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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#700 Dec 6, 2012
ontg wrote:
<quoted text>All those reasons are why I support doing away with legalized marriages and benefits given by the states and federal government to married couples. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the minor children of such relationships and those interests are protected by other parts of both common and civil law.
I kinda agree with this...
although I do think that divorce and other aspects of marriage could not be replaced...so i pitched the idea of EVERYONE getting a civil partnership...
but it wasn't very popular...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#701 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say the same for you...
Notice how I am putting up the actual case law and you refuse...what are you putting up to convince me? how you FEEL about it?
at least NYE makes arguments...
I have responded to the cases you put up and shown you where you were wrong......and so have others, if you can't deal with that......that's your issue!!!

There have even been other lawyers who have disagreed with your assessment of these cases and you think they are wrong as well......again, your issue!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#702 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
what do you think they mean by "'72 SCOTUS decision" in the TITLE?
but you do amaze me with the lengths of delusion required for to stay playing pete and repeat...
You really want to hang your entire argument on a procedural technicality, go ahead.

To mean it looks like an admission that your argument is frail at best.

Face it Jane, you can offer nothing but Baker and Hernandez, one of which was never ruled upon by the US Supreme Court, and the other of which is currently superseded by legislation.

What makes this hysterical is that you seem to lack the competence to offer an argument in defense of either one.

A question for you, can court rulings (even those by the US Supreme Court) be overturned by future decisions, yes or no?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#703 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I have responded to the cases you put up and shown you where you were wrong......and so have others, if you can't deal with that......that's your issue!!!
There have even been other lawyers who have disagreed with your assessment of these cases and you think they are wrong as well......again, your issue!!!
so I am flawed because I will not agree with you?
I have responded to your bare allegations with direct citations from cases and yet you refuse to agree with me at all..
imagine this...we simply both think we are right...
consistency is not your virtue...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#704 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You really want to hang your entire argument on a procedural technicality, go ahead.
is that the way you admit the scotus ruled on the case?

grow up...and admit you denied it in the face of an article stating as fact you were wrong...
because you did....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#705 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Face it Jane, you can offer nothing but Baker and Hernandez, one of which was never ruled upon by the US Supreme Court,
wow, is this the way you try to cover your ignorance?

did the SCOTUS rule in Baker?

so who was right, and who was WRONG?

Pony up dude!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#706 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
is that the way you admit the scotus ruled on the case?
The US Supreme Court did not rule on the case. They dismissed it for want of a substantial federal question. There was no ruling, no one wrote a majority opinion, and there was no dissenting opinion. Why? Because there was no decision written.

PROCEDURALLY the dismissal constitutes a decision on the merits, but the reality remains the US Supreme Court neither heard arguments, nor issued a ruling on the case.
Jane Dough wrote:
grow up...and admit you denied it in the face of an article stating as fact you were wrong...
because you did....
I wasn't wrong, and you've not offered a single legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render your argument valid.

I ask again, can court decision, even those that are long standing, be overturned by future cases, yes or no?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#707 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so I am flawed because I will not agree with you?
Isn't that what you think about all of us? We're flawed because we won't do it your way!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#708 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how would you figure out if two guy roommates were just scamming for insurance?
The same way you figure it out for straight roommates. Duh.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#709 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
which you haven't shown.
You haven't been able to provide a legitimate reason.
Jane Dough wrote:
the fact is, that a gay marriage is an infertile one, 100% of the time...
So what? Fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#710 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
did the SCOTUS rule in Baker?
No, the case was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. No ruling was issued.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21017674/Baker-v-Ne...
It is only because the case came before the court through mandatory appellate review, that the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.

Feel free to cite the decision if you feel I am wrong. Who wrote the majority opinion? Were there any dissenting opinions?

You're dead in the water, because your claim is false.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#711 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
the fact is, that a gay marriage is an infertile one, 100% of the time...
And?

Infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to marry. It is childish to think that there would be a procreative requirement of marriage applicable only to homosexuals, and exclusively to deny them equal protection of the laws.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#712 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court did not rule on the case.

the dismissal constitutes a decision on the merits,
I'll just let you argue with yourself...

it will really get funny when you doubt your opponents capabilities this time!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#713 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I'll just let you argue with yourself...
it will really get funny when you doubt your opponents capabilities this time!
What's the matter, Jane? Embarrassed that you were called out on your lie?

the reality remains that you can only cite two court decisions, one of which has been overturned by an act of the legislature, and you seem to lack the intellect to defend either of them.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#714 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And?
Infertile heterosexual couples are regularly allowed to marry. It is childish to think that there would be a procreative requirement of marriage applicable only to homosexuals, and exclusively to deny them equal protection of the laws.
say do gays provide both a mother and father?

another rational distinction between the infertile and gays...

BTW, this counts as a reason, you can agree or not, but claiming I never gave one is BORING...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#715 Dec 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The same way you figure it out for straight roommates. Duh.
which is the same you figure it out for polygamy, DUH!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#716 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that what you think about all of us? We're flawed because we won't do it your way!!!
Isn't that what you think about all of us? We're flawed because we won't do it your way!!!

see what I mean, isn't it true you think the exact same thing?
I mean you have already stated as much...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#717 Dec 6, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't been able to provide a legitimate reason.
<quoted text>
So what? Fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage.
not for the license, but for the right, I have 14 cases that you seem unaware of...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#718 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the matter, Jane? Embarrassed that you were called out on your lie?
the reality remains that you can only cite two court decisions, one of which has been overturned by an act of the legislature, and you seem to lack the intellect to defend either of them.
how many cases do you rely on...
NONE?

and talk about lies...
is Baker a SCOTUS precedent, yes or no?

And the legislature doesn't "overturn" a court...
you rely on basic falsehoods...

With you lying that I ever lied, I think I am totally bored of you now (again).
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#719 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No ruling was issued.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21017674/Baker-v-Ne...
.
then what pray tell would be found in the US reporter book 409 at page 810?

Would it be the disposition of the case by the supreme court?

And say, was Baker applied in any recent cases?
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)."

See, I am explaining to you fact, and you are denying it thinking we are having a "discussion".
We aren't, you are merely stomping your feet telling me the sky is green...and you thinking I should be embarrassed by claiming it is blue...
But way back you claimed it was a state ruling only so at least I got your to learn a small shred even though you wont admit it...

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
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 10 min June VanDerMark 13,022
News Tanzania to publish 'list of gay people' 28 min Gotcha 2
News Tupelo mother, son featured on LGBT video 50 min Imprtnrd 15
News Suffolk bishop says rejection of controversial ... 51 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr PayupSucka 43
News Duke freshman says Jesus forbids him from readi... (Aug '15) 1 hr blue devil 70
News Scott Lively Calls On Trump To Ban Gays From In... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Just Think 24,713
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr River Tam 44,894
More from around the web