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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#275 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
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...
First of all, you haven't cited any reasons, you have cut and pasted a court decision that has been superseded by legislation and failed to indicate any specific portion which you believe is applicable.

On the whole, the portion you seem to be fixated upon deals with children being raised by their biological parents, however this is easily demonstrated NOT TO BE a legitimate state interest.

Are you ready?
The state allows divorce (and in some cases does not allow joint custody), The state allows single parenthood, the state allows and regulates adoption, the state allows adoption by single parents, the state allows individuals who are incapable of procreating to marry, etc.

Simply put, there is no legitimate state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage. This isn't difficult stuff to understand.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#276 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

You are taking an editorial from the Caledonian Record as proof of your assertions? LOL! We both know the conservative bias in the Caledonian.
a local paper seemed fitting...
talk about denial as you call a county too conservative to count...
and you neglect to mention the Take Back Vermont movement...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#277 Nov 30, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
you guys can tell me all you want what the political landscape is like here, but you know you have no basis to do that...

It is pretty well accepted here that the entire issue was a flatlander driven and out of state money funded deal.

People here still want a vote....
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#278 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you haven't cited any reasons,

On the whole, the portion you seem to be fixated upon deals with children being raised by their biological parents,
however this is easily demonstrated NOT TO BE a legitimate state interest.
I debating just ignoring you, but I'll try again...

First, do you see how you first said I didn't give you answers and then spoke about the ones I gave you?
that's what makes me want to ignore you...
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The state allows divorce (and in some cases does not allow joint custody), The state allows single parenthood, the state allows and regulates adoption, the state allows adoption by single parents, the state allows individuals who are incapable of procreating to marry, etc.
and what does this say about the preference or encouragement of biological families?
nothing!

We encourage home ownership (or at least used to). The fact that some rent, or are homeless has no bearing.

And AGAIN, as soon as you wish to pass on the wisdom of a choice you have gone too far in rational basis review...

Is it rational to encourage a mom and dad?
Yes.

Does it need to be a proven indicator of success to be "rational"?
NO!

As suggested by NYE, because the sky is blue is irrational, but because we BELIEVE (not know) that having a mom and dad is better is enough!

Feel free to respond, but I am not sure I am going to...
I know you will troll away on that, but when you are saying I didn't give you an answer and then critique my answer in the next sentence, it's too much to take for very long....

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#279 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys can tell me all you want what the political landscape is like here, but you know you have no basis to do that...
It is pretty well accepted here that the entire issue was a flatlander driven and out of state money funded deal.
People here still want a vote....
That's the point Jane. This whole anti gay marriage political landscape is driven by homophobia and bigotry, I have every right to draw attention to it and will do so. What is wrong, is the fact that people feel like they have the right to vote discrimination into the constitution, something that was NOT condoned by our founding fathers. What is accepted here, is the fact that NON Taxed donated Church money WAS used to fund the political anti-gay agenda and that your a bigot. Otherwise, I'd need to see proof of your claim that (other than cost of the court) state monies were involved as pro gay to believe you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#280 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I debating just ignoring you, but I'll try again...
First, do you see how you first said I didn't give you answers and then spoke about the ones I gave you?
that's what makes me want to ignore you...
<quoted text>
and what does this say about the preference or encouragement of biological families?
nothing!
We encourage home ownership (or at least used to). The fact that some rent, or are homeless has no bearing.
And AGAIN, as soon as you wish to pass on the wisdom of a choice you have gone too far in rational basis review...
Is it rational to encourage a mom and dad?
Yes.
Does it need to be a proven indicator of success to be "rational"?
NO!
As suggested by NYE, because the sky is blue is irrational, but because we BELIEVE (not know) that having a mom and dad is better is enough!
Feel free to respond, but I am not sure I am going to...
I know you will troll away on that, but when you are saying I didn't give you an answer and then critique my answer in the next sentence, it's too much to take for very long....
A belief having a mom and dad is better, even though we know that is not necessarily true, does not change the fact gay people do in fact have children. Denial of equal treatment does nothing to provide more children with a mom and a dad. It only harms those families with two moms or dads, while providing no benefit to opposite sex couples. It serves no legitimate governmental interest.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#281 Nov 30, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the point Jane. This whole anti gay marriage political landscape is driven by homophobia and bigotry,.
to me, this is just a way for you not to have to understand what the other side is saying...
you label it so you can negate it...

