Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

Dec 20, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

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.

Comments
961 - 980 of 1,477 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2013
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#981
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And necessary, since there are gay kids in every single classroom, and families with same sex parents in every school.
No there isn't. It's also totally unnecessary, read those books at home, tell your kids whatever you want to. Start a gay private school in your community, if there are so many gay kids in every classroom you'd be a big success.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#982
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If David Parker became radical he had good reason. If you can't opt out of reading a gay story book or a gay discussion class it is required reading. His "desire" was to opt his kids out, it wasn't to stop the school from pushing gay story books on OTHER parents. You can read whatever you like, at home. I see you're still stuck on stupid.
"This discussion and conclusion is equally applicable to the
instant case. As explained earlier, as in Brown, "the plaintiffs'
allegations do not state a privacy or substantive due process
claim." Id. Rather, as the First Circuit also wrote in Brown,
"the rights of parents as described by Meyer and Pierce do not
encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information
in the public schools." Id. at 534.
Once again, Brown is not factually distinguishable from the
instant case in any material respect. Nor has its authority on
the hybrid claim issue "unmistakably been cast into disrepute by
supervening authority." Eulitt, 386 F.3d at 349. Although the
First Circuit has not had occasion to address the hybrid claim
issue after Brown, the only comparable cases in other Circuits have
reached the same result. See Swanson, 135 F.3d at 699-700 (relying
in part on Brown in finding that a hybrid free exercise-parental
rights claim was not alleged concerning a refusal to allow
plaintiff's child to attend public school part-time); Leebaert, 332
F.3d at 143-44 (noting Brown in finding that heightened scrutiny
was not required when a parent alleged that a school's refusal to
excuse his son from a mandatory health education course violated
his free exercise and parental rights). Therefore, the defendants'
conduct does not violate plaintiffs' free exercise rights if there
is a rational basis for it. As explained earlier, such a
justification amply exists in this case.7
3. Conspiracy
Plaintiffs have also failed to allege a conspiracy for which
1983 provides a remedy. Such a conspiracy requires an agreement
between two or more people, an overt act, and an actual deprivation
of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. See Earle v. Benoit, 850 F.2d 836, 844 (1st Cir. 1988).
As described earlier, the alleged conduct of the defendants in
this case does not violate any right of the plaintiffs protected by
the Constitution. No violation of any federal statutory duty is
alleged. Therefore, any agreement among the defendants is not an
unlawful conspiracy for which 1983 would provide a remedy."

Wondering, a) grown a brain. b) find a case that supports your opinion.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No there isn't. It's also totally unnecessary, read those books at home, tell your kids whatever you want to. Start a gay private school in your community, if there are so many gay kids in every classroom you'd be a big success.
Wondering, did David Parker prevail in court? No, he didn't.

Do you know why? Because his case was so much crap. Do you realize what a fool you look like each and every time you cite this case, which was dismissed in federal court, which the court notes was not the appropriate venue. In spite of the fact that Parker was given leave to refile in state court, the appropriate venue, he has not done so.

Do you know why? Because he has no valid case. Even David Parker was smart enough to figure that out, even if you cannot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#984
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"Presents and candy doled out to children to entice them into religion at an early age before they are capable of drawing rational conclusions based on the evidence."
That's hilarious. They are just children's holidays for most. People that are religious or not celebrate them. I have Jewish friends that celebrate Christmas. Any time I passed out or received a Christmas present there was never any mention of church or religion. Bottom line here is that if people want their kids to follow their religion it's their choice. No such choice was available to David Parker and others.
"You also claim you have the right to raise your children however you want, which would have to include the right to brainwash them I guess."
Another hilarious and equally ridiculous assumption. Your definition of brainwashing is my definition of parental guidance and you've already admitted guilt.
The Parker's had the same choice as every other parent- public school, private school, or homeschool.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#985
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Worried? No.
Offended? Yes. Every offense should be met with a strong defense.
Feel free to be offended. It won't stop us from continuing to decrease your "overwhelming majority" of states which don't recognize marriages of same-sex couples one at a time.

11 down, 39 to go.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#986
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The Parker's had the same choice as every other parent- public school, private school, or homeschool.
So do you. Start a gay school. Quest says there are plenty of gay kids to fill the seats.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#987
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If David Parker became radical he had good reason. If you can't opt out of reading a gay story book or a gay discussion class it is required reading. His "desire" was to opt his kids out, it wasn't to stop the school from pushing gay story books on OTHER parents. You can read whatever you like, at home. I see you're still stuck on stupid.
It is his prerogative to home-school his children or pay for private schooling.

