Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop ...

Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

There are 1477 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. In it, EDGE reports that:

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#737 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It's also my choice (and in fact obligation) to support what I feel should be taught in public schools.
2. Unlike you, I won't work to ban other parents from marrying just because of what they support (or oppose).
3. That's the difference between us.
1. Mine too.
2. Leave the kids alone, give parents a choice.
3. The real difference is that you're gay and I'm not. We have different points of view.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#738 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I am only trying to show that there is valid support for my position that is not based in animus, tradition, or religion.
You have failed.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#739 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Big difference. Parents CHOOSE religion for THEIR kids.
And so this means that they can dictate that information regarding other religions is not taught in public schools?

Within the restrictions of the Establishment clause, what is wrong with providing information?

I have learned very well to always, always be suspicious of those who seek to hide and control information. Their motives, like yours, are often unsavory.

You seek only to use the apparatus of the state to enforce your hateful opinions on millions of people who have don't nothing to harm you, and have had only the desire to express themselves in the same way others do, and live their lives in the same way others do, with equal protection under the law.

Your flaw is more than just ignorance, or a serious (and obvious) misunderstanding of logic. Your core faults are characterological. You are simply not a good person, inside or out.

I blame your parents.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#740 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
1. You seek only to use the apparatus of the state to enforce your hateful opinions on millions of people
2. Your flaw is more than just ignorance, or a serious (and obvious) misunderstanding of logic. Your core faults are characterological. You are simply not a good person, inside or out.
I blame your parents.
1. I have no hateful opinions. You seem to though. You hate it that I don't see homosexuality as anything but a disorder. You hate all people that agree with me. I blame your parents. You want to use state government to force your opinions onto millions of others.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/moms-with-school-...
2. My ignorance would be your friend. It is because I'm not ignorant when it comes to understanding gay activist attempts at controlling the thoughts of other peoples children. Access to these kids at the youngest age possible is also a goal of theirs.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#741 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Mine too.
2. Leave the kids alone, give parents a choice.
3. The real difference is that you're gay and I'm not. We have different points of view.
Parents HAVE a choice.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#742 Jan 17, 2013
The sexually insecure bigots try very hard to disguise their motivations, but when pressed they'll reveal themselves.

"It's about reproduction" says the fake lawyer from Vermont. Everyone knows that's a bullshit argument.

"it's about gays pushing their agenda in the schools" says the sniveling little bigot from Maryland. Everyone knows that's bullshit too.

I'd love to see both these turds in an actual oral argument in front of an appellate court, spewing logical fallacies amind thinly veiled prejudice.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#743 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I have no hateful opinions. You seem to though. You hate it that I don't see homosexuality as anything but a disorder. You hate all people that agree with me. I blame your parents. You want to use state government to force your opinions onto millions of others.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/moms-with-school-...
2. My ignorance would be your friend. It is because I'm not ignorant when it comes to understanding gay activist attempts at controlling the thoughts of other peoples children. Access to these kids at the youngest age possible is also a goal of theirs.
1. Lies. Your own posts reveal your prejudice, you have described gays as "slime" and (accidentally I think) let drop other indications of your personal animus. As I said many posts ago, you are transparent.

Hate? No, not hate on my part. "Disgust" is a much better descriptor of what I feel about people like you. I find your abuse of logic far more offensive than your opinions of homosexuals. Also, parroting my words back at me - out of any context - is a juvenile and ineffective debate tactic.

2. Look at the language you use in this paragraph. It is very telling indeed. "Controlling thoughts" OMG gays have telepathy! Run!

Then there's your last sentence which really ties your position to all sorts of illogical and baseless homophobic nonsense: "gays can't reproduce, so they recruit" and "gays are pedophiles" are both common memes among the ignorant and hateful bigots, who, having no logical arguments to bring, instead attempt guilt-by-association. Classic bigot tactics.

