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

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,144

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.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#782 Dec 7, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

You see, when a precedent is challenged, it needs to be rationally defended. Merely arguing that it is precedent is bound to fail.
.
you
are
an
idiot.

And I mean that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#784 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
not that easy...
how long have you insulted me for suggesting it is...
you need to address that dude!
as far as its binding power being subject to debate, I said that myself a LONG LONG LONG time ago...but you were to busy being cagey and ignorant!
Again, you have hounded me and insulted me for months over this, you are not getting away with just "sure".
Jane, the reality remains that the US Supreme Court has never heard a gay marriage case, and you have wasted plenty of time arguing mindless semantics, which do nothing to solidify your point.

Were the issue really as cut and dried as you imply, you could indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional and end the debate straight away.

Of course, the reality is that you cannot indicate such an interest, because none exists, and there is no rational reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the laws.

Feel free to continue making a fool of yourself by engaging in tangential arguments about semantics. An intelligent person would be able to defend their position. Then again, an intelligent person wouldn't choose a "binding precedent" that has been recently ignored on several occasions, and a state Supreme Court decision that has been overturned by legislation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#785 Dec 7, 2012
Baker serves as precedent only in cases in which the plaintiffs are similarly situated, unmarried and seeking to be, but prohibited by existing law. Since that description does not fit the plaintiffs challenging DOMA, they are not bound by it. Even though it has been argued by both the Justice Dept when they were in the fight and the BLAG ever since; that despite the fact that the couples are already married since they are seeking the rights incidental to marriage, it would apply. Not one Judge has bought the argument, none.
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#786 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you
are
an
idiot.
And I mean that.
That
response
must
have
strained
your
intellectual
capacity
to
its
very
limit.
And I meant THAT, boy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#787 Dec 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Baker serves as precedent only in cases in which the plaintiffs are similarly situated, unmarried and seeking to be, but prohibited by existing law. Since that description does not fit the plaintiffs challenging DOMA, they are not bound by it. Even though it has been argued by both the Justice Dept when they were in the fight and the BLAG ever since; that despite the fact that the couples are already married since they are seeking the rights incidental to marriage, it would apply. Not one Judge has bought the argument, none.
There is also the simple matter that since the US Constitution does not delegate the authority to regulate marriage that the federal congress lacked the authority to pass the DOMA, and violated the 10th Amendment guarantee that powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved for the states in doing so.

There are so many reason the DOMA should go away.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#788 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you
are
an
idiot.
And I mean that.
Funny, I'm not the one making an unconstitutional argument that I can't defend. That would be you.

Feel free to offer that legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional. I don't think you can.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#789 Dec 7, 2012
Boehner: Obama wants to 'slow-walk' talks, wastes another week...

Going off fiscal cliff is president's 'deliberate strategy'...

Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It!
__________
Govt. borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends...
__________
'Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty'...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#790 Dec 7, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, the reality remains that the US Supreme Court has never heard a gay marriage case,.
But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.

That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."

the sky is not green.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#791 Dec 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Since that description does not fit the plaintiffs challenging DOMA, they are not bound by it.
Yes, I agree....
But it has been applied int the DOMA cases to refute any claim to a fundamental right to gay marriage.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#792 Dec 7, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, I'm not the one making an unconstitutional argument that I can't defend..
you're right, you aren't making any arguments at all...
you are just refusing to apologize for insulting me for knowing more than you...
that's what makes you an idiot...
Samatha

Carrollton, TX

#793 Dec 7, 2012
Do you really think you won some kind of victory?

DOMA has only been deemed unconstitutional because the Obama Administration refuses to defend it.

The truths about Gays are still true.

>>
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why every court so far has ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
But there are limits to state powers, as states found out when they banned inter-racial marriages.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#798 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what does that say about your claim of a fundamental right or suspect classification?
It says the 2nd circuit granted same-sex couples a quasi-suspect classification, just like women currently have.

