In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both...

In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

There are 1144 comments on the Reuters story from Nov 28, 2012, titled In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles. In it, Reuters reports that:

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#255 Nov 30, 2012
Papillon wrote:
FURTHERMORE ....
The homosexual activists are lobbying to lower the age for consensual sex down to thirteen (13).
Which means, when a homosexual male or homosexual female puts the moves on your little boy or girl (with the children's 'consent'),
then you as parents, cannot legally interfere.
These same activists are also pushing to legallize beastiality.
.
MERRY CHRISTMAS,
Happy Birthday, Jesus Christ.
That's no different that what the heteros can already legally do in most states.

Is it okay for a 50 y/o man to "put the moves" on a 13 y/o girl?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#256 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
dude, what laws were overturned if there wasn't laws at the time against it?
geez....
the fact is that no further determination needed to be made once racial segregation was ended.
But yet, Romer or Lawrence, your cases for equality, don't automatically make you able to marry...
I know why...
I'll give you a guess....
starts with a P.
And yet it still required the Loving case to get rid of inter-racial marriage bans.

What you don't understand is the SCOTUS only rules on the issue before them, whether that was segregation or sodomy. Neither case automatically removed all discrimination based on race or sexual orientation.

So just as it took the Loving case to overturn race-based marriage bans, it will take another case to overturn gender-based marriage bans.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#257 Nov 30, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
Nobody cares what the gays do. This whole battle is a trumped up attempt to demonize republicans. Republicans couldn't care less who you want to marry. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Democrats have convinced gays that they have an enemy. Gays are gullible assholes for buying it. It's ridiculous, petty and stupid..
Then why did the majority of Republicans vote against marriage for same-sex couples in Maine, Maryland, & Washington?

Obviously they DO care what gays do; in fact, they obsess about it nonstop.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#258 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet it still required the Loving case to get rid of inter-racial marriage bans.
What you don't understand is the SCOTUS only rules on the issue before them, whether that was segregation or sodomy. Neither case automatically removed all discrimination based on race or sexual orientation.
So just as it took the Loving case to overturn race-based marriage bans, it will take another case to overturn gender-based marriage bans.
way to talk right past my post.

hat more needed to be decided in Loving except it was a plainly racial based statute which was already found to be per se invalid?

Yet with you, the courts find:

Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages."

So invalidating all racial laws applied to marriage without more, but clearly not for gays.

So again, why is that?

"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#259 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did the majority of Republicans vote against marriage for same-sex couples in Maine, Maryland, & Washington?
Obviously they DO care what gays do; in fact, they obsess about it nonstop.
you are trying to join their club so you are forcing them to care....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#260 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
rational basis requires that one only have a rationalization, that you refuse to understand, I think, just so you can continue pete and repeat unabashed...
You get a d in the middle of your lies.
If there is any conceivable basis for justifying the law, it is rational.
Which is why the 2nd circuit based their ruling on intermediate scutiny, and even the 1st cicuit use an "enhanced" rational basis in overturning DOMA.

Of course the SCOTUS can accept just about anything as rational if that's the standard they want to use. Or they could decide NONE of those reasons are rational enough.

You just don't understand it all depends on the 9 justices hearing the case. They can do whatever they want.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#261 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why the 2nd circuit based their ruling on intermediate scutiny, and even the 1st cicuit use an "enhanced" rational basis in overturning DOMA.
.
Why did they do that?
was it the interrelation between E.P. and FEDERALISM?

Yup, 9 folks that can do ANYTHING including send you guys packing in the prop 8 case with a bare citation to baker, you agree right?
its within their discretion and as you say anything can happen right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#262 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you simply don't understand the difference between the standards.
I do enjoy that you think your ignorance is a joke on me...
And YOU simply don't understand that the JUSTICES determine which standard will be used.

So far the 1st circuit has used an "enhanced rational basis" and the 2nd circuti has use the intermediate scutiny.

The SCOTUS will use whatever standard they want to come to whatever conclusion they want. If they want to overturn DOMA, they'll justify it one way or the other. If they want to uphold DOMA, they'll justify that as well.

It all depends on what the 9 justices want to do.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#263 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Again, you simply don't understand the difference between the standards.
I do enjoy that you think your ignorance is a joke on me...
Actually, I do.

What makes this so funny is that I keep asking you the same question, and you keep avoiding answering it. The reality is that you cannot provide an answer that meets the rational basis review, requiring a law to serve a legitimate state interest, so you have no prayer of meeting a greater degree of scrutiny.

What legitimate state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, Jane?

