White House asks Supreme Court to ove...

White House asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ban

There are 55 comments on the CBS News story from Feb 23, 2013, titled White House asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ban. In it, CBS News reports that:

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a section of federal law that only recognizes male-female marriages.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45 Mar 1, 2013
Pok Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
“A right needs no permission.” Really? Try holding a parade—exercise of 1st Amen--at rush hour in any major city, or shouting “fire”—exercise of 1st Amen—in a crowded theater. Or, more relevantly, one can get married without a state’s permission, as in common law states or as the Supreme Ct has ruled, one cannot otherwise be denied the right to marriage. In fact, that’s what the whole argument is about.
A legal scholar you are not.
You're GOOD!

Welcome.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46 Mar 1, 2013
RayOne wrote:
Is it IMPEACHABLE when the WhiteHouse undermines a state electoral vote?
"Impeachment" means to indict and try.

Congress may bring Articles of Impeachment for ANY reason it wishes.

ANY.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#47 Mar 1, 2013
lilith_Satans_Who_re wrote:
<quoted text>maybe you should just kill yourself...
Stop that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#48 Mar 2, 2013
Cfoote wrote:
So by a 5-4 vote this squeaked by at the Federal Level.. Hmm last I looked 33 states still have the death penalty.. Wow just like the same number of states with amendments banning SSM.. Sorry the Constitution no where says marriage is a right. A right needs no permisssion. No permission needed in the right to remain silent, With marriage you need permission from the state, thus not a right at all. The SCOTUS will let this go back to the states, they aren't going to religion, or marriage that results in children, they will vote is marriage a right for either hetro or homosexuals and its not
Actually, the last time you looked, 33 states had rewritten their death penalty statutes, so that they avoided the constitutional problems that had made them unconstitutional in the Furman case. Dear, your/mine/our right as an individual to enter into a state sanctioned and recognized marriage may not have been spelled out for the idiots amongst us, but that does not mean that such a right does not exist and is not guaranteed to us by the Constitution. It exists in the common law and has been recognized as being so fundamental to our rights as citizens, that the presumption lies against the power of the state to deny it and that there must be a compelling state interest involved in order to do so. There is nearly 50 years of federal case law which proves that your assumption that marriage is some sort of privilege handed down to us by the state is just plain wrong. Sorry. The questions before the SCOTUS are whether the states have the power over the individual's right to marry extends to denying it on the basis of the sex of the person you are requesting to marry and why there would be a need for such a power to be exercised. The answer thus far from those defending the law is that we and the Court should take pity on heterosexuals and their relationships. Apparently, you all are easily confused about responsible breeding habits and need to enforce a strictly heterosexual, government sanctioned role model, to keep you all from breeding like bears, who don't enter into long term commitments. If same sex couples who can't accidentally conceive in the back seat of a car are allowed to marry, somehow that means those of you who can say oops are going to forget that the biological parents of a child are supposed to be together not only the conception, but the birth and with any luck, until that little byproduct of heterosexual sex is out on its own. It's not our fault that heterosexuals can be such a mess, but we're supposed to pay the price, because same sex couples can only breed with a great deal of planning. THAT is the argument being used to defend both California's Prop 8 vote and DOMA. That is the argument being offered to deny us the right to marry the otherwise legally qualified person of our choice and to deny us legal recognition of our marriages by own federal government when they have been recognized by states. Good luck with that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#49 Mar 2, 2013
equalityboy81 wrote:
Rick, while I agree with you in this reply to that person I have to say while I'm optimistic the court will rule in our favor I'm not getting my hopes up either. I have absolutely no idea how SCOTUS will rule on this issue and if it will be on just Prop. 8 and also DOMA and also the issue of same-sex marriage itself. I haven't forgotten that it is a conservative slanted court and that if they don't rule in our favor we may have to wait decades for a ruling in our favor but hopefully by that time that the people would strike DOMA down without the help of the court, the people will be more fair minded in the near future with the new generations in power.
The way I see it, by latching on to the standing of BLAG in the DOMA case, the Court pretty much sealed its fate. The Court isn't necessarily going to agree why they're beating the hell out of it, but it's the net effect that counts and it is toast. The Prop 8 case is another matter entirely and there are many things that still can come from it, good, bad and indifferent. It still doesn't make sense for them to take it unless there was a majority with an idea as to what they were going to do with it already in place. What that majority is and what that idea is, I'm not really sure. I guess we'll find out in a few months, whether we like it or not.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#50 Mar 2, 2013
Cfoote wrote:
Let get back to what the Preamble says "We the People"
That's in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and has NO standing in our Constitution!!!

31 states had laws banning interracial marriages prior to Loving vs Virginia, right? Did ya see how that turned out?

