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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#630 Jul 1, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Members of Congress of both parties freely acknowledge that they routinely pass laws they know to be unconstitutional. The reality is that unless somebody brings a lawsuit (which takes money), the laws stand unless or until challenged in federal court.
Those laws can be ignored or unenforced also. DOMA and Prop 8 are two such examples.

Good point.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#631 Jul 1, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. And what you were challenged on (and avoided) was your statement below, to wit:
<quoted text> ... the reality of which was that Congress routinely passes unconstitutional laws, not just those with a religious bias. FYI, I agree with you re the odious and offensive nature of religious based laws. That, of course, was not the point. You can complain about what you call unconstitutional laws, and what lawmakers can or cannot do until you are blue in the face. Reality is, unless you have the resources to mount a challenge, your complaints, however valid they might be, are rendered irrelevant in the real world.
My word, but you are a dumb one.

If congress passes an unconstitutional law, does that make it constitutional?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#632 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
My word, but you are a dumb one.
If congress passes an unconstitutional law, does that make it constitutional?
Unfortunately like was the case with DOMA, any law passed by Congress is given the presumption of constitutionality until the courts determine otherwise.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow banning blacks from driving and it would be presumed to be constitutional until the courts act.

Crazy as it sounds, that is the way our system works.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#633 Jul 1, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Once again you insist on a rational dialogue.
..........
You know I support civil unions rather that the marriage nomenclature. Your side won. So be it and congratulations, and I can appreciate your relationship being codified. You are good people. That one decision relatively minor. I just see it as another element in the compromise/breakdown of American culture and society. But I won't be around that much longer (that's just reality, and some of the hate filled in here will be happy about that) but my nieces and nephews will be.
It's sad.
I do feel we won something important, and I can't promise that every gay couple will respect the gift - we are human after all. And often selfish and foolish in our relationships.

But I still believe, with my whole heart, that marriage is valuable, and increasing the numbers of people who cherish it can never be a sign that society is failing. Teaching gay youth that it is an option can only improve some of their lives, not contribute to their wasting of it.

There are other factors involved in that decline, and my marriage is not one of them.

I hope you are around for a long time, and I have enjoyed explaining my reasons for my beliefs to you, even if I can't sway you to the "dark side". But, if indeed you aren't immortal, then I hope that you find happiness and joy in your life and family, and peace and fulfillment in the life beyond.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#634 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
My word, but you are a dumb one.
If congress passes an unconstitutional law, does that make it constitutional?
No, but does it mean it didn't pass or doesn't take effect?

"My word, but you are a dumb one."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#635 Jul 1, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but does it mean it didn't pass or doesn't take effect?
"My word, but you are a dumb one."
Even though it may be on the books it is still unconstitutional. Period, end of story.

It's hysterical to watch you chase your tail in your infantile quest to spin the topic until you can claim to be right.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#636 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though it may be on the books it is still unconstitutional. Period, end of story.
It's hysterical to watch you chase your tail in your infantile quest to spin the topic until you can claim to be right.
"My word, but you are a dumb one."

But seriously, all you want to do is beat the breeder. Hint: Ain't never gonna happen.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#637 Jul 1, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> "My word, but you are a dumb one."
But seriously, all you want to do is beat the breeder. Hint: Ain't never gonna happen.
Good news! Equality under the law was upheld by the US Supreme Court, and done in a manner to provide a road map to eradicte state same sex marriage bans.

Bad news, you are still an ignorant and bigoted idiot incapable of offering a rational rebuttal.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#638 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Good news! Equality under the law was upheld by the US Supreme Court, and done in a manner to provide a road map to eradicte state same sex marriage bans.
Bad news, you are still an ignorant and bigoted idiot incapable of offering a rational rebuttal.
If that's what you need to tell yourself to feel adequate, have a ball.

The decision is what it is. It is final and your side won. The lawyers did a good job. What else do you need to hear to feel adequate?

Are you looking for some other rebuttal to give you a stiffy?
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#639 Jul 1, 2013
"My word, but you are a dumb one!"

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#640 Jul 3, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps because the constitution did not anticipate direct voter input. The intention of a wall of separation between church and state is clear, even if the constitution does not address direct voter input.
Those making the laws are not to make laws respecting an establishment of religion. To do so violates the religious freedom of all other religions.
It isn't a difficult concept. In the end, the law respecting religious morality relative to marriage was struck as unconstitutional.
Even the people may not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then work to change the US Constitution. Good luck with that with a congress that couldn't pass gas.
If I don't like that? You're the one who with idiocy exclaimed the gov can't do this or that if it's unconstitutional, not me. Our government has did all sorts of crap that was unconstitutional. It's stepped on freedom of religion and proved there is no such thing if they have a say about it. Legislators have overruled popular vote for decades and voters have voted against laws made by legislators for decades. The whole system is a farce and means little to me any more. I vote my mind in elections and hope for the best.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#641 Jul 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
If I don't like that? You're the one who with idiocy exclaimed the gov can't do this or that if it's unconstitutional, not me. Our government has did all sorts of crap that was unconstitutional. It's stepped on freedom of religion and proved there is no such thing if they have a say about it. Legislators have overruled popular vote for decades and voters have voted against laws made by legislators for decades. The whole system is a farce and means little to me any more. I vote my mind in elections and hope for the best.
I never said the government, or in this case the people can't pass an unconstitutional law, I said that if they do so, it doesn't mean the law is any less unconstitutional.

