California. Somehow they managed to get around it, but what a mess in the meantime....

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#63 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Polygamy is only illegal if the person gets legally married to more than one person at a time. That's still very easy to do by simply getting married in different counties as most local governments don't cross reference anyone's marital history. They just ask about it on the license and if you attest that you're available to legally marry, you can.
It's a lie, of course, if the person happens to be already married to someone else, but it can be done if someone wants to.
But unless the government wants to start monitoring and prosecuting adultery, there's nothing to stop a polygamous group from *religiously* marrying and behaving in exactly the same way they would if they were all civilly married to one another.
I agree.

If peopel want to practice polygamy, why would they want to notify the government[s] about it by obtaining marriage licenses ?

A marriage license merely informs the government taht you've married. And their are consequent benefits (and possible liabilities) for doing so. But their is no reason for doing so. One could be married in a religious ceremony without obtaining a license if a couple wishes to do so.

A marriage is simply a promise between 2 (or more in some cases) people to a committed relationship (most of which go bust nowadays unfortunately).

I believe that when a couple marries, they should remain faithful to one another in all things, forsake all others, and make their spouse the center of their lives.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#64 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So if a group of people in a certain area all voted that Roman Catholics were banned from civilly marrying, and you KNOW there are TONS of places in the U.S. where such a law could *easily* get voted it, you would consider that to be a just and reasonable law, simply because the people voted it in?
given the basis of the right is procreation, it would be nonsense to deny it to a religion...
but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#65 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
given the basis of the right is procreation, it would be nonsense to deny it to a religion...
but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story...
"but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story..."

So any female past menopause, or any female or male who cannot procreate for any other medical reason, shuld not be allowed to be civilly wed is what you're saying. Correct ?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#66 Dec 7, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
"but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story..."
So any female past menopause, or any female or male who cannot procreate for any other medical reason, shuld not be allowed to be civilly wed is what you're saying. Correct ?
nope.

"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

exceptions don't negate rules...

and the infertile couple also provides both a mom and dad for all the same ways you would have children while being infertile, and you cannot...

its a rational distinction!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#67 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
exceptions don't negate rules...
and the infertile couple also provides both a mom and dad for all the same ways you would have children while being infertile, and you cannot...
its a rational distinction!
It's not a rational distinction according to may religious leaders, and many civil courts. Hence many states have now legalized Marriage Equality.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#68 Dec 7, 2012
Both; if a man manages to get pregnant, he doesn't have to keep it.

Do you get honked off that women usually don't get prostate exams?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
who has the right to chose an abortion?
men or women or both?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#69 Dec 7, 2012
On the contrary, in those states forbidding same-sex relations, it was a valid reason to deny gay marriage--but ONLY in those few states that allowed hetero sodomy alone. Since most such state laws forbade sodomy for all BUT allowed straights to marry, the law could not be used to deny SSM.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
WHY are they illegal?
So you say when sodomy was illegal that this was a proper justification to bar gays?
you do get the bigotry in what you are saying right?
of course you don't, you would have to have a degree of consistency to see that!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#70 Dec 7, 2012
And those states will, in time, have those votes overturned in court.

Just because a legislative order goes through doesn't mean it's constitutional. Do you get how constitutional challenges work?

Polygamy is directly in violation of bigamy laws as well as the legal basis for marriage, which is the granting of primary kinship.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
don't be silly...
there are 32 states which seem to prove you wrong...
and you do get that polygamy is illegal?
so....
we vote on marriage rights all the time...
barring close relatives etc...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#73 Dec 7, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Both; if a man manages to get pregnant, he doesn't have to keep it.
nope, the point is that our rights can be based on our physical abilities as you point out above...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#74 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
given the basis of the right is procreation, it would be nonsense to deny it to a religion...
but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story...
Funny how you just dodged answering the question, huh??

Here--let's try again:

So if a group of people in a certain area all voted that Roman Catholics were banned from civilly marrying, and you KNOW there are TONS of places in the U.S. where such a law could *easily* get voted it, you would consider that to be a just and reasonable law, simply because the people voted it in?

You've made the statement that the will of the people should never be overturned by a court of law. Still stand by that statement?
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

