Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Gay Ma...

Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Gay Marriage

There are 45 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from Dec 7, 2012, titled Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Gay Marriage. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

The Supreme Court for the first time entered the debate over gay marriage Friday, announcing it would accept cases from New York and California that test the rights of same-sex couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#1 Dec 7, 2012
Legalize federal marriage equality now!

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#2 Dec 7, 2012
I think that the members on the court are going to be on the right side of HISTORY with this case. They know that if they are not with the alarming rate that this matter is gaining traction. If the members on the right that are on the court are on the wrong side of this then the Republican party will cease to be. This should be something they look at for example on election night 4 states passed the rights for same sex couples to marry by popular vote.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Dec 7, 2012
If we knew which justices voted to take which cases then we'd have a better idea which way they're likely to go.

The liberals wouldn't vote to take the case unless they were sure they had Kennedy's vote.

The conservatives wouldn't vote to take the case unless THEY were sure they had Kennedy's vote.

It's the difference between Prop 8 being upheld as constitutional, or all marriage bans being overturned nationwide.
Ms Moo

Plymouth, MN

#4 Dec 7, 2012
No way, Sheeple. The Supreme Ct. typically does not make an either/or decision. They'll decide what is precisely before the court which typically means they'll decide somewhere between the two extremes.

Like ObamaCare. Folks were saying they'll rule it either constitutional or not. What the Ct. eventually held was a part was constitutional and part was not.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#5 Dec 7, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/supr...

I think that the court is going to be on the right side of History with this ruling. They know that states passed the right on election night by popular vote. They know that the efforts behind the movement are not going to slow anytime soon. If the Court is on the wrong side of this I think as many that the Republican party will be no more.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6 Dec 10, 2012
LovehasNogender wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/12/07/supreme-court-gay-m arriage_n_2218441.html
I think that the court is going to be on the right side of History with this ruling. They know that states passed the right on election night by popular vote. They know that the efforts behind the movement are not going to slow anytime soon. If the Court is on the wrong side of this I think as many that the Republican party will be no more.
This isn't about democrats and republicans....don't you get that?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#7 Dec 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't about democrats and republicans....don't you get that?
Yes I do get that however the more conservative members on the Court are going to be on the right side of history when it comes to this case. If you look at the numbers from election night and this is something that I am sure you have seen or read about. The Republican party are trying to go outside of the box they have inclosed themselves into over lets see the last 10 years. While the rest of the population has moved more in support of SSM. That would also be another reason why on election night we seen 3 states give rights to SSC by popular vote!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Dec 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't about democrats and republicans....don't you get that?
Correct. It's about equal treatment for married same-sex couples.

Justice Roberts will likely author the 6-3 majority opinion overturning DOMA.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#9 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. It's about equal treatment for married same-sex couples.
Justice Roberts will likely author the 6-3 majority opinion overturning DOMA.
It's about the constitution, and how some groups try to manipulate it for their own gain.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#10 Dec 13, 2012
That fact is that the more conservative members on the court are going to be on the right side of history when it comes to this case. I think that Justice Roberts will side with the more libel members on the court on this case. If you look at the fact that this is gaining in polls nation wide. If you didn't notice from the 3 states that gave SSM the popular vote in all 3 states. If they conservative members on the court leaves the DOMA roadblock in place and if the Republican party is not willing to get with the age and times of what the American public want by a majority then this party is going to cease to be.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#11 Dec 13, 2012
LovehasNogender wrote:
That fact is that the more conservative members on the court are going to be on the right side of history when it comes to this case. I think that Justice Roberts will side with the more libel members on the court on this case. If you look at the fact that this is gaining in polls nation wide. If you didn't notice from the 3 states that gave SSM the popular vote in all 3 states. If they conservative members on the court leaves the DOMA roadblock in place and if the Republican party is not willing to get with the age and times of what the American public want by a majority then this party is going to cease to be.
The constitution has nothing to do with popularity....

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#12 Dec 13, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution has nothing to do with popularity....
The fact of the matter is that DOMA is going to be ruled as unconstitutional. The federal government cant grant rights to heterosexual couples while they deny the same rights to same sex couples.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#13 Dec 13, 2012
LovehasNogender wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that DOMA is going to be ruled as unconstitutional. The federal government cant grant rights to heterosexual couples while they deny the same rights to same sex couples.
Your problem is you are assuming rights based on sexuality. One man/one woman marriage is not about 'sexuality', as any 'sexuality' can participate...that is your problem...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Dec 13, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's about the constitution, and how some groups try to manipulate it for their own gain.
How is enforcing equal treatment the equivalent of "manipulating" the constitution?