You tried procreation, but that notion has been neatly debunked. Do you have any other theories you would like to try on for size? As time goes by, you seem to be doing more to highlight your own lack of understanding of the law (like when you said interracial marriage bans were struck with integration, when in reality it took Loving v Virginia to bring out that change). In the end, you don't appear to have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#264 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And YOU simply don't understand that the JUSTICES determine which standard will be used.
So far the 1st circuit has used an "enhanced rational basis" and the 2nd circuti has use the intermediate scutiny.
The SCOTUS will use whatever standard they want to come to whatever conclusion they want. If they want to overturn DOMA, they'll justify it one way or the other. If they want to uphold DOMA, they'll justify that as well.
It all depends on what the 9 justices want to do.
Perhaps, more importantly, Jane has failed to offer an argument that would satisfy the lowest level of judicial scrutiny.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#265 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And YOU simply don't understand that the JUSTICES determine which standard will be used.
Actually I do, but they have to tag it to something, and yes ,this is exactly why having baker exist is important.

It is a peg to hang their hat on if they need it...

AND, for the most part, the most important thing to come out of the DOMA cases will be the standard of review, that will be the whole decision, get ready for some rational basis dude, maybe enhanced, but not enhanced enough....

What the DOMA cases have is states rights. That is what enhanced the basis, you will not get that on state laws...
you will run into the rebuttable presumption that Baker controls!

Just to show you how easy your optimistic creative writing is, the gay marriage opposition is undefeated in the scotus.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#266 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do.
What makes this so funny is that I keep asking you the same question, and you keep avoiding answering it.
LIAR.

Thats a flat lie, I gave 2 MANY TIMES and refuse to address them...

Here we have them again:
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

Pete and repeat sat on a fence...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#267 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, more importantly, Jane has failed to offer an argument that would satisfy the lowest level of judicial scrutiny.
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

You are a liar.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#268 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR.
Thats a flat lie, I gave 2 MANY TIMES and refuse to address them...
Here we have them again:
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."
Pete and repeat sat on a fence...
Is gay marriage legal in New York, yes or no?

If the former, than your regular return to this legal decision is irrelevant for obvious reasons.

I have already pointed out the flaws in the logic that there is a state interest in children being raise by their biological parents, a fact that is fully illustrated by the number of ways in which the state does intervene in the form of child services and adoption, and does not intervene in cases of divorce and single parenthood.

a more intelligent individual would understand this concept. You, on the other hand keep copying and pasting the superseded legal decision as though you were making a valid point.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#269 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Yuip, they are still angry at all of the out of state money dictating...
but they seriously just don't care enough to bother...
Oh yes, the lies we tell ourselves. Have you ever checked the finances of the organizations supporting and opposing same-sex marriage? The opposition consistently raises nearly 100% of its funds from a small number of undisclosed donors. Most of our money comes from small, individual donors. And all of it is disclosed.

Seriously: The opponents started lying about where support came from with the very first battle, claiming falsely that pro-gay forces imported sympathizers from out-of-state. They continue to tell that lie.

When we had the vote in the New Hampshire legislature, the opponents were represented by forces flown in from across the country. Our side was represented by a rag tag group of present and former representatives, plus other in-state activists. When the opponents pursued their embarrassing attempt to repeal marriage equality, they again tried to claim that the hundreds of red-shirted supporters somehow came from out-of-state, while their few supporters (including Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown) were home-grown. The Sargent at Arms easily dispelled the lie, but opponents of same-sex marriage continue to believe what they want.

Talk about denial of reality...

The fact is that opponents of same-sex marriage have no popular support in the states. They rely on religious institutions to carry water for them, and they use outside money to fund their media campaigns. Maine, Maryland, and Washington have proved that is no longer sufficient. We will continue to win the ground game with popular support.

My only concern is that opponents of same-sex marriage actually learn something and get serious about grass-roots ground games. But I've been personally involved in several iterations of this fight, now, and I doubt they'll be able to muster the resources. As you said, the few opponents who are left just don't have enough interest to do the hard work.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#270 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is gay marriage legal in New York, yes or no?
.
and this speaks to the reasons cited how?

ADDRESS the reaosns, not the procedural posture of that case...
but in the end, the high court of NY accepted this as rational (given they know what that standard means) and you do not...

I'll go with the high court and not your ignorance...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#271 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, the lies we tell ourselves.
you would know.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, the lies we tell ourselves. Have you ever checked the finances of the organizations supporting and opposing same-sex marriage? The opposition consistently raises nearly 100% of its funds from a small number of undisclosed donors. Most of our money comes from small, individual donors. And all of it is disclosed.
yup, and it mostly originated out of state.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
.
The fact is that opponents of same-sex marriage have no popular support in the states. T
Who put up all those take back Vermont sigbns then?

Talk about denying reality!

The people here thought it was shoved down their throats on out of state money and they were right!

"Other special interest groups were already lining up for their turn. As a Caledonia Record Editorial points out: "Near the end of the first session of this Legislature, House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, appointed an 11-member commission to hold public forums to determine where Vermonters stand on gay marriage. The commission was named the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. That's a very deceptive name. If anybody had the idea that the commission had anything to do with recognizing families or protecting them, the name served its purpose of deceiving Vermonters. Its true purpose was to hold hearings that could then be twisted into a consensus legalizing gay marriage. The commission is composed of 11 members, many of them gay themselves, and all but one of them avid proponents of legalizing gay marriage. The one seeming independent is window dressing. He was added after the fact when the public realized that the deck was stacked with the first 10.

