Justice Anthony Kennedy may hold key ...

Justice Anthony Kennedy may hold key vote in same-sex marriage decision

There are 72 comments on the San Gabriel Valley Tribune story from Mar 24, 2013, titled Justice Anthony Kennedy may hold key vote in same-sex marriage decision. In it, San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports that:

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday and Wednesday about same-sex marriage rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy will be scrutinized for his every word, sigh and twitch.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#41 Mar 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

You DID say it was okay for the SCOTUS to uphold sodomy bans not because they were constitutional, but just because the country wasn't ready yet.
show me.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#42 Mar 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Ted Olson DID say same-sex couples have the right to marry.
But since that's not necessary to decide this case, it won't be addressed.
That will be left for another day; just as I predicted.
And in reality you are insisting you have a right that is before the court and they don't think you do...
CLEARLY Kennedy doesn't think you do....

and yet you cast a technicality as a win?
your optimism is impressive but sometimes its sad to watch...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#43 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
my point has always been the same.
Marriage is based on procreation and thus there is no such thing as a right o gay marriage.
IS that effected at all?
Nope.
the only thing offensive to me about Prop 8 is that it is the will of the people being overturned by a court.
Now, do you have a right to marry?
spin away that it doesn't matter but you know it does.
"In truth, kicking the issue back down the ladder actually amounts to something akin to maintaining the status quo. In truth, there is no Constitutional guarantee of marriage- for straights or gays.
So, if I have to put it this way, odds on are that the Supreme Court is going to kill Prop 8, but mostly by invalidating the right of the people who argued to keep it in place to appeal the original verdict. They will likely do the same in US v. Windsor since there is no actual need for the House to step up to defend a law. That is, Constitutionally speaking, the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, and they have the right to not defend all cases. Finally, a case will come up which will be the lesbian or gay Loving v. Virginia, which will strike down the bans on same-sex marriage across the nation based upon Loving v. Virginia which states that once someone is married in one state, they are married throughout the United States.
But the right to get married will likely never be established for lesbians, gays, bisexuals or straight people."
I even used support clearly biased towards you...
I have always said you should battle it out in every state..yet here you are jumping up and down that I lost that you have to...
its a spit-ball!
Oh goody!!!!!

THERE'S the admission you were WRONG in your prediction, and yet you STILL managed to spin as a win for your fellow anti-gays!!!!!

I just KNEW you'd do it, but I didn't expect it so soon!!

Btw, the right to marry will be established in CALIFORNIA, which is all I ever expected or wanted out of this case from the start.

Spin, spin, spin baby!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#44 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
show me.
Go back and read your comments about the Bowers and Lawrence decisions.

I'm sure you'll try to spin it all away as everything else.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
And in reality you are insisting you have a right that is before the court and they don't think you do...
CLEARLY Kennedy doesn't think you do....
and yet you cast a technicality as a win?
your optimism is impressive but sometimes its sad to watch...
I cast Prop 8 being overturned as a clear win for us and a clear defeat for you & your fellow anti-gays who predicted Prop 8 would be upheld.

What's really sad to watch is you attempting to spin your loss into a win.

Oh wait, it's actually HILARIOUS watching you desperately spinning away.....
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#46 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh goody!!!!!
THERE'S the admission you were WRONG in your prediction, and yet you STILL managed to spin as a win for your fellow anti-gays!!!!!
I just KNEW you'd do it, but I didn't expect it so soon!!
Btw, the right to marry will be established in CALIFORNIA, which is all I ever expected or wanted out of this case from the start.
Spin, spin, spin baby!!!
can we consolidate these?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#47 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I cast Prop 8 being overturned as a clear win for us and a clear defeat for you & your fellow anti-gays who predicted Prop 8 would be upheld.
when did I ever say that?

I say they will NOT find you have a right to marry...and guess what, everyone AGREES I am right on that.

I said they will discuss procreation, and they did. Baker was cited.

BTW, as to bowers, you either misunderstood, or are flat making stuff up...

maybe you just overspun it?

again, lets eventually consolidate these threads...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#49 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
my point has always been the same.
Marriage is based on procreation and thus there is no such thing as a right o gay marriage.
IS that effected at all?
Nope.
the only thing offensive to me about Prop 8 is that it is the will of the people being overturned by a court.
Now, do you have a right to marry?
spin away that it doesn't matter but you know it does.
"In truth, kicking the issue back down the ladder actually amounts to something akin to maintaining the status quo. In truth, there is no Constitutional guarantee of marriage- for straights or gays.
So, if I have to put it this way, odds on are that the Supreme Court is going to kill Prop 8, but mostly by invalidating the right of the people who argued to keep it in place to appeal the original verdict. They will likely do the same in US v. Windsor since there is no actual need for the House to step up to defend a law. That is, Constitutionally speaking, the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, and they have the right to not defend all cases. Finally, a case will come up which will be the lesbian or gay Loving v. Virginia, which will strike down the bans on same-sex marriage across the nation based upon Loving v. Virginia which states that once someone is married in one state, they are married throughout the United States.
But the right to get married will likely never be established for lesbians, gays, bisexuals or straight people."
I even used support clearly biased towards you...
I have always said you should battle it out in every state..yet here you are jumping up and down that I lost that you have to...
its a spit-ball!
Yet, as you have been shown, marriage is not based on procreation in any way at all. none. nada.

marrige is a basic civil right, and homosexuals are citizens so they should be able to enjoy that right....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#50 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
when did I ever say that?
I say they will NOT find you have a right to marry...and guess what, everyone AGREES I am right on that.
I said they will discuss procreation, and they did. Baker was cited.
BTW, as to bowers, you either misunderstood, or are flat making stuff up...
maybe you just overspun it?
again, lets eventually consolidate these threads...
Spin baby spin.......