If you give federal rights & benefits to ONE group of married couples, then you need to give those same rights & benefits to ALL married couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Dec 13, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution has nothing to do with popularity....
It's so cute when your naivete shows........

The SCOTUS justices are humans who are affected in their opinions & view of the constitution by the society in which they live. Some like Scalia & Thomas will just take a bit longer to catch up with how society views same-sex couples.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule same-sex couples are entitled to the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples; it's only a matter of time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Dec 13, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is you are assuming rights based on sexuality. One man/one woman marriage is not about 'sexuality', as any 'sexuality' can participate...that is your problem...
Correct, it's about gender discrimination, which is also unconstitutional.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#17 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How is enforcing equal treatment the equivalent of "manipulating" the constitution?
If you give federal rights & benefits to ONE group of married couples, then you need to give those same rights & benefits to ALL married couples.
Last I checked, polygamists didn't get federal recognition either, yet, that hasn't stopped them from marrying....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#18 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, it's about gender discrimination, which is also unconstitutional.
Actually, that's not correct. Marriage has never been a 'gender' issue....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#19 Dec 13, 2012
Here, let me help you all out, so you will be able to understand why DOMA will NOT be struck down by the SCOTUS...

Paul Linton, a long time constitutional attorney, has written an excellent letter going through point by point to refute the letter from the Department of Justice explaining why the Defense of Marriage Act is allegedly unconstitutional.

I summarize some of Paul Linton’s points here, adding my own comments to point out the host of reasonable arguments that the DOJ could make in defense of DOMA:

– The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the legal arguments that the Constitution protects the right to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

This part of the letter gets into some technical details of Supreme Court practice, so suffice it to say, there is a summary decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that rejects every major constitutional claim to a right to same-sex “marriage.”

So,the Department of Justice lawyers could make the reasonable argument in court that the Supreme Court has already rejected the legal arguments currently used to challenge DOMA. This is an important legal argument DOJ could use in the lower courts, because they must follow Supreme Court precedent.

Not convinced??? I'll keep going......

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#20 Dec 13, 2012
- A number of federal and state courts in recent years have upheld the constitutionality of federal DOMA, or have rejected federal constitutional challenges to marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman. Paul Linton lists them in his letter. So, the lawyers for the federal government could defend DOMA by pointing out that many federal and state court decisions have already upheld federal DOMA.

- Most courts have rejected the DOJ analysis that ”sexual orientation” is a suspect class like race under the Constitution - The DOJ letter relies heavily on its own conclusion that ”sexual orientation” is a protected classification under the Constitution, like race is. Most courts have rejected that conclusion.

The DOJ letter tries to distinguish those court decisions, and Paul Linton shows why the DOJ’s reasoning is defective. Even if the DOJ does not totally agree with those court decisions, it could rely on them to defend DOMA. Also, the DOJ letter assumes that a marriage law constitutes “sexual orientation” discrimination, a very controversial and disputed conclusion.

In addition to Paul Linton’s excellent analysis, I would add the following points:

- The Department of Justice has vigorously defended DOMA in court recently – the DOJ letter ignores the fact that up until now, it has defended DOMA in court. The DOJ vigorously defended DOMA during President Bush’s administration. Here is a link to one of the DOJ briefs from the Bush days that strongly defends DOMA. The only change that accounts for this dramatic change has been the election of a new President, which is an insufficient reason for the federal government to pivot from its previous position defending the constitutionality of DOMA.

Still skeptical???.......

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Obituaries Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Maude S. Jenkins Dec 6 Sandy parlett-thayer 1
News James Ethington (Feb '13) Dec 6 Tacky 3
News Anthony F. "Tony" Prinzi Jr. Dec 5 Karen 1
News Robert Foust Dec 4 Doug 1
News Obituary - Arnold Joseph Lloyd (May '07) Dec 3 Nancy714corbett 3
News Destiny Marie Garrett (Oct '14) Dec 3 Betty ford 4
News Josie Lena Fitzgerald Atkins Nov 29 virginfos 1
More from around the web