Why the Supreme Court may not say ‘I ...

Why the Supreme Court may not say ‘I do’ to gay marriage

There are 567 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Jun 18, 2013, titled Why the Supreme Court may not say ‘I do’ to gay marriage. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

With the Supreme Court expected to issue major rulings on same-sex marriage any day now, ABC News court watcher Terry Moran tells Top Line that the court will likely avoid making a monumental ruling on the issue.

Moran says the justices “don’t want to be the judges of America when it comes to this issue” and predicts that they will find a way to defer to the states in the two cases dealing with same-sex marriage.

“They see this roiling democratic debate that's happening state-by-state, and the betting at the Supreme Court is that they'll find a way to decide this issue by getting themselves out of it,” Moran says. “They won't declare gay marriage legal all over the country or illegal. They'll say, 'Let the states handle it.'"

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#372 Jun 25, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
No, I am for marriage equality, but you are not. You do not want things equal, you want special rights that straights do not have, rights that incest couples and polygamist don't have and you do not want bisexuals to be themselves and marry a person of both sexes. Yep,you want inequality and I want equality.
Sweetie, I'll make this simple for you. All will enjoy the right to marry someone of their same sex, just like we all enjoy the right to marry someone of another race. Whether or not one chooses to exercise that right, entirely up to the individual, rather than the state. As for any other restrictions on the individual's right to marry, they serve obvious compelling interests of the state in allowing them not to occur. Sorry, but those wanting a legal incestuous marriage and/or plural marriage are s.o.o.l....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#373 Jun 25, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
The funny reality is that most gays are opposed to same sex marriage and consider domestic partnerships just find. The truth is, only 25% of California gays even voted against Prop 8.
Your proof of this claim would be what exactly? I seem to recall a commandment from your God against the bearing of false witness, so I suggest you find that proof before the rest of us have to start gathering rocks to remind you.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#374 Jun 25, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
First, we aren't dealing with a "whole class of people" as you state it, trying to insinuate all homosexuals want to be married. The fact is that we're dealing with a small minority within a minority of a group calling themselves homosexuals that want same sex marriage rights because they'd like to be married. Many homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals, etc are supporting the cause for same sex marriage that will never use that right. So to disagree is not to be discriminatory. To disagree is to have an opinion.
And marriage being a constitutional right is a matter of opinion, not law as was written in the actual constitution. There is not a single solitary sentence in the constitution guaranteeing the legal right of marriage between any two people. Doesn't exist in it.
Marriage being defined by state law and or their constitution is a 'new' act being done/promoted/passed as law by the vote of the people and or there legislatures.
Need an example by your logic? We have a minority within a huge majority of people that would like to have a legal right to marry more than one spouse. But using your logic as you stated it, "You don't "disagree" about whether a whole class of people deserve their constitutional rights, when that same document explicitly guarantees them equality under the law. That is called discrimination, and it is arises out of bigotry.
That's the fallacy in your reasoning. You must remember, a duck is a duck, even when someone calls it a coyote."
How long did it take you to come up with that nonsense? You must be dizzy from running around in circles.

I never "insinuated" that every single GLBTQ person wants to get married. Not every white person wanted to marry a black person, or vice versa, but the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, already established that the right to marry applied to interracial couples, regardless of how many or how few of them would take advantage of that right. So the precedent of marriage being considered a constitutional right has already been set.

As far as your ridiculous attempt to bring polygamous marriage into the argument, tell me, where in the United States is polygamous marriage already legal under federal law? Since no one can legally more than one spouse, then equality under the law already exists for all Americans, and your "point" is fallacious.

Try thinking logically. Your homophobia is clouding your ability to reason.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#375 Jun 25, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 19:24 (NKJV)
24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.
And why did the LORD rain brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah? It wasn't because the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels (note: angels, not other men) that were under the protection of Lot's hospitality. No:

Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV)
49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#376 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously not everybody agrees that what you want is a Constitutional "right" as demonstrated by the clear and irrefutable fact that the issue is before SCOTUS after going before several other judicial layers. Your side may win or your side may lose. But it is not up to you and your claims are simply irrelevant, empty rhetoric.
SCOTUS, as I mentioned in an earlier post, already set a precedent in Loving v. Virginia, in which they ruled that interracial couples had the right to marry, and that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In their decision, the Court made specific reference to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm afraid I have detected a huge pile of cow manure in your post. Do your extraordinary powers of perception not apply to your own posts?