What's radical about that?

But mainstream society respects gay people. Get used to it. The racists had to get used to it, and so do you.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#988
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No there isn't. It's also totally unnecessary, read those books at home, tell your kids whatever you want to. Start a gay private school in your community, if there are so many gay kids in every classroom you'd be a big success.
You have it backwards. You are the one with special needs. You require your children to experience a different curriculum than mainstream society will experience in public schools.

Racists had the same dilemma a few decades back. They had the option of letting their kids go to school with people of different races, necessarily and implicitly learning that they are no different, lower, etc.- or they could put their kids in religious/private schools or home school them.(Kind of ironic that religious schools supported such discrimination, huh? Oh well, they thought they were christian, anyway.)

Another obvious problem with your nonsense is #1 Kids most often don't know or realize they are gay until they hit puberty. So you have absolutely no way of knowing how many gay kids are in a classroom right up through junior high/middle school.

And the time to let them know that some people are born gay and that's no big deal is BEFORE they hit puberty, so when they do and realize they are gay, they don't panic and kill themselves. Unless you don't mind killing children.

Further, you have no idea who in the class has gay parents, or who has parents who will divorce next year because one of them comes out of the closet.

What's that rule of thumb of the discriminatory scouting group? "Be prepared."

Did you just hear the President's Inaugural speech? You are SO OVER.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#989
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you. Start a gay school. Quest says there are plenty of gay kids to fill the seats.
No need to start a gay school; there are plenty of public schools available.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#990
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
1. You have it backwards. You are the one with special needs.
2. You require your children to experience a different curriculum than mainstream society will experience in public schools.
3. Racists had the same dilemma a few decades back. They had the option of letting their kids go to school with people of different races, necessarily and implicitly learning that they are no different, lower, etc.- or they could put their kids in religious/private schools or home school them.(Kind of ironic that religious schools supported such discrimination, huh? Oh well, they thought they were christian, anyway.)
4. Another obvious problem with your nonsense is #1 Kids most often don't know or realize they are gay until they hit puberty.
5. So you have absolutely no way of knowing how many gay kids are in a classroom right up through junior high/middle school.
6. And the time to let them know that some people are born gay and that's no big deal is BEFORE they hit puberty, so when they do and realize they are gay, they don't panic and kill themselves.
7. Unless you don't mind killing children.
8. Further, you have no idea who in the class has gay parents, or who has parents who will divorce next year because one of them comes out of the closet.
9. What's that rule of thumb of the discriminatory scouting group? "Be prepared."
10. Did you just hear the President's Inaugural speech? You are SO OVER.
1. If that were true they would be teaching that heterosexuality was normal.
2. No, the curriculum should be the same for every student. They shouldn't be teaching about adult relationships in elementary schools, especially gay relationships.
3. Different subject.
4. I agree and that is another reason that no spotlight should be shown on homosexuality.
5. See #4.
6. That's what parents are for.
7. What a stupid comment.
8. Irrelevant. They are public schools not social services providers.
9. See #6.
10. No, I didn't see it. I know his position.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#991
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to start a gay school; there are plenty of public schools available.
You would have no resistance in a gay private school, just a lot of empty seats.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#992
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
It is his prerogative to home-school his children or pay for private schooling.
What's radical about that?
But mainstream society respects gay people. Get used to it. The racists had to get used to it, and so do you.
The only people I have no respect for are the gay advocates that try to steal and shape the minds of other people's kids. Parker, and any other parent that wanted to, should have been allowed to opt out. Forcing him to have his children participate was, in my opinion, a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. His protest was on religious grounds and the government interfered with that right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#993
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I have no respect for are the gay advocates that try to steal and shape the minds of other people's kids. Parker, and any other parent that wanted to, should have been allowed to opt out. Forcing him to have his children participate was, in my opinion, a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. His protest was on religious grounds and the government interfered with that right.
Your opinion doesn't matter to anyone except to you.

The opinion of the court on the other hand........

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#994
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. If that were true they would be teaching that heterosexuality was normal.
2. No, the curriculum should be the same for every student. They shouldn't be teaching about adult relationships in elementary schools, especially gay relationships.
3. Different subject.
4. I agree and that is another reason that no spotlight should be shown on homosexuality.
5. See #4.
6. That's what parents are for.
7. What a stupid comment.
8. Irrelevant. They are public schools not social services providers.
9. See #6.
10. No, I didn't see it. I know his position.
As expected, not a single valid rebuttal of any point. And your first sentence made no sense. Do you think public schools didn't have to teach kids in the 60's and 70's that black people were no different from white people? Should that have been only done at home? Stupid.

