News Analysis: How Will the Supremes Rule on Marriage Equality?

Dec 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

The world will not end on Dec. 21, 2012, but for gay families it might get considerably more complicated... or blessedly more equal, or perhaps even both at once... once the Supreme Court issues its rulings on two monumentally important cases, with rulings expected sometime in mid-2013. The two cases involve the constitutionality of the anti-gay ... (more)

Comments
1 - 20 of 22 Comments Last updated Dec 12, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scalia must recuse himself. His latest anti-gay rage at Princeton University reinforces his refusal to be fair on any issue concerning gay issues. Any marches to the SC being planned?
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to guarantee that each individual in a society is given the right to practice their own particular perversion.
The purpose of SCOTUS is to act as a steward of society so that it may propagate. A conservative view, such as that held by Justice Scalia, is necessary and vital for that end.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 11, 2012
 
You should get a job selling funny lines to Jay Leno.
JrEsq wrote:
The purpose of SCOTUS is to act as a steward of society so that it may propagate.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 11, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
The purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to guarantee that each individual in a society is given the right to practice their own particular perversion.
The purpose of SCOTUS is to act as a steward of society so that it may propagate. A conservative view, such as that held by Justice Scalia, is necessary and vital for that end.
Just where in the constitution did you find that quaint bit of fiction?

The SCOTUS is tasked with resolving constitutional issues, just like this one.
Ray

Coos Bay, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay "marriage" isn't about equality. It's about freaks wanting the government to recognize them and give them benefits for no reason.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 11, 2012
 
Ray wrote:
Gay "marriage" isn't about equality. It's about freaks wanting the government to recognize them and give them benefits for no reason.
As long as hetero couples get benefits for no reason, then it needs to apply equally to all couples.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just where in the constitution did you find that quaint bit of fiction?
The SCOTUS is tasked with resolving constitutional issues, just like this one.
"The SCOTUS is tasked with resolving constitutional issues, just like this one."
Yes, that's what they DO, but to what purpose?
You illustrate the grave danger that the homosexual movement presents to society: you erroniously promote the idea that individual rights supercede the authority of society.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 11, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>You illustrate the grave danger that the homosexual movement presents to society: you erroniously promote the idea that individual rights supercede the authority of society.
Actually, that's exactly what the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was written to ensure. The rights of the individual trump the democratic mob in a secular constitutional republic. That's what a constitution does -- it places certain rights beyond the reach of the vagaries of any temporary majority.

Welcome to America.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 11, 2012
 
The Executive is not empowered to determine Suspect Classification.

(Note to Edge writers: Educate your readers with ACCURATE information.)
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 11, 2012
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that's exactly what the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was written to ensure. The rights of the individual trump the democratic mob in a secular constitutional republic. That's what a constitution does -- it places certain rights beyond the reach of the vagaries of any temporary majority.
Welcome to America.
"it places certain rights beyond the reach of the vagaries of any temporary majority."
That is true, but only to provide protection against the "vagaries". There still must exist in society, a baseline, a soul, or character of that society, and protections which guarantee it's continued existence.
For example, it is reasonable for society to enact laws which punish certain acts, set minimum drinking ages, age of consent, etc. in the establishment of that baseline. The nine members of SCOTUS, among others, help establish that baseline, and simply cannot ignore the needs of society in favor of the rights of the individual.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 11, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
The Executive is not empowered to determine Suspect Classification.
(Note to Edge writers: Educate your readers with ACCURATE information.)
You're right; the writer doesn't know much of anything.
Kelian Melloy wrote:
The two cases involve the constitutionality of the anti-gay federal law, the "Defense of Marriage" Act," which then-President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996.
Uh, no. One case involves the federal DOMA; the other involves California's Prop. 8.

Many Edge writers don't have a basic understanding of the subjects they write about.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 11, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"it places certain rights beyond the reach of the vagaries of any temporary majority."
That is true, but only to provide protection against the "vagaries". There still must exist in society, a baseline, a soul, or character of that society, and protections which guarantee it's continued existence.
A soul? Really? A character of society must exist? What kind of blathering nonsense is this? This sounds all touchy-feely. I'll bet the definition of this "soul" exactly matches all of your prejudices.
JrEsq wrote:
For example, it is reasonable for society to enact laws which punish certain acts, set minimum drinking ages, age of consent, etc. in the establishment of that baseline. The nine members of SCOTUS, among others, help establish that baseline, and simply cannot ignore the needs of society in favor of the rights of the individual.
It is certainly reasonable for societies to enact laws, define crimes, and punish offenders. I have no problem with that.

But there is no legitimate reason for a secular constitutional republic such as ours to deny one class of citizen the equal protections of the law.