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#377 Jun 25, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 19:24 (NKJV)
24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.
Many, if not most biblical experts do not believe there are homosexual ties to the supposed history of Sodom and Gomorrah. Supposed being the operative word.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#378 Jun 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been viewed as a basic right in other court cases, but various Courts have always been able to choose to ignore such things.
Doesn't make it right, and most of us have faith that at some point, justice will prevail for gay couples and their families, even if this Supreme Court rules that is is okay to harm us for no reason other than religious dislike, and public animus.
Scalia seems to believe that dislike is enough. We will have to see what all the Justices choose in the end.
But, whatever the outcome, we will continue to fight in every legal way, until our youth, elderly, and families are protected the way they should be.
And I think history is on our side.
Once again you insist on offering a reasoned, honest response devoid of silly invective. Given that, it warrants serious consideration. Thank you.

Not sure if I buy the Scalia part given that he has stated he doesn't believe the court should rule on the morality on an issue. Agreed that we will have to wait for a real decision which is one reason I ridicule the phony constitutional scholars in here who make sweeping and absolute declarations without benefit of having any idea what they are talking about.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#379 Jun 25, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS, as I mentioned in an earlier post, already set a precedent in Loving v. Virginia, in which they ruled that interracial couples had the right to marry, and that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In their decision, the Court made specific reference to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I'm afraid I have detected a huge pile of cow manure in your post. Do your extraordinary powers of perception not apply to your own posts?
Be afraid. I'm pretty sure (nay, absolutely certain) I don't care.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#380 Jun 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, more blah, blah, blah, claiming how you don't care what I say.
You're obviously too stupid to understand that I am entertained by ridiculing and shredding your bullsh!t. That you don't get that reinforces my notion about your stupidity.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#381 Jun 25, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS, as I mentioned in an earlier post, already set a precedent in Loving v. Virginia, in which they ruled that interracial couples had the right to marry, and that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In their decision, the Court made specific reference to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I'm afraid I have detected a huge pile of cow manure in your post. Do your extraordinary powers of perception not apply to your own posts?
Okay, I'll back up just a bit. I am not very familiar with Loving. That said, by experience I tend to question the validity of silly, pat answers from many in here. I will be interested in the ruling. I don't think it will radically affect my life, but anticipating the question, I don't support same sex marriage even if it becomes law. Certainly I'll recognize it, but I am not required in any way to agree with it, much like I don't agree with the Obamacare ruling or the eminent domain ruling of a few years ago. And I'll continue to ridicule and expose the hypocrites and liars (on any side) whenever and however I choose.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#382 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Okay, I'll back up just a bit. I am not very familiar with Loving. That said, by experience I tend to question the validity of silly, pat answers from many in here. I will be interested in the ruling. I don't think it will radically affect my life, but anticipating the question, I don't support same sex marriage even if it becomes law. Certainly I'll recognize it, but I am not required in any way to agree with it, much like I don't agree with the Obamacare ruling or the eminent domain ruling of a few years ago. And I'll continue to ridicule and expose the hypocrites and liars (on any side) whenever and however I choose.
Be afraid. I'm pretty sure (nay, absolutely certain) I don't care.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#383 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Okay, I'll back up just a bit. I am not very familiar with Loving. That said, by experience I tend to question the validity of silly, pat answers from many in here. I will be interested in the ruling. I don't think it will radically affect my life, but anticipating the question, I don't support same sex marriage even if it becomes law. Certainly I'll recognize it, but I am not required in any way to agree with it, much like I don't agree with the Obamacare ruling or the eminent domain ruling of a few years ago. And I'll continue to ridicule and expose the hypocrites and liars (on any side) whenever and however I choose.
So, basically, you are ignorant of many of the issues being discussed, you ate suspicious of those with more knowledge of the topic, and won't change your opinion or posting habits regardless of whether the law changes.

