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.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#84 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!
You're confusing "common" with "rational". It's common for 15-year-old girls to dress like prostitutes and have unprotected sex, but that doesn't make such behaviour rational, does it?

It's the same with marriage. Just because it may be common for straight, fertile couples to marry, that's not a rational for banning everyone else (or anyone else) from doing it.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that aside, yes, the will of the people should not be disregarded...
What if they voted that people that post to Topix under the name "Jane Dough" should be imprisoned for life. Rational?? Correct?? People's vote!! Sacred?? Defensible?? You don't think that should be overturned by a court? Or would you just show up and jail and turn yourself in?
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!
See above. What makes you think that all the voters are schooled in constitutional law to the point of refusing to vote for anything that wouldn't pass constitutional muster? And how is that even possible since MANY issues are far too complex for anyone outside of a court of law to even figure out if it IS constitutional or not?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are so sure people's minds are changing, why then is your tactic to force it down people's throats?
First off, no one is forcing anything onto anyone, let alone down anyone's throat.

Second, historians have long thought, and with lots of good support, that slavery in the United State would have likely faded away as the industrial revolution gradually made keeping slaves far more expensive than purchasing machinery and hiring workers. In fact, it was fairly common knowledge among people before the Civil War that such a progression was already under way. Many Confederate politicians made that argument in their attempts to stave off abolitionist's attempts at outlawing slavery.

Do you think it would have been rational and fair to simply tell all those slaves that all they would have to do is wait another generation or two and slavery would be gone?? Or do you think ending it all at once with the 14th Amendment was a better plan?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#85 Dec 7, 2012
BREAKING NEWS-

The SCOTUS agreed to hear both the Prop 8 case and the Windsor DOMA case.

Let the speculation begin!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#86 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
yes, you are finally catching on, we cannot ask since its none of the govt business if we procreate...

but we don't have to ask gays do we?

suspect class?
your dreaming!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#87 Dec 7, 2012
From the SCOTUS orders page for Dec 7:

US v Windsor- petition granted. In addition the parties are to address whether the DOJ agreement with the lower court ruling denies the SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether BLAG has standing to defend DOMA.

Hollingsworth v Perry (prop8)- petition granted. In addition the parties are to address whether petitioners have standing to appeal.

Sounds like the SCOTUS is looking for a way to NOT make a decision on the merits of these cases by ruling on a technicality instead.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#88 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing "common" with "rational". It's common for 15-year-old girls to dress like prostitutes and have unprotected sex, but that doesn't make such behaviour rational, does it?
?
nope. You are not understanding what the legal "rational" means..
legally, its rationale to do so, it may not be wise, but thats not the question we are asking...

the young girl has found a rational way to make money...it may not be smart, but again, thats not what we are asking...

to do so would be to apply a stricter standard...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#89 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Wrong again, hon. That was a cut from a court decision. That's different from standing law. And it doesn't say what it appears you think it says. It's simply saying that the inability for same-sex couples to procreate is *NOT* a valid reason to deny them marriage any more than it would be to do the same with any other couple that can't procreate together.

What kind of law school did you go to? Were there Cracker Jack boxes involved??

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#90 Dec 7, 2012
And Kagan gets to participate in both. Someone said they'll hear these in March.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
BREAKING NEWS-
The SCOTUS agreed to hear both the Prop 8 case and the Windsor DOMA case.
Let the speculation begin!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#91 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
BREAKING NEWS-
The SCOTUS agreed to hear both the Prop 8 case and the Windsor DOMA case.
Let the speculation begin!
1. I was WRONG. I predicted they would punt on Prop 8.

2. As far as speculation, I wouldn't think you would see this as a good thing that they are taking that case...

I wonder if the overturn of a state amendment was repugnant enough to them...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#92 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, you are finally catching on, we cannot ask since its none of the govt business if we procreate...
but we don't have to ask gays do we?
suspect class?
your dreaming!
Dreaming? Then 2nd circuit ALREADY ruled same-sex couples should be granted quasi-suspect classification (just like gender) in part because......(wait for it)..... being a same-sex couple IS OBVIOUS.