In order to deny citizens a fundamental right, government needs to have at least a legitimate governmental interest. On at least a dozen occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right, one not contingent or dependent on the ability or willingness to procreate. Given that fact, there is no legitimate governmental purpose in denying the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 11, 2012
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
A soul? Really? A character of society must exist? What kind of blathering nonsense is this? This sounds all touchy-feely. I'll bet the definition of this "soul" exactly matches all of your prejudices.
<quoted text>
It is certainly reasonable for societies to enact laws, define crimes, and punish offenders. I have no problem with that.
But there is no legitimate reason for a secular constitutional republic such as ours to deny one class of citizen the equal protections of the law.
In order to deny citizens a fundamental right, government needs to have at least a legitimate governmental interest. On at least a dozen occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right, one not contingent or dependent on the ability or willingness to procreate. Given that fact, there is no legitimate governmental purpose in denying the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.
"A soul? Really? A character of society must exist? "
Sure, did you think that a society is just a document?

"In order to deny citizens a fundamental right, government needs to have at least a legitimate governmental interest."
There IS a "legitimate government intest". It's called survival.
You refer to anti-gay- marriage sentiment as a "vagary", associated with extremists and fundies. You don't have to be an extremist nor a fundie to to recognize that homosexuality and gay marriage may present a legitimate danger to society.
Your support consists of only about half of the populuation. Can the other half all be extremists and fundies?
If homosexuality and gay marriage are are harmless as you imply, it would not have taken you 2000+ years to get to this point.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>There IS a "legitimate government intest". It's called survival.
Feel free to provide evidence to support the claim that allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage will jeopardize the survival of society.
JrEsq wrote:
You refer to anti-gay- marriage sentiment as a "vagary", associated with extremists and fundies.


Where did I mention extremists and fundies? Feel free to quote from any of my posts where I state this.
JrEsq wrote:
You don't have to be an extremist nor a fundie to to recognize that homosexuality and gay marriage may present a legitimate danger to society.
Feel free to provide evidence that allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages will endanger society.
JrEsq wrote:
Your support consists of only about half of the populuation. Can the other half all be extremists and fundies?
Where do I claim that half of the population are "extremists and fundies"? If you're going to characterize my argument, then you should be honest and characterize it accurately.

Here's my claim:

There remains no rational basis, let alone a legitimate governmental reason, for denying the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners. All opposition is based on ignorance, animus, fear, or religious superstition or myth.

You can take your pick into which category you fit.
JrEsq wrote:
If homosexuality and gay marriage are are harmless as you imply, it would not have taken you 2000+ years to get to this point.
I would argue that it's taken us a rather brief period of time to advance from the point where homosexuality was once a criminal offense and considered a disorder to the point where all of the major medical, scientific, psychiatric, psychological, and social science professional organizations recognize homosexuality to be a normal and natural expression of human sexuality, and over half the country is in favor of same-sex couples marrying.

The delay was getting around centuries of ingrained ignorance, fear, animus, and religious superstition.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 11, 2012
 
There will be LOTS of speculation from now until the rulings come in......but most of us need to be at least hopefully optimistic while remaining cautiously realistic.........my own thoughts are that the Justices will strike down Section 3 of DOMA, at the same time putting Prop 8 to rest not because they want to, but because of the fact that there are legally married Same-Sex Couples whose marriages are still valid, legal and recognized and to say to other Gay and Lesbian couples that they can't get married would seriously be a violation of their Equal Protection and Due Process......but these are just my thoughts on both cases and like I believed Prop 22 was going to be tossed and it was, I believe Prop 8 will too and it didn't take as long as it did with Prop 22!!!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 12, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
The purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to guarantee that each individual in a society is given the right to practice their own particular perversion.
........
You are a bit off topic again, since the vast majority of Americans do not consider marriage a perversion.

We are talking about marriage laws, not your personal sexual fantasies and obsessions.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Ray wrote:
Gay "marriage" isn't about equality......
There is no such thing as "gay marriage", just marriage. And, yes, gay people demand equality under marriage law.

Deal with it.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 12, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
......
"In order to deny citizens a fundamental right, government needs to have at least a legitimate governmental interest."
There IS a "legitimate government intest". It's called survival.
.
Are you really trying to say that allowing couples of the same gender to marry will cause other people (or the human race itself) not to survive?

Wow.

I think you need some proof of this one.

On the face of it, such a claim would seem completely illogical.

Please explain.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Whatever you wish to beleve dear but thats not going to stop same sex marriage from coming to your state very soon.
Ray wrote:
Gay "marriage" isn't about equality. It's about freaks wanting the government to recognize them and give them benefits for no reason.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Dec 12, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"The SCOTUS is tasked with resolving constitutional issues, just like this one."
Yes, that's what they DO, but to what purpose?
You illustrate the grave danger that the homosexual movement presents to society: you erroniously promote the idea that individual rights supercede the authority of society.
Yes, individual rights DO supercede the authority of mob society. If they didn't, we'd still have slavery & segregation & women unable to vote & bans on inter-racial marriage & single women without access to birth control & jews restricted from certain neighborhoods, etc, etc.

The constitution is there to guarantee the rights of the individual are not overun by society at large.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
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.

•••
•••