Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Aug 17, 2014 Full story: The Washington Post 929

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

Full Story
First Prev
of 47
Next Last

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

#1 Aug 18, 2014
Apparently irrelevant SCOTUS rejection of case in 1972 could be bigots' last great hope of reversing recent judicial wins for SSM. Good luck with that one, big boy!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#2 Aug 18, 2014
This will make for an interesting conversation, assuming the trolls don't hi-jack the thread.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#3 Aug 18, 2014
I would think that when the right wing of this country pushed through DOMA that would make it now a Federal issue, thus negating Baker. But, I'm not the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to Constitutional law, so I'd appreciate any input.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4 Aug 18, 2014
It was no more settled than racial segregation was settled in Plessy v Ferguson in 1896. Issues evolve over time, as do social views. We revisit legal issues because nothing is truly finite. New views, and new legal arguments, arise and deserve consideration.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 Aug 18, 2014
Great Headline.

I keep waiting for the one that asks:

"Was voting away the civil rights of a minority banned by SCOTUS over 50 years ago?"

[Hint: google West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943 ]
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
It was no more settled than racial segregation was settled in Plessy v Ferguson in 1896. Issues evolve over time, as do social views. We revisit legal issues because nothing is truly finite. New views, and new legal arguments, arise and deserve consideration.
Except for polygamy?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7 Aug 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Except for polygamy?
Polygamy, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, does not seek equality under the law.

Come back to the topic at hand, dullard.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Aug 18, 2014
A lot of lawyers defending SSM bans believe Baker precludes courts from overturning them. But so far, only one judge has agreed with them.

On the other hand, Baker was cited in the defense of every same-sex marriage ban. And it was cited in the cases that went before SCOTUS last summer. Most courts have swatted it away like a housefly, and SCOTUS has already ignored it without specifically overturning it.

Baker figures prominently in anti-gay legal briefs because it's the best hope they've got. That's kind of like talking up Sara Palin as a vice presidential candidate because that's the best they've got.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#9 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, does not seek equality under the law.
Come back to the topic at hand, dullard.
You lie. Explain it again. Explain "greater" protection of the law. You never have because you cannot. So you simply lie and say you did and expect us to buy it.

Explain it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10 Aug 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You lie. Explain it again. Explain "greater" protection of the law. You never have because you cannot. So you simply lie and say you did and expect us to buy it.
Explain it.
Frankie, if I have two apples, and you have three or more, which of us has more apples?

This isn't a difficult concept kiddo. Polygamists don't seek equality under the law, and your return to this utterly irrelevant argument is completely inept. it implies that you are too stupid either to count, or understand the irrelevance of the argument you are advancing.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#11 Aug 18, 2014
RalphB wrote:
This will make for an interesting conversation, assuming the trolls don't hi-jack the thread.
I was going to respond to this by pointing out that the trolls can't hijack a thread unless we respond to them. But I see it's too late to issue that reminder....

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12 Aug 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Except for polygamy?
File a lawsuit, if you want to see it revisited in court. Don't expect people who aren't seeking multiple spouses to do it for you.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#13 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, if I have two apples, and you have three or more....
*WHY* are you GOING there with Skankie again??? WHY?????

How much more clear does it have to be that his only and only purpose on these threads is to derail ALL the discussion so that everyone will watch him do his polygamy dance????

*WHY*???? Just *IGNORE* him. Let the grown-ups talk instead. Doesn't that sound nicer than trying to "convince" him that he's wrong??? He *KNOWS* he's wrong. That's EXACTLY why he keeps harping on it--it's the way he can get the most attention out of the most people while completely stopping all other discussion and he doesn't have to have any points, he doesn't defend them, he doesn't respond to anything that anyone every writes to him. He just keeps repeating the same thing over because he knows it works, "I'm for marriage equality--YOU are NOT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"

And then everyone comes running to defend their position and HE DOESN'T CARE!!!!

So why are you going there with him? Do you REALLY not want to discuss this story? Are you going to pave the way for no discussion here???

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#14 Aug 18, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
A lot of lawyers defending SSM bans believe Baker precludes courts from overturning them. But so far, only one judge has agreed with them.
On the other hand, Baker was cited in the defense of every same-sex marriage ban. And it was cited in the cases that went before SCOTUS last summer. Most courts have swatted it away like a housefly, and SCOTUS has already ignored it without specifically overturning it.
Baker figures prominently in anti-gay legal briefs because it's the best hope they've got. That's kind of like talking up Sara Palin as a vice presidential candidate because that's the best they've got.
I agree. What I can't figure out is how is it possible that there isn't a Federal question when it comes to ANY issue of equal protections under the law. The whole point of having a Federal constitution is to lay down parameters that can't be violated. Equal protection under the law is one of those.

How is it possible to argue that there's no Federal question for marriage equality, but at the same time say that states cannot opt to re-institute slavery if they want to? If there's no Federal question about equal protection under the law, why can't a state simply vote slavery back in, setup slave markets, and start grabbing and selling people?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#15 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists don't seek equality under the law...
Yes they do.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16 Aug 18, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
*WHY* are you GOING there with Skankie again??? WHY?????
How much more clear does it have to be that his only and only purpose on these threads is to derail ALL the discussion so that everyone will watch him do his polygamy dance????
*WHY*???? Just *IGNORE* him. Let the grown-ups talk instead. Doesn't that sound nicer than trying to "convince" him that he's wrong??? He *KNOWS* he's wrong. That's EXACTLY why he keeps harping on it--it's the way he can get the most attention out of the most people while completely stopping all other discussion and he doesn't have to have any points, he doesn't defend them, he doesn't respond to anything that anyone every writes to him. He just keeps repeating the same thing over because he knows it works, "I'm for marriage equality--YOU are NOT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"
And then everyone comes running to defend their position and HE DOESN'T CARE!!!!
So why are you going there with him? Do you REALLY not want to discuss this story? Are you going to pave the way for no discussion here???
Too funny! Relax fruit loops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#17 Aug 18, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
File a lawsuit, if you want to see it revisited in court. Don't expect people who aren't seeking multiple spouses to do it for you.

I don't wanna file a lawsuit or get married, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without your fear, insults and attempts to censor me.

I read the TOS and it says you can discuss stuff here. It doesn't say you must file a law suit in order to be allowed to.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#18 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, if I have two apples, and you have three or more, which of us has more apples?
You do because you have some stashed that you're hiding from us.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#19 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
It was no more settled than racial segregation was settled in Plessy v Ferguson in 1896. Issues evolve over time, as do social views. We revisit legal issues because nothing is truly finite. New views, and new legal arguments, arise and deserve consideration.
Are you the same lides who just told me that the baker broke the law and there are no new legal arguments that deserve consideration because it is over and done with?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#20 Aug 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists don't seek equality under the law,.
Polygamists seek the freedom and liberty to get married. Same as gay people do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 47
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.

Top Stories - Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Alabama Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage 4 hr Black Annie 11
Fight over attorneys fees reaches Supreme Court Feb 26 Patriot8251 1
Fight at US Supreme Court over Obamacare affect... Feb 25 noway 1
Supreme Court Notebook: SCOTUSblog Denied Press... Feb 10 Belle Sexton 2
Supreme Court gay marriage decision could have ... Jan '15 bdlive77 25
Same-sex marriage returns to the Supreme Court ... Jan '15 Captain Yesterday 1
Supreme Court keeps in place protections for Ca... Jan '15 Selsa4drew 2
More from around the web