Regardless of what 33 states happen to believe......this is a Republic form of Government, NOT a Democracy or a Theocracy.......and if you don't like it.....well, tough.......I don't like having my right to marry be decided by idiots like yourself!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#51 Mar 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That's in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and has NO standing in our Constitution!!!
31 states had laws banning interracial marriages prior to Loving vs Virginia, right? Did ya see how that turned out?
Regardless of what 33 states happen to believe......this is a Republic form of Government, NOT a Democracy or a Theocracy.......and if you don't like it.....well, tough.......I don't like having my right to marry be decided by idiots like yourself!!!
"We the People" are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution, which declares the mandate of all that follows, lays down the criteria to be fulfilled by all Law in our Nation, AND clearly states from whence that Mandate gains it's force.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#53 Mar 2, 2013
Jake wrote:
STFU queer, stop you whining.
Now there was a mature, well reasoned and seriously butch response. But what should really be expected when the person making it is pathetically childish, dumber than your less intelligent bags of hair and seriously impotent little male of the lesser orders of our species? Just stamp your feet, rant and rave, sputter and spew and make yourself look like a complete flaming fool just here for for your odd masturbatory pleasures. You're nothing more than free entertainment, sunshine. Which is good for you, nobody would pay to watch a flasher with so, so little to flash.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#54 Mar 2, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>

Daddy, pay attention to me! Why won't you play catch with me, daddy? Why will no one pay any attention to me? I'll fix you all! In 20 year or so,when they invent the Internet, I'll scream taunts at strangers all day, under false names! That'll make me feel less worthless!
Oh, odd, but interesting. It explains it all to us now.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#55 Mar 3, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"We the People" are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution, which declares the mandate of all that follows, lays down the criteria to be fulfilled by all Law in our Nation, AND clearly states from whence that Mandate gains it's force.
Ooops, my bad!!!

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#56 Mar 3, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU queer, stop you whining.
Scuk it up, Jake....

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#57 Mar 3, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"We the People" are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution, which declares the mandate of all that follows, lays down the criteria to be fulfilled by all Law in our Nation, AND clearly states from whence that Mandate gains it's force.
Yea....got it. Thanks. So, equal rights for all law abiding, tax paying American citizens....including the basic right to pursue "life, liberty and happiness."

AWESOME! GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS NOW!

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#59 Mar 3, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
You're avatar looks like your head inside a condom. We'll start calling you dickhead.
So, tell us, dear....what's it really like with your head inside a condom? Lots of experience with that?

On second thought, no need to answer. You seem trapped....unable to free yourself.... stuck....stanky....useless.

Kiss it Jake.

“The Sky Is Falling!”

Since: Apr 07

Chicago, IL

#61 Mar 3, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
What's up dickhead? I bet you only use used condoms to put on your head don't you? You enjoy a good queer treat now and then.
Or whatever...

YAWN!

"Joke," darling, you send me to sleep with your IDIOTIC COMMENTS.

Go find a boyfriend to fill your nights. I mean FILL you nights, dear.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#65 Mar 21, 2013
Cfoote wrote:
So by a 5-4 vote this squeaked by at the Federal Level..
Like I said before dear, you really should have paid better attention to your Civics teacher. It's still precedent, regardless of the vote and any state which enacts laws which violate Furman would be overturned.
Cfoote wrote:
Hmm last I looked 33 states still have the death penalty..
No dear, last time you checked you saw that 33 states had amended their death penalty statutes to eliminate the constitutional problems with them spelled out in Furman.
Cfoote wrote:
Wow just like the same number of states with amendments banning SSM..
Is that supposed to be meaningful somehow?
Cfoote wrote:
Sorry the Constitution no where says marriage is a right.
Simply because it hasn't been spelled out for the complete idiots in the audience doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have the right to marry guaranteed under the Constitution. See the 9th Amendment and get back to me.
Cfoote wrote:
A right needs no permisssion.
Somebody is being taught to be an idiot and it ain't me, sweetie. You have any number of constitutional rights which you need permission in order to exercise freely. Think of the permissions often attached to 2nd Amendment rights for example.
Cfoote wrote:
No permission needed in the right to remain silent, With marriage you need permission from the state, thus not a right at all.
Yes dear, you have many rights which require absolutely no permission from the government to exercise freely, but you also have many rights which do require their permission. Marriage is one such right. Dear, there are three SCOTUS precedents which clearly spell out that the individual has a right to be married.
Cfoote wrote:
The SCOTUS will let this go back to the states, they aren't going to religion, or marriage that results in children, they will vote is marriage a right for either hetro or homosexuals and its not
You are going to be so, so disappointed. I really don't mind breaking this to you, but the Supremes are going to take their path of least resistance and chuck them all. Anything short of that keeps this issue tied up in the Courts for years to come and they know it. The SCOTUS has already extended the individual's right to marry to all but the absolute worst of convicted felon of your dreams, if you imagine that they are going to continue to allow the states to draw that line on the basis of the sex of your choice, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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 Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 8 min Rainbow Kid 1,878
News Craig James Sues Fox Sports Alleging Network Fi... 15 min RalphB 18
News Jury Verdict of Bias Upheld in Case of Lesbian ... 18 min WeTheSheeple 1
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 hr Wondering 8,252
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 24,144
News Oregon issues final order in gay wedding cake case 1 hr Sneaky Pete 51
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 1 hr Poof1 1,279
News Feds release updated strategy against AIDS in A... 10 hr Logic Analysis 24
More from around the web