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.

Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#798 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
are you a sulky teenager now?
what job did you do for GE dude?
Most teenagers realize SCOTUS won't suggest separate but equal. What's your excuse? Another red herring?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#799 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, a whopper, the court changes the law sometimes?
that's your "argument"?
they could change the law and ban abortion right?
the question is ARE THEY GONNA...
and there is a reason gays are scared of the prop 8 case...
I have answered it many times.
to preserve the distinction between breeders and non breeders within the relationship. Its that simple...
CU's are just fine for the rights...
That way different groups get similar but different rights...
sew how that works strel?
Except for one tiny detail.... CUs do NOT provide similar rights. Maybe in theory, but certainly NOT in practice.

http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/...

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/new_jersey_pr...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#800 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you clowns always think that argument is gold. Look back at the thousand other times I used current law to backhand it:
Here's the quote but I bet you don't read or grasp it:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
this is your exact argument being laughed out of the court...
try again.
laughed out of Court, eh?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#801 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you clowns always think that argument is gold. Look back at the thousand other times I used current law to backhand it:
Here's the quote but I bet you don't read or grasp it:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
this is your exact argument being laughed out of the court...
try again.
gee, just as i thought. no current law in the u.s. get back with us when you find it. how about even a proposed law change in any state? of course, there'd also need to be a provision for when a couple fails to produce a child, so that should go hand in hand with the law we're talking about that you say exists.

come on now, fella. find the law. post the law with the link.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#802 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most teenagers realize SCOTUS won't suggest separate but equal. What's your excuse? Another red herring?
why is it that this has not come up?
because it applies to specifically to physical institutions, maybe?
you need to stop thinking your "sites" are not biased...
consistency ?

what job did you do for GE?
oh right, you wont say....
fraud!
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#803 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for one tiny detail.... CUs do NOT provide similar rights. Maybe in theory, but certainly NOT in practice.
http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/...
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/new_jersey_pr...
look up similar, and find out how its not the SAME...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#804 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
laughed out of Court, eh?
if you think the court's "rhetorical demand" of "abstract symmetry) language wasn't laughing it out, you are deluded, wait I already knew that...
that's legal speak for bullsh!t....
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#805 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if you think the court's "rhetorical demand" of "abstract symmetry) language wasn't laughing it out, you are deluded, wait I already knew that...
that's legal speak for bullsh!t....
How would you know?

You've never been in a court.

The rationale behind that decision is about to get re-examined, big time.

Again, do you have ANY answer to the simple question I put to you?

If it helps, fantasize that you are a real lawyer - a trial lawyer even - and you are getting this question from the bench:

WHAT IS THE STATE'S INTEREST IN CONTINUING TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#806 Jan 17, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And guess what. There is no 'gay marriage' in Massachusetts either.
Yes, there is. Laws and forms were changed to include gays.
Gender identification was done away with. No more "bride" and "groom" on the marriage licenses. Now it says "Party A" and "Party B." I was a groom when I got married, will you be party A or party B?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#807 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Keeping score?
Why does denying the pursuit of happiness to others make you happy?
Do you need marriage to be happy?
Do you need it for love?
Do you need it for commitment?
I think you need it if, as a couple, you want to start a family.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#808 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our marriage"
LOL
It doesn't belong to you.
Actually, it does. You can imitate but you can't duplicate. It's just the way it is, blame my parents.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#809 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is. Laws and forms were changed to include gays.
Gender identification was done away with. No more "bride" and "groom" on the marriage licenses. Now it says "Party A" and "Party B." I was a groom when I got married, will you be party A or party B?
And this matters, why?

It changes nothing about heterosexual marriage, it does not affect your rights...so why oppose it?

I look forward to another illogical bullshit excuse.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#810 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need marriage to be happy?
Do you need it for love?
Do you need it for commitment?
I think you need it if, as a couple, you want to start a family.
For people who want to make a lifelong commitment to the person they have chosen, only to not be allowed to marry based on the trivial matter of their relative sex, is denying them the pursuit of happiness. "Pursuit" is key, since happlness is never guaranteed - but you would deny them even the chance to pursue it...why?

Just to be a dick?