And no, that's not a different topic at all. You are that person - just as bad as the racist. You have the same feelings, you utter the same words, only it is directed at gay people. Your unwillingness to look at that comparison condemns you to repeat that behavior, and the same result will happen to you: you will be shunned by mainstream society. In 10 years, kids in public schools will learn that there was a time people fought against marriage equality for gay people, and kids will shake their heads and wonder, "How could people be like that?" We as a nation will be ashamed of you.(Most of us already are.)

You cannot ignore the fact that "gay" will come up in some way, shape, or form in school. It could be an unaware use of the word as a slur by a first grader who has no idea what it means. It could be teasing of a less masculine boy in middle school. Or anywhere in-between. And the school has a responsibility to step in and teach those kids that what they are doing is wrong and not tolerated, just as it would not be tolerated if they used the "n" word in second grade or if they teased Asian kids for the way they look. It's all under the same umbrella.

To NOT do that is irresponsible. So that is what will be done. And if you don't like it, it's private school for you. Period. End of story. You can go hang out with the old racists, because that's the same kind of deficient person you are.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#995
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have no resistance in a gay private school, just a lot of empty seats.
Public schools have an obligation to educate gay kids as well as any other kids, and they have a responsibility to protect them from undue harrassment like any other kids. The way to do that is with education such as the two mommies books. Teach the kids it's not something to react to, it's just another thing like red hair.

You're awful.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#996
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I have no respect for are the gay advocates that try to steal and shape the minds of other people's kids. Parker, and any other parent that wanted to, should have been allowed to opt out. Forcing him to have his children participate was, in my opinion, a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. His protest was on religious grounds and the government interfered with that right.
No. If it's that important to him, then his kids don't belong in public schools. That's his problem, not the school's problem.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#997
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I have no respect for are the gay advocates that try to steal and shape the minds of other people's kids. Parker, and any other parent that wanted to, should have been allowed to opt out. Forcing him to have his children participate was, in my opinion, a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. His protest was on religious grounds and the government interfered with that right.
Too bad The Supreme Court of the United States didn't see it that way, ain't it? Exactly what do "religious grounds" have to do with public school? It's not the school's responsibilty to monitor and then comply with every parent's religious beliefs. What is it with you so-called 'christians' and your sense of entitlement? The first amendment guarantees that no particular religion will be singled out and favored by the government. You want to teach your kids faith-based "truths," go right ahead.... at home, in church... but NOT in public schools. Public schools teach Science-based FACTS.

Not for nothing, but the Parker case died over 5 yrs ago. Parker lost in every court. SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Continuing to whine about losing for FIVE YEARS demonstrates an inability to accept reality.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#998
Jan 22, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
And no, that's not a different topic at all. You are that person - just as bad as the racist. You have the same feelings, you utter the same words, only it is directed at gay people.
All false. The only think I want from you is to leave other people's children alone. You can live where you want, work where you want, you can be happy, you can have a same sex partner, you can do anything you want to but you can't force your ways onto those that reject them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#999
Jan 22, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Public schools have an obligation to educate gay kids as well as any other kids, and they have a responsibility to protect them from undue harrassment like any other kids.
2. The way to do that is with education such as the two mommies books. Teach the kids it's not something to react to, it's just another thing like red hair.
3. You're awful.
1. I totally agree with you. I'm also in favor of strong anti-bullying rules that are enforced.
2. I totally disagree. Kids can be expected to have respect for other people without singling out any group. Let's call them 'people' instead of gays or straights or fat kids or skinny kids. Everyone fits into the 'people' group. If homosexuality is to be given time then so should every other group. Every religion. Every race. There would be no time for school. If you think homosexuality deserves more time and acknowledgement than any other group go ahead and make your case. Tell us why you're so special.
3. You're stupid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1000
Jan 22, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad The Supreme Court of the United States didn't see it that way, ain't it? Exactly what do "religious grounds" have to do with public school? It's not the school's responsibilty to monitor and then comply with every parent's religious beliefs. What is it with you so-called 'christians' and your sense of entitlement? The first amendment guarantees that no particular religion will be singled out and favored by the government. You want to teach your kids faith-based "truths," go right ahead.... at home, in church... but NOT in public schools. Public schools teach Science-based FACTS.
Not for nothing, but the Parker case died over 5 yrs ago. Parker lost in every court. SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Continuing to whine about losing for FIVE YEARS demonstrates an inability to accept reality.
You'd do better to stick to your irrelevant one-liners.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••