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.

straight shooter

Barre, VT

#818 Jan 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
are you blind? you responded to it....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#819 Jan 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
wow strel, that's just great. type it out again would ya?
thanks, and go get me a coffee...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#820 Jan 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Of course, the Amedndment clarifies this with the next word... "persons".
"all persons" well there ya go. confusing them again.

you make some great points lides. keep it up. and you show great patience. i admire that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#821 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
are you blind? you responded to it....
Are you admitting that you're an idiot? You've both failed to cite a law, and failed to make a valid argument.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#822 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
are you blind? you responded to it....
still no laws that you can point to and say "see? i'm right!"

what state or local states a clear requirement for procreation in order to obtain a marriage license? cite the law with a link, of course.

now scurry off and find that law before you forget what you're doing.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#823 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
wow strel, that's just great. type it out again would ya?
thanks, and go get me a coffee...
And yet, you seem to lack the ability to indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. If you had a valid point, you could offer such a rational defense of your position.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#824 Jan 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
"all persons" well there ya go. confusing them again.
you make some great points lides. keep it up. and you show great patience. i admire that.
It's not difficult to show patience when you don't place much stock in the opposition's argument. And it's not too difficult to ignore much of the opposition's argument when they offer little of substance. Straight Shooter (aka Jane Dough) showed their true colors when they switched user names, they have nothing of substance to offer.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#825 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
a good question...
I would be torn, but expect I would just have to move to a state where the people more closely reflected my own beliefs...
<quoted text>
of course this is true, but my only response is for you to really look at what people "on your side" say on this board and assess for yourself if it may cause more division....
and what effect does the position offered here daily that gays themselves currently reject CU's have in your analysis?
Lastly, do you see a difference in those other gains you have made being very closely tied to privacy and liberty whereas marriage is PUBLIC recognition that has little bearing on that liberty FROM gov't?
Really? You'd give up what I assume you consider a federally constitutionally guaranteed right and just move to another state? What happens when the state you move to next does the same thing? Eventually you're gonna run out of states to run to.

I prefer to stand and fight for what I believe is a constitutional right; which explains why I haven't left Michigan yet.

Like I said, had the antigays proposed to recognize civil unions in 1980 with all the rights & benefits, same-sex couples would have JUMPED at the opportunity. Instead they fought it EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and continue to fight it to this very day.

So we're now beyond the point where EITHER side will readily accept civil unions. The chance for compromise was lost decades ago. In spite of any further division it may cause, the simple fact is society is changing. Expecting us to stop now when the finish line is in sight is simply unrealistic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#826 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?
So then everyone married since 2004 got "gay married", even the opposite-sex couples, because they got a marriage license that says Party A & Party B?

Interesting (but of course misguided) opinion........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#827 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
not if the scotus rules on DOMA in line with the first circuit case and throws the CU bone I was suggesting......
Only if the SCOTUS specifically directs the federal govt to treat all state civil unions as the equivalent of married for the purpose of federal benefits.

Imagine the SCREAMING from the right about "judical activism".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#828 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>\
seriously?
you are ignoring the context of the statement and its immediate significance...
this is a place where they chose their words VERY carefully...she was merely admitting a reality you will not admit.
Marriage has been divided by law....
I mean, its federal law right now that marriage is specifically a man and woman, yet you will persist that it means gays too?
Unconstutional laws don't hold a lot of weight with me. Neither does referencing a SCOTUS ruling which doesn't mention the term "gay marriage". Gee, I wonder why the SCOTUS never even used the very term you claim they ban?

Does Iowa issue marriage licenses and "gay marriage" licenses? No, they issue marriage licenses to ALL couples, gay or straight.

So while same-sex couples may be denied the right to marry in some states, they aren't "gay married" in ANY state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#829 Jan 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends on how you define minority. I think gays are no more of a minority than a person with heart disease or a person that prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate. A left handed person, a redhead. Should we have special laws and privileges for people that prefer vanilla ice cream, left handed people, redheads?
That's because you're a moron.

No one is asking for special laws or privileges; simply equal treatment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#830 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
again, read baker, its pretty clear they divided you out from our marriage by declaring your marriages not to be a fundamental right whilst ours clearly are...
Nope, still wrong.

They said we don't have the right to marry, not "gay marry".

So when we do obtain the right to marry as we have in 9 states, we get married, not "gay married".