its no better than the bible thumpers calling you "a sinner" so they can look no further....

you want yours, I get it...
but your are FORCING society's acceptance of your relationship as THE SAME as a marriage...
and its not.

Now I think you should have the ability to protect your rights like offered to straights, but since the relationships are different they should have different names and rights more applicable to the specific relationships and their differences....
for example should there be a ban between a gay marriage between close relatives?

WHY? there is no interest like there is for straights since a gay couple can NEVER inbreed.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#282 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
A belief having a mom and dad is better, even though we know that is not necessarily true, does not change the fact gay people do in fact have children.
so do single parents and they aren't married...

Your limited and lackluster studies are not enough to dissuade people from what they know to be true...

every kid should have a mom...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#283 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Yes, the SCOTUS can do whatever they want.

You can GUESS at what they might do, just as I can GUESS at what they might do.

As it stands right now, it appears the SCOTUS is just going to put all these cases on permanent hold and make no decision either way.

That means we're back to battling it out state by state, just as expected.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#284 Nov 30, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>That didn't change the definition of marriage, it only ended the bigotry that encompassed it.
Just as allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't change the definition of marriage either- it's still 2 consenting adults who are not already closely related, just as it's always been in America.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#285 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
to me, this is just a way for you not to have to understand what the other side is saying...
you label it so you can negate it...
its no better than the bible thumpers calling you "a sinner" so they can look no further....
you want yours, I get it...
but your are FORCING society's acceptance of your relationship as THE SAME as a marriage...
and its not.
Now I think you should have the ability to protect your rights like offered to straights, but since the relationships are different they should have different names and rights more applicable to the specific relationships and their differences....
for example should there be a ban between a gay marriage between close relatives?
WHY? there is no interest like there is for straights since a gay couple can NEVER inbreed.
Your argument is lame and evasive ...I don't care nor do I desire YOUR acceptance. What I am 'forcing' are recognition of my rights under the constitution, regardless of your homophobia, chosen religious beliefs or YOUR limitations of the sex of my life partner.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#286 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
What needed to be decided was whether that particular race-based statute was constitutional or not.

If that was all settled when segregation laws were overturned, then inter-racial bans would have been automatically overtunred at that time as well. Not further court action would have been necessary.

But obviously that's not the case; hence Loving v Virginia was necessary.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#287 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
a local paper seemed fitting...
And yet, what you cited was an opinion piece. Notwithstanding your agreement with the editorial board, it provided no facts to back up your argument.
talk about denial as you call a county too conservative to count...
and you neglect to mention the Take Back Vermont movement...
First, Take Back Vermont started in 1999, which was a different epoch in the history of same-sex unions in America. Second, Take Back Vermont was about more than just civil unions. There was also quite bit of outrage over school funding and property taxes, and possibly other legislative overreach. Did you forget about all of that?
Yes, Vermont's civil unions were the first time an American state actually enacted comprehensive recognition of same-sex couples. It was quite new and engendered a strong reaction based on fear and ignorance.
Vermont asked national groups to stay home and let the state sort out civil unions itself, which is what happened. In later battles, however, NOM and other groups took the battle nationwide--particularly beginning with Prop 8. Since then, anti-gay groups have raised most of their funding from a few large out-of-state donors, while pro-equality groups have raised most of their funds from small individual donations, primarily in-state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#288 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are trying to join their club so you are forcing them to care....
He claimed they don't care. I showed him they do care.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#289 Nov 30, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is lame and evasive ...I don't care nor do I desire YOUR acceptance.
my point is that you rtack of "all opposition is bigotry" is actually very bigoted in of itself...
But I know you feel justified by your deeply held beliefs...
(psst so do they...)