Do try to keep up.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#642 Jul 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said the government, or in this case the people can't pass an unconstitutional law, I said that if they do so, it doesn't mean the law is any less unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up.
Do try to keep up with what you haven't stated, just saying. Nowhere in the following that I responded to did you say "I said that if they do so, it doesn't mean the law is any less unconstitutional."

"Perhaps because the constitution did not anticipate direct voter input. The intention of a wall of separation between church and state is clear, even if the constitution does not address direct voter input.
Those making the laws are not to make laws respecting an establishment of religion. To do so violates the religious freedom of all other religions.
It isn't a difficult concept. In the end, the law respecting religious morality relative to marriage was struck as unconstitutional.
Even the people may not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then work to change the US Constitution. Good luck with that with a congress that couldn't pass gas."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#643 Jul 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try to keep up with what you haven't stated, just saying. Nowhere in the following that I responded to did you say "I said that if they do so, it doesn't mean the law is any less unconstitutional."
How stupid would you like to believe you are?

When you start to "quote" things that I have never said, as you carry out a debate in your own mind, you don't look terribly rational.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#644 Jul 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
........
Even the people may not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then work to change the US Constitution. Good luck with that with a congress that couldn't pass gas."
It happens all the time. That's why we have the courts.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#645 Jul 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How stupid would you like to believe you are?
When you start to "quote" things that I have never said, as you carry out a debate in your own mind, you don't look terribly rational.
lolol.....

lides
“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08
12,037

Defiance, Ohio
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#624Monday Jul 1

No Surprise wrote:
I was speaking of voters, not politicians. How did you fail to note that?
By the way, you do know that when judging the religious case for polygamy, SCOTUS referenced how religious societies/societies had favored/disfavored polygamy for the last 2000 years in making a decision? What SCOTUS did in that decision was absolutely unconstitutional as you call it and no one did a thing. Why? Because Christianity still heavily influenced politicians voting behavior.
When confronted with what society calls 'moral issues' at the voting booth, people usually vote from one of two moral perspectives: non-religious and the religious. Concerning prop 8, the religious right won out, not the non-religious.
Perhaps because the constitution did not anticipate direct voter input. The intention of a wall of separation between church and state is clear, even if the constitution does not address direct voter input."

Nolids of shortterm memory and pathetic recall ability said most stupidly that he didn't say which he did say that I then did quote...

"Those making the laws are not to make laws respecting an establishment of religion. To do so violates the religious freedom of all other religions.

It isn't a difficult concept. In the end, the law respecting religious morality relative to marriage was struck as unconstitutional.

Even the people may not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then work to change the US Constitution. Good luck with that with a congress that couldn't pass gas."

So deny you said what you wrote again okay? Too fricking funny...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#646 Jul 9, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
lolol.....
lides
“No Headline available”
Since: Jan 08
12,037
Defiance, Ohio
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#624Monday Jul 1
No Surprise wrote:
I was speaking of voters, not politicians. How did you fail to note that?
By the way, you do know that when judging the religious case for polygamy, SCOTUS referenced how religious societies/societies had favored/disfavored polygamy for the last 2000 years in making a decision? What SCOTUS did in that decision was absolutely unconstitutional as you call it and no one did a thing. Why? Because Christianity still heavily influenced politicians voting behavior.
When confronted with what society calls 'moral issues' at the voting booth, people usually vote from one of two moral perspectives: non-religious and the religious. Concerning prop 8, the religious right won out, not the non-religious.
Perhaps because the constitution did not anticipate direct voter input. The intention of a wall of separation between church and state is clear, even if the constitution does not address direct voter input."
Nolids of shortterm memory and pathetic recall ability said most stupidly that he didn't say which he did say that I then did quote...
"Those making the laws are not to make laws respecting an establishment of religion. To do so violates the religious freedom of all other religions.
It isn't a difficult concept. In the end, the law respecting religious morality relative to marriage was struck as unconstitutional.
Even the people may not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then work to change the US Constitution. Good luck with that with a congress that couldn't pass gas."
So deny you said what you wrote again okay? Too fricking funny...
I stand by what I said moron. the people, passed a law by ballot initiative with no basis but animus or projecting religious morality, and the court has struck it down.

Thank you, for proving that you are clueless.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#647 Jul 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand by what I said moron. the people, passed a law by ballot initiative with no basis but animus or projecting religious morality, and the court has struck it down.
Thank you, for proving that you are clueless.
lol...fricking idiotic pathetic moron that can't remember what you wrote, even when I quote it back to you....you go dude...lol....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#648 Jul 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
lol...fricking idiotic pathetic moron that can't remember what you wrote, even when I quote it back to you....you go dude...lol....
The funny part is that you actually believe my position has changed, it has not. It's also hysterical to me that you can't tell when you've lost. Congratulations, you have proven that you aren't too terribly bright, and that you cannot follow basic logic.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#649 Jul 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...fricking idiotic pathetic moron that can't remember what you wrote, even when I quote it back to you....you go dude...lol....
Temper, temper.... lol

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 Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 27 min broken WOODEN WHEEL 1,155
News Elkhart mayor asks city council to withdraw LGB... 29 min Sneaky Pete 16
News Boy Scouts of America ends ban on gay adults 30 min Buford 51
News Huge Media Cover-Up of Criminal Charges Against... 31 min Buford 67
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 36 min broken WOODEN WHEEL 6,523
News Ex-Navy SEAL alleges anti-gay bullying by CIA w... 37 min Buford 3
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 1 hr Wondering 76
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 2 hr Wondering 727
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Respect71 24,013
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 4 hr elh 8,046
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 9 hr elh 1,636
More from around the web