It's the exact same legal contractual married everyone else gets.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#831 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>\
seriously?
you are ignoring the context of the statement and its immediate significance...
this is a place where they chose their words VERY carefully...she was merely admitting a reality you will not admit.
Marriage has been divided by law....
I mean, its federal law right now that marriage is specifically a man and woman, yet you will persist that it means gays too?
Yes, the current (unconsitutional) federal law defines marriage as a man & a woman; doesn't mean married same-sex couples aren't still married, just that the federal govt currently (and unconstitutionally) RECOGNIZE those marriages for the purposes of federal rights & benefits. Note it does NOT say they aren't indeed married, just that the federal government doesn't RECOGNIZE their marriage.

Even a "lawyer" like you should be able to understand the difference in terminology.

Btw, Justice Kagan did indeed pick her words very carefully. Note she did NOT say gays don't have a constitutional right to marry. Nor did she say same-sex couples don't have a constitutional right to marry. What she DID say was there is no constitutional right "same-sex marriage". I agree with her 100%. There is no constitutional right to "same-sex marriage"; just as there is no consitutional right to "gay vote" or "gay drive" or "gay pick your nose". It's hard to have a constitutional right to something which doesn't exist, as "same-sex marriage" doesn't exist. Now marriage DOES exist, and in 9 states same-sex couples DO have the right to get married- not "same-sex married", or the more popular "gay married", but rather just MARRIED.

Hmmm, considering we can legally marry (again, not "same-sex marry" but just plain MARRY) in 9 states, it seems we DO have that right; but unfortunately not every govt entity recognizes that right. Of course that doesn't mean we don't have the right; it just means the right is being unconstitutionally denied in some jurisdictions.

Again, a "lawyer" like yourself should be able to understand the difference........

Btw, I wonder how different her answer would have if had they asked her if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry? I suspect we'll find out the answer to that question when a case finally DOES reach the SCOTUS which DOES ask that very question. So far none of the cases before the court actually asks that question.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#832 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Only if the SCOTUS specifically directs the federal govt to treat all state civil unions as the equivalent of married for the purpose of federal benefits.
Imagine the SCREAMING from the right about "judical activism".
Here's a thought about Civil Unions. They are not before the court so how could they rule on them?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#833 Jan 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're a moron.
No one is asking for special laws or privileges; simply equal treatment.
You are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#834 Jan 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So then everyone married since 2004 got "gay married", even the opposite-sex couples, because they got a marriage license that says Party A & Party B?
Interesting (but of course misguided) opinion........
...and you called me a moron! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#835 Jan 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You are.
Are you back to the idea that marrying is a "special right"?

Geesh.

How many times do you have to present a silly argument, just to have it shot down?

Do you think you will EVER convince a gay person that their family is a threat to yours? That marrying is a threat to society? That family life is a thing to be feared? That all gay kids should learn early that they are second class citizens?

Do you think that you will EVER convince any sane straight person of that?

I guess that's what defines obsession. The inability to learn or change, and the fanatic need to repeat the same silly things, ad nauseum.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#836 Jan 18, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a thought about Civil Unions. They are not before the court so how could they rule on them?
Technically the SCOTUS can rule on ANYTHING they want; they literally make their own rules.

Of course the reality is the SCOTUS tends to be very careful to only rule on the question before the court.

The chance of them adding a ruling about civil unions to the DOMA or Prop 8 case is about as likely as them adding a ruling about abortion rights.

Jane's just talking out her ass again.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#837 Jan 18, 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.
Black people are "different" than white people.

So by your "logic," they should be treated differently under the law.

The arguments you and the parti-time receptionist from Vermont are nearly identical to the arguments made against women voting, civil rights for minorities, etc.

You are the same people making the same arguments for the same reasons.

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
Which QUEER is the BIGGEST BIGOT? 13 min EdmondWA 7
News Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Rem... (Jul '06) 14 min Glaswegian loyalist 83
News The Battered Wife Syndrome Of The Human Rights ... (Oct '09) 18 min Glaswegian loyalist 39
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 48 min Foxy Fan 386
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 50 min Ismail 788
News Faith-based schools decry LGBT rights bill 54 min Rainbow Kid 7
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 56 min June VanDerMark 10,672
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Just Think 13,116
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr TomInElPaso 37,364
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 9 hr country 964
More from around the web