Supreme Court denies motion to halt g...

Supreme Court denies motion to halt gay marriages

There are 64 comments on the USA Today story from Jun 30, 2013, titled Supreme Court denies motion to halt gay marriages. In it, USA Today reports that:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Sunday denied a last-ditch request from the sponsors of California's now-overturned gay marriage ban to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation's most populous state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#24 Jul 1, 2013
Jeff wrote:
The Supreme Court is a joke.
until they vote in YOUR favor, huh? Gotcha.
Fabulous Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#25 Jul 1, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get access to a computer? It's too early for you to be let out of your padded cell for therapy. Shock treatment should work wonders for you. Hang in there lil [email protected]
The computer was invented by an uber-fabulous gay person; sugar
.
Knowing this; you can now see the world in a wonderful new light
The Troll Stopper

Chesapeake, OH

#26 Jul 1, 2013
Fabulous Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>The computer was invented by an uber-fabulous gay person; sugar
.
Knowing this; you can now see the world in a wonderful new light
Get lost [email protected]
Fabulous Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#27 Jul 1, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Get lost [email protected]
You don't love me anymore; sugar?

Since: Apr 13

Hammond, IN

#28 Jul 1, 2013
To bad redumlicans. The Supreme court of which I believe thrives on right winged glory hole drippings is here to stop states from running rough shot over the constitution and doing whatever they want kinda like Tex Ass keeps trying and getting it's hillbilly ass kicked. So suck it up ( no pun intended) and get over the fact that your religious b/s/ doesn't mean s..t as compared to real people who wrote real laws on real paper and not on some stone tablet by the light of a burning bush and something about snakes and whatever imaginary crap runs your lives. Congrats to the gay community. Maybe the southern states will finally secede and we can take all the free shit they get to take care of the poorest people in the country. It's to bad their to dumb to know it but hey, they got'em a nice stars and bars flag in front of the trailer. Free form the Rick Perry for governor campaign.
polabo

Natchitoches, LA

#30 Jul 1, 2013
yonse2 wrote:
The Court didn't rule on the morality. It ruled that in a free society, everyone's rights must be protected. We are, above all, a place of Freedom. Paid for by the ultimate sacrifice of all. This is God's will for the world. He made it that way. He gave us the right of free choice.
He gave us Jesus for the forgiveness of wrong choices. A whisper, not a shout. Gay people don't need anyone to dictate right or wrong. If it is wrong, they'll find out. The way I found out about my wrong choices. Christ will be there for them as He was, and is, for me.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". Matthew 22:37
Be careful when you single out one passage in the Bible, unless you're going to include many more. The only time in the New Testament that Jesus used the word 'abomination' was in reference to greed for money. Luke 16:15 Churches don't like to zero in on that one though. Wonder why.
IMO: When in doubt, Love. That's what Jesus would say. Let God worry about these sins. Remember: HE gave us free choice, beginning with Adam and Eve.
Your on the right path,adam and eve not adam and steve--
Cow El

Noblesville, IN

#31 Jul 1, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Get lost [email protected]
Wishingtoon, DC=Drama Club!!;-00
Cow El

Noblesville, IN

#32 Jul 1, 2013
Jeff wrote:
The Supreme Court is a joke.
;) it's a Sprise Court or Supre+me?!! help U C clear now!!;-00

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#33 Jul 1, 2013
polabo wrote:
<quoted text>Your on the right path,adam and eve not adam and steve--
God made everyone. Trying to pretend He didn't make steve is blasphemy.
mea

United States

#34 Jul 1, 2013
The Supreme Court undoubtedly decided the whole
case a month after they took it on. Then, the wait
begins for the justices to decide who will write
the opinions.
This Prop CA case was brought before the SC by some
'backers' and the SC said that these were the wrong people to bring it to their court. The 'backers' didn't have standing.

Then, the 'backers' had about 22 days to ask again.....but the CA system jumped right to it and
removed the ban and started licensing the LGTB unions.

Now, the case is there should have been 22 days yet so how come the CA system jumped?

“Better Dead than red!”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#35 Jul 1, 2013
Seems those idiots have forgotten what their role is supposed to be.
mea

United States

#36 Jul 1, 2013
The opponents of LGTB licensed unions are
educated enough to know that
marriage is a term reserved for the joining of one man and one woman. Human man cannot 'marry' anyone because it is GOD that does the uniting. It was GOD that called it 'marriage.'
When there is a sacrament of marriage, along side of that event, human man also does the licensing of that union.

So, when news people say "opponents of gay marriage,"
1) they are insulting LGTB people by calling them
all GAY, putting a label on them, separating them apart into a group.
2)they are not using language properly. People who are knowledgeable about what marriage is know
that there is no such thing as a 'gay marriage.'
God said He will not unit people of the same-sex, or will not unit anything but one man and one woman. And He doesn't do this.
So how could someone be opposed to something that doesn't occur?

The correct term is 'the licensing of LGTB unions.'

Many people are against the licensing of these kinds of unions because it is discriminatory.
There may be unions with children,or monkeys, or multiple 'spousal' partners. THESE should be licensed, too.

And what about single people? Should they be discriminated against just because they choose not to be unionized with another one or many?

The issue is not "Gay rights". The issue should be
ALL American Equality Rights and that includes all kinds of unionizing.