Now you're claiming you never predicted Prop 8 would be upheld?

Spin baby spin.......

In regards to the Bowers & Lawrence decisions you replied- "they overturned it right when they should have", referring to the SCOTUS not getting too far ahead of the public on issues.

How can you spin that any other way than saying a law only becomes unconstitutional when their is enough public support to justify ruling it unconstitutional, and that it's okay to support an unconstitutional law until the public is ready?

Spin baby spin........

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#51 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Yet, as you have been shown, marriage is not based on procreation in any way at all. none. nada.
marrige is a basic civil right, and homosexuals are citizens so they should be able to enjoy that right....
That's too logical and rational for many people to understand or agree with.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#52 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Yet, as you have been shown, marriage is not based on procreation in any way at all. none. nada.
shown where?

I heard lots of talk about it yesterday...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#53 Mar 27, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's too logical and rational for many people to understand or agree with.
or its just a bold declaration that is unsupported by any precedent...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#54 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

In regards to the Bowers & Lawrence decisions you replied- "they overturned it right when they should have", referring to the SCOTUS not getting too far ahead of the public on issues.
How can you spin that any other way than saying a law only becomes unconstitutional when their is enough public support to justify ruling it unconstitutional, and that it's okay to support an unconstitutional law until the public is ready?
Spin baby spin........
It may, I have never really cared about Prop 8 itself, but on these underlining doctrines that you are getting crushed on...

It is still very possible Prop 8 will survive...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

How can you spin that any other way than saying a law only becomes unconstitutional when their is enough public support to justify ruling it unconstitutional, and that it's okay to support an unconstitutional law until the public is ready?
easy, you are fixated on court ACTIVISM. I said when they can get the vote to AMEND? If we have courts to make changes, why have an amendment process at all?

you had to hate most of the quotes yesterday, your right does not exist....that's a fact!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#55 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
or its just a bold declaration that is unsupported by any precedent...
The United States Declaration Of Independence was also "a bold declaration that is unsupported by any precedent..."

Are you also against that as well ?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#56 Mar 27, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The United States Declaration Of Independence was also "a bold declaration that is unsupported by any precedent..."
Are you also against that as well ?
why do you hate freedom and love so much?

I thought I would just straw man back at ya!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#57 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
It may, I have never really cared about Prop 8 itself, but on these underlining doctrines that you are getting crushed on...
It is still very possible Prop 8 will survive...
<quoted text>
easy, you are fixated on court ACTIVISM. I said when they can get the vote to AMEND? If we have courts to make changes, why have an amendment process at all?
you had to hate most of the quotes yesterday, your right does not exist....that's a fact!
Prop 8 will be overturned one way or another, even if it takes another vote of the people in California. As I've said before, that's really a non-issue anymore.

There is a process to amemd the constitution so the people can change the constitution. For example, if we want to change the date the President is inaugurated which is currently specified by the constitution, or the number of Senators for each state, etc. Or to address issues not mentioned in the constitution such as the number of terms a president can serve or presidential succession, etc.

There is simply no need to amend the constitution to enforce the EXISTING constitution. It is the role of the judiciary to determine if laws violate the EXISTING constitution and underlying principles. Would you required a constitutional amendment to resolve the issue of inter-racial marriages? Or would you expect the judiciary to decide that based on the existing constitutional principles? Would you require a constitutional amendment to ensure redheads have the right to vote if a state decides to ban them from voting? Or would you expect the judiciary to decide that issue even though redheads voting isn't specifically menetioned in the constitution?

There was no need to amend the constitution in order for women or blacks to be able to vote either. That is something the judiciary should have decided based on the EXISTING constitutional principles of equal protection.

Same applies to marriage for same-sex couples.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#58 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

There is simply no need to amend the constitution to enforce the EXISTING constitution.
even now that the court seems to agree that the EXISTING constitution does NOT include any right to marry for gays?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#59 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 will be overturned one way or another,
you have to admit the POSSIBILITY the Kennedy may HAVE to join his conservatives brothers here....
likely? No, possible? Very.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#60 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
even now that the court seems to agree that the EXISTING constitution does NOT include any right to marry for gays?
Correct.

Just as their was no need to amend the constitution just because the court at the time found no right for private consensual sexual relations between inter-racial couples (Pace) or gay couples (Bowers), or when the court at the time upheld segregation laws were constituional (Plessy), etc, etc, etc.

Just because a court makes an incorrect decision doesn't mean the only option is to amend the constitution.

They certainly COULD have attempted to amend the constitution, but considering the opposition in the country at the time, I doubt that would have been successful in any of those cases. It's the typical majority mob rule over a minority that is present today with marriage for same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#61 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
you have to admit the POSSIBILITY the Kennedy may HAVE to join his conservatives brothers here....
likely? No, possible? Very.
Of course that's possible; I think it's unlikely especially after hearing the argument, but I've always said it is possible.

IF he does vote with the 4 conservatives to uphold Prop 8, then we overturn it at the ballot box in '14 or 16.

Either way, Prop 8 will be gone in the near future.

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
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min Into The Night 57,180
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 207,430
News Lawmakers Warn Buffett's Coal May Hurt Californ... Sat Solarman 1
Join Baphomet Ashram Brotherhood for Riches, Po... Sat Brian 1
News California Politicians Have A Huge Financial In... Sat Cob Coy 5
News Face-to-face still trumps texts for social clos... Sat Mistydo 1
News Will Smith among NAACP Image Awards attendees a... Fri Ronald 3
More from around the web