Thanks, once again, for validating my suspicions.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#744 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1. I have no hateful opinions.
You regularly arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws. That is hateful, it is bigoted, and it is unconstitutional.
Wondering wrote:
You hate it that I don't see homosexuality as anything but a disorder.
No, I support your ability to air your lack of intelligence in public by taking positions that lack a basis in fact, logic, or reason. It warns others that you aren’t very bright, and lets them know not to pay very much attention to your opinion. Feel free to offer the findings of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization that supports your opinion. I don’t think you can.
Wondering wrote:
http://www.circleofmoms.com/mo ms-with-school-age-kids/mandat ory-gay-friendly-classes-in-ca lifornia-schools-370544
Thank you, for once again proving that there is no correlation between marriage equality and school curricula. Alemeda is in California, near San Francisco. When last I checked, California does not currently allow gay marriage. Feel free to indicate a link between the two topics that would make your regular return to school curricula a relevant argument.
Wondering wrote:
2. My ignorance would be your friend. It is because I'm not ignorant when it comes to understanding gay activist attempts at controlling the thoughts of other peoples children. Access to these kids at the youngest age possible is also a goal of theirs.
Wondering, thus far you have dismally failed to indicate any direct link between marriage equality and school curricula. About the only attempt you have made to do so is your assertion that an official of the Lexington school system said that was the cause, however I’ve neither seen proof of your claim, nor have you offered any proof that the view supposedly expressed by that individual was accurate.
Wondering wrote:
1. I have no hateful opinions.
You regularly arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws. That is hateful, it is bigoted, and it is unconstitutional.
Wondering wrote:
You hate it that I don't see homosexuality as anything but a disorder.
No, I support your ability to air your lack of intelligence in public by taking positions that lack a basis in fact, logic, or reason. It warns others that you aren’t very bright, and lets them know not to pay very much attention to your opinion. Feel free to offer the findings of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization that supports your opinion. I don’t think you can.
Wondering wrote:
http://www.circleofmoms.com/mo ms-with-school-age-kids/mandat ory-gay-friendly-classes-in-ca lifornia-schools-370544
Thank you, for once again proving that there is no correlation between marriage equality and school curricula. Alemeda is in California, near San Francisco. When last I checked, California does not currently allow gay marriage. Feel free to indicate a link between the two topics that would make your regular return to school curricula a relevant argument.
Wondering wrote:
2. My ignorance would be your friend. It is because I'm not ignorant when it comes to understanding gay activist attempts at controlling the thoughts of other peoples children. Access to these kids at the youngest age possible is also a goal of theirs.
Wondering, thus far you have dismally failed to indicate any direct link between marriage equality and school curricula. About the only attempt you have made to do so is your assertion that an official of the Lexington school system said that was the cause, however I’ve neither seen proof of your claim, nor have you offered any proof that the view supposedly expressed by that individual was accurate.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#746 Jan 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
NO.....the federal law, federal treaties and scotus rulings always trump when / where there is a conflict.
Loving, as an example case, allows interracial couples to marry, and the ruling "trumped" laws in 7 states, thus allowing interracial couples to marry. if that's not so, please tell us which states do not allow interracial couples to marrry. if you can't tell us any states, that's ok too. you can admit you're wrong.
you're quite the study in tedium.
Yes, the US constitution trumps, but as to the rest, you are simply ignorant...

but given we do dot have a constitutional right to gay marriage, your argument is MISPLACED...
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-...

I admit I am wrong, I am human and make mistakes, but here, you are simply ignorant of federalism and issues of state sovereignty...
I mean, yesterday you cited to an intelligent discussion of how this continuum of federal power shifts, and now its clear you don't even understand what YOU posted......
and meanwhile you are insulting me....
(shakes head)
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#747 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed.
indeed, I severely underestimated the ignorance, irrationality, and hatred of the gay marriage supporters...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#748 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the US constitution trumps, but as to the rest, you are simply ignorant...
but given we do dot have a constitutional right to gay marriage, your argument is MISPLACED...
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-...
I admit I am wrong, I am human and make mistakes, but here, you are simply ignorant of federalism and issues of state sovereignty...
I mean, yesterday you cited to an intelligent discussion of how this continuum of federal power shifts, and now its clear you don't even understand what YOU posted......
and meanwhile you are insulting me....
(shakes head)
you're admitting you're wrong? wonderful!
then we can move along in this discussion. glad progress has been made. congratulations.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#749 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
Yes, the US constitution trumps, but as to the rest, you are simply ignorant...
but given we do dot have a constitutional right to gay marriage, your argument is MISPLACED...
We do have a constitutional right to equal protection, and you have never offered an argument that could pass a rational basis test why same sex couples should be excluded from the legal protections of marriage.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#750 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate that. I have to admit you made me reconsider some issues more thoroughly, including the outcome of the Prop 8 case.
We'll obviously have to agree to disagree on some issues.
I appreciate that as well and admit you did the same with the second circuit stuff I had overlooked which do the same for my assessment of prop 8....

I do think the court's preference for state's rights is going to play in huge, but to be frank, I have significantly less objection to duly voted rights made state by state.

I think each community (State) should allow the people to decide for themselves whom they wish to recognize.

My state has done so, and if that is the beliefs of this society as a whole, so be it....

but CA is the opposite, and I can never approve of overturning a duly voted amendment, even when the "cause " is one I would support...

I personally think CU's are the right idea FOR NOW...
I also think if this issue was never so polarized to begin with that both sides would have accepted them...