LGTB people are twisting the equality truth...because what they are asking isn't in the least for equal anything, but for ONLY THEM...making them special and preferred over anything else.

It is a lie and stupid people are falling for it.
Stupid people are believing that "oh, gay people have rights too and we should treat them equal equal."

Yes, we should license their unionizing but yes we should license all the other kinds of unionizing, too!
mea

United States

#37 Jul 1, 2013
starringuandi wrote:
Seems those idiots have forgotten what their role is supposed to be.
Think....you have a complaint about a pair of pants that you recently purchased. You should take it to the store to get the matter "ironed" out. But instead, you had your friend take it to Mexico while on vacation to ask some restaurant about the problem.

The friend does not have 'standing.'

The SC know what their role is and don't want to be bothered with
complaints that don't belong in their court.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#38 Jul 1, 2013
mea wrote:
The opponents of LGTB licensed unions are
educated enough to know ...
But evidently not educated enough to know that most of what they know is wrong. Your problems with our being treated as equal citizens of our own country, not our problem. We will be equal, whether you have issues with that or not. Sorry.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#39 Jul 1, 2013
fr Fabulous Rainbow Kid:

>.....not to mention that the PropH8 lawyer; Andy Pugno; is a snarling homophobe on the same pathetic level of insanity as Michigan's ex-assistant attorney general; Andrew Shirvell
.
So it is actually the madcap lawyer himself who is banging his head on the Supreme Court's door<

Yep, sure is. He should be known as andy repugnant.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#40 Jul 1, 2013
fr mea:

>...LGTB people are twisting the equality truth...because what they are asking isn't in the least for equal anything, but for ONLY THEM...making them special and preferred over anything else. <

Not true. We only want AND DESERVE, full and equal rights, to be able to marry the non-attached, consenting, ADULT PERSON of our choice. Please have a grownup explain it to you.
The Troll Stopper

United States

#41 Jul 1, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr mea:

>...LGTB people are twisting the equality truth...because what they are asking isn't in the least for equal anything, but for ONLY THEM...making them special and preferred over anything else. <

Not true. We only want AND DESERVE, full and equal rights, to be able to marry the non-attached, consenting, ADULT PERSON of our choice. Please have a grownup explain it to you.
Someone needs to explain to you that you're a fking Moron

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#42 Jul 1, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have never once, not ever, disagreed with a Supreme Court decision?
Never said that.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#43 Jul 1, 2013
mea wrote:
The opponents of LGTB licensed unions are
educated enough to know that
marriage is a term reserved for the joining of one man and one woman. Human man cannot 'marry' anyone because it is GOD that does the uniting. It was GOD that called it 'marriage.'
When there is a sacrament of marriage, along side of that event, human man also does the licensing of that union.
So, when news people say "opponents of gay marriage,"
1) they are insulting LGTB people by calling them
all GAY, putting a label on them, separating them apart into a group.
2)they are not using language properly. People who are knowledgeable about what marriage is know
that there is no such thing as a 'gay marriage.'
God said He will not unit people of the same-sex, or will not unit anything but one man and one woman. And He doesn't do this.
So how could someone be opposed to something that doesn't occur?
The correct term is 'the licensing of LGTB unions.'
Many people are against the licensing of these kinds of unions because it is discriminatory.
There may be unions with children,or monkeys, or multiple 'spousal' partners. THESE should be licensed, too.
And what about single people? Should they be discriminated against just because they choose not to be unionized with another one or many?
The issue is not "Gay rights". The issue should be
ALL American Equality Rights and that includes all kinds of unionizing.
LGTB people are twisting the equality truth...because what they are asking isn't in the least for equal anything, but for ONLY THEM...making them special and preferred over anything else.
It is a lie and stupid people are falling for it.
Stupid people are believing that "oh, gay people have rights too and we should treat them equal equal."
Yes, we should license their unionizing but yes we should license all the other kinds of unionizing, too!
Your god does not own marriage. No one needs to be married in a church, temple or synagogue to have a legal marriage. Nor does one have to follow your personal description of the word marriage. Read a history book, marriage customs differ widely from one culture to another and all have changed over time.

Quit trying to split hairs, it isn't working.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44 Jul 1, 2013
mea wrote:
The Supreme Court undoubtedly decided the whole
case a month after they took it on. Then, the wait
begins for the justices to decide who will write
the opinions.
This Prop CA case was brought before the SC by some
'backers' and the SC said that these were the wrong people to bring it to their court. The 'backers' didn't have standing.
Then, the 'backers' had about 22 days to ask again.....but the CA system jumped right to it and
removed the ban and started licensing the LGTB unions.
Now, the case is there should have been 22 days yet so how come the CA system jumped?
They knew that the SCotUS would do just what it did ... deny the Petition for Rehearing.

You know why?

The Petitioners did not have Standing to file the Petition.

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.

Top Stories - Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How the Supreme Court's immigration decision hu... 10 hr Romneycare killed... 7
News Transgender bathroom case may go to Supreme Court Jun 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... Jun 4 WasteWater 85
News Time for atheist on Supreme Court? (Apr '10) Jun 3 Happy Old Geezer 46
News Choose carefully: The next president could shap... Apr '16 Le Jimbo 45
News NFL Team Asks Supreme Court to Consider 'Redski... Apr '16 discuss 1
News Senators offer praise but no vote for Obama's S... Apr '16 He Named Me Black... 4
More from around the web