#75 Dec 7, 2012
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 !
The dumber the state the more likely they are a red state. On the other hand, Obama won Florida which has only 23% college graduates.
"According to a state-by-state breakdown by the Census Bureau, here are the top 15 states with the best college completion rates as of 2010. All of them have at least 43 percent of its young residents holding a college degree, but only two states have over 50 percent. D.C., which was included in the study, beat out all of the states with an impressive 68.8 percent.
Blue - Massachusetts 54.3% of the population
Red - North Dakota 50.8% of the population
Blue - Minnesota 49.8% of the population
Blue - New York 49.6% of the population 47.2% of the population
Blue - New Jersey 47.2% of the population
Blue - New Hampshire 46.0% of the population
Blue - Connecticut 45.9% of the population
Blue - Iowa 45.5% of the population
Blue - Maryland 45.5% of the population
Blue- llinois 45.3% of the population
Blue - Virginia 44.6% of the population
Blue - Vermont 44.5% of the population
Red - Nebraska 44.2% of the population
Blue - Pennsylvania 43.9% of the population"
So out of the fifteen states with the highest percentages of college graduates, twelve voted for Obama. And as for the nonsense some have proposed about liberalism being "cyclical", republicans have gotten the majority of the white vote in every presidential race since 1964.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#76 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you just dodged answering the question, huh??
Here--let's try again:
So if a group of people in a certain area all voted that Roman Catholics were banned from civilly marrying, and you KNOW there are TONS of places in the U.S. where such a law could *easily* get voted it, you would consider that to be a just and reasonable law, simply because the people voted it in?
You've made the statement that the will of the people should never be overturned by a court of law. Still stand by that statement?
no, I didnt dodge, you would need a rational reason...
that the sky is blue is not a rational reason, that they are a religion is not rational, that they cannot procreate, as to a marriage, is a rational reason. that gays cannot provide both a mom and dad is rational. In fact that we understood marriage at all to be between man and woman is rational!

that aside, yes, the will of the people should not be disregarded...
Even more so in CA where they amended the constitution, not just legislation but CHANGED the constitution...I find it hard to believe an amendment can be unconstitutional!

If you are so sure people's minds are changing, why then is your tactic to force it down people's throats?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#77 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
exceptions don't negate rules...
and the infertile couple also provides both a mom and dad for all the same ways you would have children while being infertile, and you cannot...
its a rational distinction!
Wrong. Inability to procreate together is not now nor will it ever be a legally supportable reason to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples. It's just one of the empty excuses that hate-mongers have dreamed up to hide their bigotry (and ignorance) behind.

And it's hardly an "exception" when it would apply 100% to one group and 0% to another. That's not an exception, that's a distinction. And once you start legislating distinctions between groups of people, you gotta support them. Something the anti-marriage crowd has yet to successfully do.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#78 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, the point is that our rights can be based on our physical abilities as you point out above...
Uh oh. You've never heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act, have you?

It's more than just making public places wheelchair accessible. It also points out that physical abilities does not alter a person's civil rights. And it's been upheld by the courts over and over.

OOPS!!! I guess you didn't take that class in law school, did you?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#79 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Inability to procreate together is not now nor will it ever be a legally supportable reason.
funny, this was a cut from standing law...
unfortunately, your agreement is not necessary...
but let me know when you get a vote on the SCOTUS...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#80 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
given the basis of the right is procreation, it would be nonsense to deny it to a religion...
but to those who cannot procreate, well that's another story...
So deny it to ALL couples who can't procreate solely between themselves, like the eldery & infertile. Oh wait, that's not always obvious, unlike it is with same-sex couples. Hmmmm, a good justification for suspect classification (like the 2nd circuit found).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#81 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no, I didnt dodge, you would need a rational reason...
that the sky is blue is not a rational reason, that they are a religion is not rational, that they cannot procreate, as to a marriage, is a rational reason. that gays cannot provide both a mom and dad is rational. In fact that we understood marriage at all to be between man and woman is rational!
that aside, yes, the will of the people should not be disregarded...
Even more so in CA where they amended the constitution, not just legislation but CHANGED the constitution...I find it hard to believe an amendment can be unconstitutional!
If you are so sure people's minds are changing, why then is your tactic to force it down people's throats?
Actually since religion is a protected class, you'd need MUCH more than a rational reason to justify denying them marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#82 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more so in CA where they amended the constitution, not just legislation but CHANGED the constitution...I find it hard to believe an amendment can be unconstitutional!
If you are so sure people's minds are changing, why then is your tactic to force it down people's throats?
So if they amended their constitution to deny women the right to vote, you'd find it har to believe that was unconstitutional?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#83 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
exceptions don't negate rules...
and the infertile couple also provides both a mom and dad for all the same ways you would have children while being infertile, and you cannot...
its a rational distinction!
It would be a rational distinction to ban single people from having kids, or to ban divorce without immediate remarriage if they have kids, or to bans same-sex couples from adopting or having kids by whatever means.

It's NOT a rational distinction for marriage since not every married couples has kids, and marriage is not required to reproduce.

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 23 min neighbor 1,856
Jades Diary 5 43 min Maze 2
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 2 hr Will Dockery 96
News California just added four more 'discriminatory... 2 hr Frankford 16
Can a Man be Gay But Only Like Oral Sex? (Aug '13) 2 hr Frankford 15
News Lesbian couple get divorce after politically ch... 2 hr Mari cone 17
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr No Surprise 6,821
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Ulysses 51,263
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 6 hr davy 67
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 8 hr Kim Jung 69,540
Mississippi can enforce LGBT religious objecti... 12 hr Frankie Rizzo 10
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 12 hr Frankie Rizzo 26,386
More from around the web