you have no right to marry under the constitution...

given marriage is public recognition, that is exactly what you are seeking....
you are already free to live with, love, and make a family with any one you want...
we just don't have to say its the same as our relationship, because its not...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#290 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What needed to be decided was whether that particular race-based statute was constitutional or not.
If that was all settled when segregation laws were overturned, then inter-racial bans would have been automatically overtunred at that time as well. Not further court action would have been necessary.
But obviously that's not the case; hence Loving v Virginia was necessary.
read the analysis in the case, they find that as a race based law its unconstitutional per se...
Yet, that is not the case with gays and marriage...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#291 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

First, Take Back Vermont started in 1999, which was a different epoch in the history of same-sex unions in America.

Vermont asked national groups to stay home and let the state sort out civil unions itself, which is what happened.
Wow a whole ten years ago was a different epoch?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4934348.h...

"Of course, much like in 2000 when civil unions prompted a "Take Back Vermont" movement that helped oust legislators who supported civil union legislation, there was intense opposition this time around. Hundreds of same-sex marriage opponents gathered outside the State House with "Thank you, Jim" signs, praising the governor for his controversial veto."

I am going to have to ask you to go ahead and prove this and that there was not tons of out of state money....

and as I said, the people were promised gay tourist dollars that never materialized...but it turns out not many gays want to actually get married....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#292 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not with this SCOTUS they aren't, and that's the ONLY thing that matters.

Hang you hat on a 40 year old precedent from a SCOTUS which no longer exists in a country which has signficantly changed how gays & lesbians are viewed.

I do agree that the level of review will ultimately be the most important thing to come from these cases, if they ever get around to hearing them. But again, it all depends on WHAT the 5 majority justices want to do that will determine that outcome.

If 5 justices want to uphold DOMA & Prop 8, then they will find a way to do so. They'll most likely use rational basis & state's rights as they justification.

If 5 justices want to overturn DOMA & Prop 8, then they will find a way to do so. They may use rational basis or heightened scrutiny, depending on whether or not they want to go all the way and overturn every state ban (doubtful), or if they just want to allow the states to battle it out for awhile yet buy want to lay the groundwork for future lawsuits.

IT'S ALL UP TO THE JUSTICES.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#293 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...
Yes, that's most likely the logic the SCOTUS would use IF they want to uphold DOMA using a rational basis test.

IF that's what they want to do......

IF that's what they want to do......

IF that's what they want to do......

Or they could just as easily use the arguments from the 1st circuit or the 2nd circuit opinions IF that's what they want to do.

IF that's what they want to do.......

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#294 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
my point is that you rtack of "all opposition is bigotry" is actually very bigoted in of itself...
But I know you feel justified by your deeply held beliefs...
(psst so do they...)
you have no right to marry under the constitution...
given marriage is public recognition, that is exactly what you are seeking....
you are already free to live with, love, and make a family with any one you want...
we just don't have to say its the same as our relationship, because its not...
You assume that I have made a choice to be gay, which is THE fallacy in all of this. My 20yr marriage IS just as valuable and the same, just not to you. Just because you 'may' have the ability to bear children and religious recognition, which I am NOT seeking, does not make mine any less than yours. AND NO I do NOT have the freedom to live and love whom I want, because of persecution, bigotry and homophobia. I have the right to pursue my happiness under the constitution, just as you do. You or others do NOT have the right to chose the sex of my partner nor dictate what my 'happiness' is.

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 Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 4 min Reverend Alan 5,681
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 7 min Dana Robertson 3,727
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 9 min Fa-Foxy 11
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 11 min Artimus 39
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 20 min Wondering 21,578
News What it cost Indiana to fight same-sex marriage 31 min Wondering 5
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 38 min Wondering 4,430
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 1 hr Wondering 187
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr WasteWater 33,098
More from around the web