Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: Turnto10.com 43

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
And the Court and the law always recognized marriage as between male and female,'Baker' is Holding. High Court tossed gay marriage appeal on every tenet of Constitution claimed; Due Process Clause, 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and 9th Amendment. So for starters gay marriage is gonna have to get by stare decisis. A very formidable challenge that is not likely to succeed.
Sodomy bans were once SCOTUS precedent too, as was segregation, inter-racial marriage bans, etc.

The SCOTUS has changed in the 40 years since the Baker decision. So has society, federal law, state law, etc, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Slavery was recognized in "several jurisdictions" and right to vote too, but didn't mean acceptance of High Court striking down slavery and enfranchising blacks. Skin color cannot be a condition to disallow human beings rights under the Constitution, but behavior can be. Our laws codify behavior such as in marriage is behavior between male and female by design and nature. Natural law before it was common law or case law.
And the 2nd circuit appeals court ruled same-sex orientation is not a condition to disallow human beings rights under the constitution, which is why they granted them quasi-suspect classification- the same classification which applies to gender.

Btw, sexual orientation is not a behavior per se. It may be DEMONSTRATED by certain behaviors, but it is not a behavior in and of itself. If I never had sex with another person my entire life, I'd STILL be a homosexual, because my natural attration is to a person of the same gender. Just as a heterosexual is a heterosexual regardless of whether they have sex or not. It's our natural orientation.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#25 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Nothing bigotted about not wanting to confound language.
How does one "confound language"?

Creating several words for the exact same thing is rather silly, especially when the only reasons for doing so are illogical, irrational, and based only on animus.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#26 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
... Males and females under the law must be treated similar......
Exactly. You agree.

If course it's the same. Marriage is marriage. Gay people are either male, or female, and must be treated equally under the law. There is no rational reason to ban certain marriages based on the gender of those participating.

If you have any, please list them.

Otherwise, equal protection under the law is guaranteed, and cannot be denied based only on gender.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#27 Dec 8, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that also apply to concealed carry laws?
==========
If they're Constitutional it does.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#28 Dec 8, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. You agree.
If course it's the same. Marriage is marriage. Gay people are either male, or female, and must be treated equally under the law. There is no rational reason to ban certain marriages based on the gender of those participating.
If you have any, please list them.
Otherwise, equal protection under the law is guaranteed, and cannot be denied based only on gender.
==========
Nope, marriage is between one male and one female.

==========

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#29 Dec 8, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sodomy bans were once SCOTUS precedent too, as was segregation, inter-racial marriage bans, etc.
The SCOTUS has changed in the 40 years since the Baker decision. So has society, federal law, state law, etc, etc.
==========
Gay marriage is still gonna have to get by stare decisis. A very formidable challenge that is not likely to succeed.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#30 Dec 8, 2012
The thing gays are claming for themselves, marriage, is based on gender of male and female constituting a marriage.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#31 Dec 8, 2012
To see the negative effects of gay marriage on society look no further than Norway. Society erosion at more than twice the rate for the straight population which also saw promiscuity and illegitimacy rates increase as a result of gay marriage producing a negative effect on traditional concepts of marriage, family, fidelity, mother and father.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#32 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Nope, marriage is between one male and one female.
==========
Why?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#33 Dec 8, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
==========
Definition of word marriage and its predominant practice over time throughout societies.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Nope, marriage is between one male and one female.
==========
For YOU marriage may be only between one male & one female, but according to the states of MA, NY, NH, VT, IA, CT, WA, ME, MD, & DC, marriage includes same-sex couples as well. Plus a dozen other countries as well.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#35 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Definition of word marriage and its predominant practice over time throughout societies.
You mean YOUR definition of marriage. "Predominant practice" can be based on bigotry. Slave ownership, racial segregation, denial of womens' right to vote, were all "predominant practices" over considerable periods of time. All were the products of bigotry, injustice, and ignorance. Denial of two same-gender consenting adults the right to marry adds to that ignominious list.

Our personal prejudices do not grant us the right to deny others the right to a satisfying life.
Duck Bond 009

Hanoi, Vietnam

#36 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
The thing gays are claming for themselves, marriage, is based on gender of male and female constituting a marriage.
God Bloss U WMCOL!!!;-00000h, do U watta definationalistea of Bloss?!!! how about Bless? Blust?!!!;-000
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#37 Dec 8, 2012
It amazes me that the homosexuals get so much mileage out of ad-nauseum arguments. That is, an argument that has no basis in fact, but by endless repetition, seems to acquire an implied measure of truth.
For instance, on every TV news program lately with a segment on SSM, some pro-gay proponent starts mouthing about how SCOTUS "will not want to find themselves on the wrong side of history".
The gays are so short-sighted, they must believe that if SCOTUS affirms SSM, that action will be the final chapter in history concerning SSM.
In actuality, the final chapter in history regarding SSM would not be written for about 100 years, as it would take at least that long for the harnmful effects of SSM in this dangerous social experiment to manifest.
I hope that SCOTUS has a vision that is that far-reaching.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
To see the negative effects of gay marriage on society look no further than Norway. Society erosion at more than twice the rate for the straight population which also saw promiscuity and illegitimacy rates increase as a result of gay marriage producing a negative effect on traditional concepts of marriage, family, fidelity, mother and father.
Blah, blah, blah.....

This isn't Norway.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Gay marriage is still gonna have to get by stare decisis. A very formidable challenge that is not likely to succeed.
No more formidable than the precedents for segregation, inter-racial marriage bans, sodomy bans, etc. ALL of which were overturned as well. All it takes is one more liberal on the SCOTUS and all the remaining state bans will fall. Why do you think we worked so hard to get Obama reelected, and will work just as hard to get Hillary elected in 2016?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40 Dec 8, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
It amazes me that the homosexuals get so much mileage out of ad-nauseum arguments. That is, an argument that has no basis in fact, but by endless repetition, seems to acquire an implied measure of truth.
For instance, on every TV news program lately with a segment on SSM, some pro-gay proponent starts mouthing about how SCOTUS "will not want to find themselves on the wrong side of history".
The gays are so short-sighted, they must believe that if SCOTUS affirms SSM, that action will be the final chapter in history concerning SSM.
In actuality, the final chapter in history regarding SSM would not be written for about 100 years, as it would take at least that long for the harnmful effects of SSM in this dangerous social experiment to manifest.
I hope that SCOTUS has a vision that is that far-reaching.
Ooooh, the world is ending........ 100 years from now!

Are you competing with the Mayans for your end of the world predictions?
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#41 Dec 8, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.....
This isn't Norway.
All you queers are born into the state of Denial.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#42 Dec 8, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooh, the world is ending........ 100 years from now!
Are you competing with the Mayans for your end of the world predictions?
All you queers are born into the state of Denial.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min OzRitz 50,187
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 17 min NoahLovesU 56,990
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Learn to Read 184,288
Sen. Barbara Boxer won't seek re-election in 2016 17 hr MAYORDYSASTER 68
Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) 23 hr Larry 27,519
Effective weightloss product for this summer se... Fri Jaquelyn davidson 1
San Francisco celebrates gay marriage rulings (Jun '13) Fri Gay and know better 4
More from around the web