It means it will take more than just a rational reason to uphold DOMA.

It also lays the groundwork for overturning all remaining state bans by requiring more than just a rational reason.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#799 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.
That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."
the sky is not green.
And you think that 40 y/o precedent is going to stand forever?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#801 Dec 7, 2012
Samatha wrote:
Do you really think you won some kind of victory?
DOMA has only been deemed unconstitutional because the Obama Administration refuses to defend it.
The truths about Gays are still true.
The truth about Republican close minded bigots is still true.

DOMA violates 14th amendment. That's why the Supreme Court will strike both down. Legalize marriage equality nationwide!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#802 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It says the 2nd circuit granted same-sex couples a quasi-suspect classification, just like women currently have.
It means it will take more than just a rational reason to uphold DOMA.
It also lays the groundwork for overturning all remaining state bans by requiring more than just a rational reason.
intermediate at best and that is the only court to do so...admit it, there has been a lot of rational basis review...

I wonder why they are NOT taking the 2nd circuit one...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#803 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And you think that 40 y/o precedent is going to stand forever?
yup.

I think that's exactly what the prop 8 case is going to do...

okay here's my call: they are taking the prop 8 case to counter their DOMA decision so that its clear the states have the right to decide for themselves...
as CA did...
ontg

Carol Stream, IL

#804 Dec 7, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth about Republican close minded bigots is still true.
DOMA violates 14th amendment. That's why the Supreme Court will strike both down. Legalize marriage equality nationwide!
Actallt the reason it will be overturnd is enumurated powers not the 14th amendment.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#805 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup.
I think that's exactly what the prop 8 case is going to do...
okay here's my call: they are taking the prop 8 case to counter their DOMA decision so that its clear the states have the right to decide for themselves...
as CA did...
I don't believe you are right about Baker and as far as Prop 8 is concern, it won't stand either......remember that in California, there are legally married Same-Sex Couples......and if SCOTUS allows Prop 8 to stand, it will create a direct violation of the Equal Protection Amendment!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#806 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.
That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."
the sky is not green.
Full disclosure, Jane, we have already established that the high court neither heard oral arguments, nor issued a ruling. They dismissed the case for want of a substantial federal question, which procedurally constitutes a decision on the merits.

Why do you feel so compelled to misrepresent the circumstances surrounding Baker, making it seem as though it carries more weight than it does? Already, several federal and appellate courts have already ignored it, which proves that it is not binding precedent. What is more, none of those rulings has been overturned.

Consequently, you have proven incapable of defending the merits of the decision of the Minnesota State Supreme Court in that case, just as you have proven incapable of offering any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Jane Dough wrote:
you're right, you aren't making any arguments at all...
you are just refusing to apologize for insulting me for knowing more than you...
that's what makes you an idiot...
The only argument I need is the 14th Amendment mandate of equal protection.

You are utterly incapable of making a rational argument against it, or one that justifies denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

Although, you do a beautiful job of showing us just how inept you can be as you continually cite legal rulings that you lack the intelligence to logically defend.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#807 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
intermediate at best and that is the only court to do so...admit it, there has been a lot of rational basis review...
I wonder why they are NOT taking the 2nd circuit one...
I think it depends on what the SCOTUS wants to do. If they want to uphold DOMA then they will do so under rational basis. If they want to overturn DOMA then they will do so under either an enhanced rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. It all depends on what the majority wants to do.

My guess is they're not taking the 2nd circuit cases because Justice Kagan would likely have recussed herself, which could have resulted in a 4-4 tie.

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
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 8 min Klondike 3,041
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 min DRSA solved 57,093
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min Reverend Alan 8,315
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 18 min Blondie 68,701
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 21 min The Troll Doll 433
Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... 22 min Otter in the Ozarks 55
Va. panel votes to protect gays from job discri... 28 min Die Hard Arkie 13
Victim testifies at Boy Scout sex trial about m... 47 min WeTheSheeple 50
More from around the web