That's called irony.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#93 Dec 7, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, hon. That was a cut from a court decision. That's different from standing law.
wrong.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#94 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
From the SCOTUS orders page for Dec 7:
US v Windsor- petition granted. In addition the parties are to address whether the DOJ agreement with the lower court ruling denies the SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether BLAG has standing to defend DOMA.
Hollingsworth v Perry (prop8)- petition granted. In addition the parties are to address whether petitioners have standing to appeal.
Sounds like the SCOTUS is looking for a way to NOT make a decision on the merits of these cases by ruling on a technicality instead.
these were central issues in the lower cases...
BUT they ALWAYS rule on the narrowest basis...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#95 Dec 7, 2012
I wish we knew which justices voted to accept which cases. That would tell us a lot about which way the court is leaning. For now it's all just guesswork.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#96 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Dreaming? Then 2nd circuit ALREADY ruled same-sex couples should be granted quasi-suspect classification (just like gender) in part because......(wait for it)..... being a same-sex couple IS OBVIOUS.
That's called irony.
could this be why they chose that case and not the second circuit where they found no such thing?
maybe...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#97 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I was WRONG. I predicted they would punt on Prop 8.
2. As far as speculation, I wouldn't think you would see this as a good thing that they are taking that case...
I wonder if the overturn of a state amendment was repugnant enough to them...
I was wrong too- along with just about every "expert" who thought they'd just deny cert to the Prop 8 case.

If we which justices voted to accept the case, we'd know more about which direction they're leaning.

I'd say if it was the conservatives who agreed to take the Prop 8 case then they're looking to uphold Prop 8 under states rights logic.

If it was the liberals, they may be looking to overturn ALL marriage bans.

Or either side could be looking for a reason to duck ruling on the merits of the case by dismissing it on the standing issue.

Going to court was always a risk for both sides.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#98 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
could this be why they chose that case and not the second circuit where they found no such thing?
maybe...
WOW ! You're wrong ALL the time ! Please pick 999 numbers between 000 and 999 so I can pick the one you don't and win the lottery.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#99 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
could this be why they chose that case and not the second circuit where they found no such thing?
maybe...
Actually they DID choose the 2nd circuit case (Windsor v US) where the court granted quasi-suspect classification.

I think that's a clue as to where the SCOTUS is headed, along with the fact that they didn't pick the 1st circuit cases where Justice Kagan would have recussed herself.

Makes me think the liberals are looking to overturn DOMA granting quasi-suspect classification, while the conservatives are looking to uphold Prop 8 under states rights using rational basis.

Should be an interesting constitutional crisis we're setting ourselves up for.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#100 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they DID choose the 2nd circuit case (Windsor v US) where the court granted quasi-suspect classification.
I think that's a clue as to where the SCOTUS is headed, along with the fact that they didn't pick the 1st circuit cases where Justice Kagan would have recussed herself.
Makes me think the liberals are looking to overturn DOMA granting quasi-suspect classification, while the conservatives are looking to uphold Prop 8 under states rights using rational basis.
Should be an interesting constitutional crisis we're setting ourselves up for.
And exactly what "constitutional crisis" is that ?

And exactly what IS a "constitutional crisis" and how many have we had ?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#101 Dec 7, 2012
Nope; you still don't understand the issues. RvW was decided based not on the right to an abortion but the right to make one's own medical decisions without government interference or breach of privacy. Or, to put it another way, the way men have ALWAYS been able to make such choices.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, the point is that our rights can be based on our physical abilities as you point out above...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#102 Dec 7, 2012
Many gays procreate the same way many hetero couples procreate--donors, surrogates, etc. It may also be possible very soon for two lesbians to commingle their cells and cause a pregnancy.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, you are finally catching on, we cannot ask since its none of the govt business if we procreate...
but we don't have to ask gays do we?
suspect class?
your dreaming!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
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
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 2 min EdmondWA 249
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 35 min June VanDerMark 12,630
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr tbird19482 44,039
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Strel 23,925
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr McSpade 4,956
News Donald Trump Meets with SCOTUS Candidate Willia... 4 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Indiana Youth Group relocates to larger headqua... 4 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Gay Activists Plan Inaugural 'Queer Dance Party... 5 hr Frogface Kate 7
More from around the web