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.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#62 Mar 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
yah, again, i think you heard a lot of talk about the role of the courts and even some laments about how racial civil rights and abortion cases created problems...that slope is closed and is being sanded.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

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

IF he does vote with the 4 conservatives to uphold Prop 8, then we overturn it at the ballot box in '14 or 16.
I would consider this a win for everyone.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#64 Mar 27, 2013
If the bible thumpers are so concerned about "biblical marriage", and their not expressing hatred towards LGBT people, tehn why do they NOT also protest the marriages, and demand government-nonrecognition of NON-Christian marriages, such as the marriages of Muslim Americans, Hindu Americans and Buddhist Americans ?

And since many atheists vocally disavow even the existence of God, why are these people also not protesting the government allowing, and legally recognizing, te marriage of atheist people, because SURELY they are NOT practicing "biblical marriage".

Can anyone explain their refusal to protest these obvious NON-Christain marriages ?

I can.

It is ANIMUS against US merely for being LGBT Americans. That conclusion is inescapable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#65 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yah, again, i think you heard a lot of talk about the role of the courts and even some laments about how racial civil rights and abortion cases created problems...that slope is closed and is being sanded.
You heard what you wanted to hear.

None argued that there should be no right to an abortion or racial civil rights; only that the court may have moved to fast on those issues.

Personally I think that's just another copout.

If it's unconstitutional, it shouldn't matter whether the majority of the country are opposed. It might make it easier if there is broad support in the country, but should have no bearing on the constitutionality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#66 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I would consider this a win for everyone.
Your fellow anti-gays would likely disagree with Prop 8 being overturned at the ballot box as a "win for everyone"......

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#67 Mar 27, 2013
The justices seemed to be seriously loking for an "out" based on procedural grounds, i.e. teh standing issue, to not make a decsion in each case.

IF, they are seriously looking to do that, then WHY did they accept the cases in teh first place ?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#68 Mar 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fellow anti-gays would likely disagree with Prop 8 being overturned at the ballot box as a "win for everyone"......
I think you really need to ask yourself why you feel the need to paint your opposition this way?

To me, its an admission by you that your position is weak...

Do you get that I said you getting rights via a vote is good and you called that bigotry...
making that b-word kinda meaningless...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#69 Mar 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You heard what you wanted to hear.
.
http://keranews.org/post/transcript-supreme-c...
"JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage."

BTW did you catch the court slapping down all talk about EP and essentially begging them to address federalism?
I did.
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?"

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no. I know that. You're following the lead of the Solicitor General and returning to the Equal Protection Clause every time I ask a federalism question. Is there any problem under federalism principles?

"JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're you are insisting that we get to a very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with. And we are asking is it valid otherwise. What is the Federal interest in enacting this statute and is it a valid Federal interest assuming, before we get to the equal protection analysis?"

very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with.

very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#70 Mar 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The justices seemed to be seriously loking for an "out" based on procedural grounds, i.e. teh standing issue, to not make a decsion in each case.
IF, they are seriously looking to do that, then WHY did they accept the cases in teh first place ?
not so much here I think as in PRop 8...here I think they want to enforce states' sovereignty over marriage...
and end this idea that the federal govt can dictate ANY definition to a state...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#71 Mar 28, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you really need to ask yourself why you feel the need to paint your opposition this way?
To me, its an admission by you that your position is weak...
Do you get that I said you getting rights via a vote is good and you called that bigotry...
making that b-word kinda meaningless...
Because people who support equal rights know those rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popular vote.

Until the courts- either state or federal- are ready to uphold the constitution, then we have no choice but to vote, but I still oppose it on principle.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#72 Mar 28, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
http://keranews.org/post/transcript-supreme-c...
"JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage."
BTW did you catch the court slapping down all talk about EP and essentially begging them to address federalism?
I did.
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?"
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no. I know that. You're following the lead of the Solicitor General and returning to the Equal Protection Clause every time I ask a federalism question. Is there any problem under federalism principles?
"JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're you are insisting that we get to a very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with. And we are asking is it valid otherwise. What is the Federal interest in enacting this statute and is it a valid Federal interest assuming, before we get to the equal protection analysis?"
very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with.
very fundamental question about equal protection, but we don't do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with.
And the 4 liberal justices clearly are prepared to overturn DOMA on equal protection grounds.

So yes, you heard what you wanted to hear, which is why you quoted the 2 who are talking about federalism, while completely ignoring the 4 who were talking about equal protection.

You heard what you wanted to hear.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#73 Mar 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people who support equal rights know those rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popular vote.
Until the courts- either state or federal- are ready to uphold the constitution, then we have no choice but to vote, but I still oppose it on principle.
I agree.

Let's say that SCOTUS limit's their ruling to Cali and the states that already have marriage in the Prop. 8 case.

Since SCOTUS said in the Romer case that you CANNOT constitutionally care out a "gay exception" to constitutional protections, i STILL MAINTAIN, that once a couple is married in any state, gay or str8, then other states MUST legally recognize those marriages under the "full faith and credit" clause. States that do NOT legally recognize the gay marriages in performed in other states that permit them, IS "carving out an exeception to constituional protections specificaly for gay people" which SCOTUS said in Romer that YOU CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DO.

(Feel free to nominate me to SCOTUS).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chertoff Group Behind mandalay massacre 3 hr Info 1
News More 4 hr John McQuan 2
News California suspends 3 medical providers for fraud 5 hr marg 1
News Inmate walks off from Southern California firef... 6 hr marg 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr loose cannon 242,768
News Painters beautify ordinary city planters just i... 7 hr marg 1
George Norcross and Chertoff Hacks America 16 hr Wakeup 2
More from around the web