Lastly, I have to say how taken aback I was at first at all the animosity on both sides on this board, I discuss this issue with gay friends and they are not so intense...
heck, some of them agree about the CU thing...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#751 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
indeed, I severely underestimated the ignorance, irrationality, and hatred of the gay marriage supporters...
It is not ignorant, irrational, or hateful to know that the 14th Amendment mandates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
It IS ignorant, irrational, or hateful to argue that fellow US citizens should be classified as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

To essentially say that arguing for equal protection is hateful is simply stupid.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#752 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously there CAN be valid support for your position which isn't based on animus, tradition, or religion. You make a good argument when you don't make intentionally antagonistic or arrogant statements.
I don't deny a link between marriage & having children; obviously before birth control and women working outside the home, there was a significant societal interest in getting men & women to marry when the children inevitably came about. My point is that in muy opinion that link isn't reason enough to deny marriage to same-sex couples, many of whom are raising kids, or intend to. Society benefits when people are legally responsible for the children they are raising, regardless of how those children came to be. I simply see no reason not to encourage same-sex couples to marry.
As for civil unions, I see no way the SCOTUS could mandate state marriages be turned into civil unions and force the federal govt to give the same rights & benefits to them as marriage. Talk about "judicial activism". That would go entirely against the very federalism you claim to support.
I was thinking that they could suggest that offering CU's passes constitutional muster, that's all...

I think it would reopen that alternative which seems to have been lumped in with marriage at this point as an all or nothing...

CU's could easily accomplish all that you say above you are seeking...although it is clear there are some things they do not do...

as to this board, we both know, sometime a good offense is the best defense...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#753 Jan 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you're admitting you're wrong? wonderful!
then we can move along in this discussion. glad progress has been made. congratulations.
as delusional as any other of your posts...

so no comment on the continuum of federal and state authority you discussed yesterday and deny exists today?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#754 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
I was thinking that they could suggest that offering CU's passes constitutional muster, that's all...
I think it would reopen that alternative which seems to have been lumped in with marriage at this point as an all or nothing...
CU's could easily accomplish all that you say above you are seeking...although it is clear there are some things they do not do...
as to this board, we both know, sometime a good offense is the best defense...
Of course, they don't; and the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on the concept of separate but equal, finding that separate is inherently unequal.

You have yet to deal with the simple question of equal protection, which is guaranteed by the US Constitution, or to offer any legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry. If your assertion is correct, it should be simple for you to do so.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#755 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Lies. Your own posts reveal your prejudice, you have described gays as "slime" and (accidentally I think) let drop other indications of your personal animus. As I said many posts ago, you are transparent.
Hate? No, not hate on my part. "Disgust" is a much better descriptor of what I feel about people like you. I find your abuse of logic far more offensive than your opinions of homosexuals. Also, parroting my words back at me - out of any context - is a juvenile and ineffective debate tactic.
2. Look at the language you use in this paragraph. It is very telling indeed. "Controlling thoughts" OMG gays have telepathy! Run!
3. Then there's your last sentence which really ties your position to all sorts of illogical and baseless homophobic nonsense: "gays can't reproduce, so they recruit" and "gays are pedophiles" are both common memes among the ignorant and hateful bigots, who, having no logical arguments to bring, instead attempt guilt-by-association. Classic bigot tactics.
4. Thanks, once again, for validating my suspicions.
1. That was no accident. For the chronically stupid, I'll explain. I didn't call gays slime. I called some gays slime, it was no accident.
2. I call it what it is. The chronically stupid don't seem to understand much of anything so I'll explain this to you as well.
Controlling thoughts by telepathy is not the same as teaching little kids about gay relationships and telling them it's normal for two men or two women to fall in love.
3. Where did I say either of those things, dumbass? I have said that gay couples can't reproduce, do you doubt that?
4. Thanks for validating your stupidity.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#756 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the US constitution trumps, but as to the rest, you are simply ignorant...
but given we do dot have a constitutional right to gay marriage, your argument is MISPLACED...
(shakes head)
This is one your standard lines which contributes to people's negative opinion of you.

No one is seeking a right to "gay marriage".

We are seeking to have the existing right to MARRIAGE extended to same-sex couples.

It's NOT just a matter of semantics.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", but there ARE legally married same-sex couples.

Just as women & blacks weren't seeking the right to "black vote" or "woman vote"; they were seeking the right to vote. Do gays have the right to vote or to "gay vote"? The definition and/or qualifications to vote were changed, but the right remained the right to vote.

Just as the definition and/or qualifications to marry have changed, the right remains the right to MARRY, not "gay marry".

Unless you can recognize the difference, people will continue to question your abilities as a "lawyer".

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#757 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
3. I have said that gay couples can't reproduce, do you doubt that?
But gays and lesbians do have children. And regardless of how those children came into being, legally, the children are treated the same. And the fact that those children were a part of same-sex families was one of the reasons the Mass SJC ruled for civil marriage equality - Goodridge 2003.

Therefore, the ability, or inability, to naturally procreate is totally irrelevant.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 min Rosa_Winkel 15,913
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 min Lawrence Wolf 39
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 3 min Wondering 10
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 5 min Wondering 191
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 1 hr Wondering 61
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 38,774
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,960
More from around the web