You seem to have described yourself as a troll.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#384 Jun 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> Btw, supporting civil unions when marriage can't reasonably be passed is a FAR cry from opposing marriage.
You're a bigot; own it.
Here's a refinement you're too stupid and bigoted to understand. Let's say I do not support same sex marriage rather than oppose it. And I do support (and prefer) civil unions. That won't make you any happier, but you have so much invested in being a hateful sicko that it really doesn't matter.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#385 Jun 25, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
Be afraid. I'm pretty sure (nay, absolutely certain) I don't care.
1. Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery.
2. You have now rendered yourself irrelevant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#386 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You're obviously too stupid to understand that I am entertained by ridiculing and shredding your bullsh!t. That you don't get that reinforces my notion about your stupidity.
I get that you're just another anti-gay bigot. That's all anyone needs to know about you, which is why I keep pointing it out.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#387 Jun 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically, you are ignorant of many of the issues being discussed, you ate suspicious of those with more knowledge of the topic, and won't change your opinion or posting habits regardless of whether the law changes.
You seem to have described yourself as a troll.
Not at all. I have described myself as an independent thinker.

When the law was that certain homosexual activities were illegal, did you agree with, and accept those laws without dissent? There is even disagreement and dissent within SCOTUS as evidenced by the fact that so few decisions are unanimous.

When somebody makes absurd post that gays are all pedophiles and will rot in hell, do you not ever challenge such absurdity? But you, and many of the other usual suspects/bigots/hypocrites/idi ots get all in a tizzy because one breeder dares have a different opinion and a different perspective.

The real troll, it seems, is you and those like you. Congratulations. You must be so proud.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#388 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Here's a refinement you're too stupid and bigoted to understand. Let's say I do not support same sex marriage rather than oppose it. And I do support (and prefer) civil unions. That won't make you any happier, but you have so much invested in being a hateful sicko that it really doesn't matter.
If you don't support marriage for same-sex couples, then by default you support continued discrimination against them and the resulting harm to their families.

You're just another anti-gay bigot; own it.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#389 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
Here's a refinement you're too stupid and bigoted to understand. Let's say I do not support same sex marriage rather than oppose it.
And you propose that the difference is what, exactly?
BS Detector wrote:
And I do support (and prefer) civil unions.
Separate has long since been accepted not to be equal, and civil unions do not provide equal protection of the law. If the entire basis of your hang up is the terminology, then get over yourself.
BS Detector wrote:
That won't make you any happier, but you have so much invested in being a hateful sicko that it really doesn't matter.
Actually, we are just invested in following the US Constitution. You apparently are not.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#390 Jun 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't support marriage for same-sex couples, then by default you support continued discrimination against them and the resulting harm to their families.
You're just another anti-gay bigot; own it.
If it makes you happy to think that bullsh!t (and it does), I invite to believe that bullsh!t (and you will). I realize you have so much invested in your hate, it would be unrealistic of me to think you could, or would even want to, get beyond the phony outrage (emphasis on the phony).

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#391 Jun 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
Not at all. I have described myself as an independent thinker.
Actually, you described yourself as not thinking at all. You admitted that you were unfamiliar with the case being discussed, and then indicated that you were disgusted by the descriptions of it. I don't know about you, but I tend to call people who have an opinion about something they don't know very much about by a certain name, and it isn't "independent thinker", most often it would be fool.
BS Detector wrote:
When the law was that certain homosexual activities were illegal, did you agree with, and accept those laws without dissent? There is even disagreement and dissent within SCOTUS as evidenced by the fact that so few decisions are unanimous.
Of course not, and low and behold, the US Supreme Court held them to be unconstitutional. Just as your views on this topic are unconstitutional.
BS Detector wrote:
When somebody makes absurd post that gays are all pedophiles and will rot in hell, do you not ever challenge such absurdity? But you, and many of the other usual suspects/bigots/hypocrites/idi ots get all in a tizzy because one breeder dares have a different opinion and a different perspective.
The real troll, it seems, is you and those like you. Congratulations. You must be so proud.
It's not the difference of opinion or perspective, you are a bigot because you are arguing for a fellow citizens to be held as a second class citizen with less than equal protection of the laws. You are a bigot, that's what bigots do, they are intolerant and wish to illustrate that others are lesser, and deserve lesser access to rights.

Congratulations, you are painting yourself in a most unflattering light.

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
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 13 min GodSmacked 30
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 14 min GodSmacked 26,367
News Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is c... 49 min Frankie Rizzo 60
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 57,918
News NOM's Brian Brown Laments Australian Gay Marria... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News Lady Gaga named honorary Miss Gay America 1 hr Using the mentall... 24
News Some People Think Starbucks Is Promoting 'Gay A... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 8
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr RiccardoFire 14,065
More from around the web