Also, you once again slipped back into the marriage-is-only-for-families horseshit. The intention to or capability to reproduce is not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage, so this non-argument is a non-starter.

You and the fake Vermont lawyer persist in your cowardice. Neither of you will simply express a valid reason and legitmate state interest in banning gay marriage, nor will you admit to your true motivations in opposing it.

Whenever you two benughted poltroons want to give honest answers to honest questions, I am sure the rest of us will be delighted to read them.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#811 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it does. You can imitate but you can't duplicate. It's just the way it is, blame my parents.
No, it doesn't. My heterosexual marriage will be affected in no way, shape or form by legalizing gay marriage. Zip. Nada.

I think you parents were a real piece of work.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#812 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
While I diagree that rational basis is even the correct standard, there's no reason to ban gay marriage under any standard as far as I am concerned.
It serves NO state interest.
I agree with you that rational basis is the correct standard. But Straight Shooter/Jane Dough has failed dismally in finding a compelling state interest that would satisfy strict scrutiny (which I think is the appropriate standard) so I have offered them the out of fitting the lower standard of review, which they seem similarly incompetent to meet.
heartandmind wrote:
you could just cut to the chase and ask him what the word "all" means in the 14th amendment. all of what? all men? all women? all whites? all of any particular group? or ALL humans living on american soil? once you get that answer, you may understand better where he's coming from.
Of course, the Amedndment clarifies this with the next word... "persons".

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#813 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Do you need marriage to be happy?
Do you need it for love?
Do you need it for commitment?
I think you need it if, as a couple, you want to start a family.
You need legal marriage for equal protection of the law.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#814 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
look up similar, and find out how its not the SAME...
Look up similar and understand that it is not equal.

Have you read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note the use of the words "all persons" and also the word "equal".
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#815 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
It changes nothing about heterosexual marriage,
It does, it changes the bride and groom to parties A & B. Which one would you be?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#816 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
wow, a whopper, the court changes the law sometimes?
Yes it does.
straight shooter wrote:
that's your "argument"?
Sure, why not? Because it is true. Unless of course, you wish to argue that Plessy v Fergusson is still the law of the land, which would be the kind of intensely stupid argument you would make.
straight shooter wrote:
they could change the law and ban abortion right?
the question is ARE THEY GONNA...
Of course, a more apt question would be, is the court going to follow the US constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.

Thus far, you've offered no rational reason why they should deny same sex couples equal protection, counter to the 14th Amendment, just as you have failed to offer any indication that you might have an intelligent argument. If you have such an argument , it is one of your best kept secrets.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#817 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
1. For people who want to make a lifelong commitment to the person they have chosen,
2. only to not be allowed to marry based on the trivial matter of their relative sex, is denying them the pursuit of happiness.
3. "Pursuit" is key, since happlness is never guaranteed - but you would deny them even the chance to pursue it...why?
Just to be a dick?
4. Also, you once again slipped back into the marriage-is-only-for-families horseshit. The intention to or capability to reproduce is not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage, so this non-argument is a non-starter.
5. You and the fake Vermont lawyer persist in your cowardice.
6. Neither of you will simply express a valid reason and legitmate state interest in banning gay marriage, nor will you admit to your true motivations in opposing it.
7. Whenever you two benughted poltroons want to give honest answers to honest questions, I am sure the rest of us will be delighted to read them.
1. Marriage is not required. You must have missed that part.
2. I don't thing gender is trivial, nor does Michelle Kosilek.
3. Not only can you persue happiness without marriage, you can achieve it.
4. I was speaking for myself. If we didn't plan to have kids I don't know if we ever would have married.
5. Sticks and stones.......little funny guy.
6. I gave mine to you. You don't have to accept them.
7. You wouldn't recognize honest if it bit you on the face. You've already proven that. Isn't it time for your 5 o'clock stupid pill?

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 Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 17 min AFry 14,735
News GLAAD studio study no hooray for Hollywood 41 min Wondering 8
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 4 hr neighbor 1,661
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 25,631
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Jasonville 6,091
News Russia is Investigating Chechnya's Anti-Gay Purge 6 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News New gay-themed features, docs debut at Hartford... 6 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Respect71 49,327
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,531
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 20 hr Eagle 12 462
More from around the web