Polls conducted at the time indicated that the majority of Vermont voters did not support this bait and switch when it comes to what was campaign on. Roper notes how Smith and Shumiln responded to the voters concern: "When Smith and Shumlin did spring the same sex marriage issue on the legislature during Town meeting week, they did so with the promise that they could "walk and chew gum at the same time." The efforts to fix the fiscal crisis would not suffer. In the end, they couldn't and it did.""
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#272 Nov 30, 2012
The legislature could...
The legislature could...

In the end, the legislature PASSED gay marriage in New York. I think I'll go with what the legislature actually did.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#273 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you would know.
<quoted text>
yup, and it mostly originated out of state.
Can you document the percentage from out-of-state? Whatever percentage the pro-gay raise out-of-state, it's far smaller than the percentage the anti-gay raise out-of-state.

Denial denial denial...
<quoted text>
Who put up all those take back Vermont sigbns then?
Talk about denying reality!
The people here thought it was shoved down their throats on out of state money and they were right!
You are confusing 2000 with 2009. Temporal displacement seems to be one of your core consistencies.
"Other special interest groups were already lining up for their turn. As a Caledonia Record Editorial points out: "Near the end of the first session of this Legislature, House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, appointed an 11-member commission to hold public forums to determine where Vermonters stand on gay marriage. The commission was named the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. That's a very deceptive name. If anybody had the idea that the commission had anything to do with recognizing families or protecting them, the name served its purpose of deceiving Vermonters. Its true purpose was to hold hearings that could then be twisted into a consensus legalizing gay marriage. The commission is composed of 11 members, many of them gay themselves, and all but one of them avid proponents of legalizing gay marriage. The one seeming independent is window dressing. He was added after the fact when the public realized that the deck was stacked with the first 10.
Polls conducted at the time indicated that the majority of Vermont voters did not support this bait and switch when it comes to what was campaign on. Roper notes how Smith and Shumiln responded to the voters concern: "When Smith and Shumlin did spring the same sex marriage issue on the legislature during Town meeting week, they did so with the promise that they could "walk and chew gum at the same time." The efforts to fix the fiscal crisis would not suffer. In the end, they couldn't and it did.""
You are taking an editorial from the Caledonian Record as proof of your assertions? LOL! We both know the conservative bias in the Caledonian.

As a matter of fact, polls in spring 2009 showed support for changing the law approaching 60%. Other than a few reactionaries (who seem to constitute your entire universe of acquaintances), there was no significant backlash. And your legislature is more pro-equality than it was three years ago.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#274 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you would know.
<quoted text>
yup, and it mostly originated out of state.
<quoted text>
Who put up all those take back Vermont sigbns then?
Talk about denying reality!
The people here thought it was shoved down their throats on out of state money and they were right!
"Other special interest groups were already lining up for their turn. As a Caledonia Record Editorial points out: "Near the end of the first session of this Legislature, House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, appointed an 11-member commission to hold public forums to determine where Vermonters stand on gay marriage. The commission was named the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. That's a very deceptive name. If anybody had the idea that the commission had anything to do with recognizing families or protecting them, the name served its purpose of deceiving Vermonters. Its true purpose was to hold hearings that could then be twisted into a consensus legalizing gay marriage. The commission is composed of 11 members, many of them gay themselves, and all but one of them avid proponents of legalizing gay marriage. The one seeming independent is window dressing. He was added after the fact when the public realized that the deck was stacked with the first 10.
Polls conducted at the time indicated that the majority of Vermont voters did not support this bait and switch when it comes to what was campaign on. Roper notes how Smith and Shumiln responded to the voters concern: "When Smith and Shumlin did spring the same sex marriage issue on the legislature during Town meeting week, they did so with the promise that they could "walk and chew gum at the same time." The efforts to fix the fiscal crisis would not suffer. In the end, they couldn't and it did.""
Your losing Jane....'If anybody had the idea that the commission had anything to do with recognizing families or protecting them, the name served its purpose of deceiving Vermonters'- This is exactly what your 'side' did in the prop 8 case and why Washington state made VERY sure how it's amendment was worded. Your anti-gay protect marriage people lied and deceived the voter (in the Prop 8 case)into voting for something that wasn't actually true by the wording - so that people wouldn't know what they were actually voting for was Discrimination and NOT family protection.

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 Kentucky man, transgender wife sue Amazon for w... 9 min TipsyFromCentralC... 11
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... 12 min Carmine 1
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... (Nov '16) 16 min Davie Crockett 2,434
FuNKY ARCHIVES 43 min Amos 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Big Nick 53,714
40 years ago today 1 hr Big Nick 7
News Pride in local LGBT progress: Some of Metro Van... 2 hr Western Canuck 17
News Teen weighs impact of joining school gay-straig... 2 hr Big Nick 4
News School district removes gay students' yearbook ... 20 hr DaveinMass 36
More from around the web