Supreme Court Returns with Gay Marriage, Voting Rights and More in View

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WLTI-FM Syracuse

UPDATE: The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear the Prop 8 case: Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26 and the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor on March 27.

Comments
1 - 20 of 39 Comments Last updated Jan 11, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

3

If SCOTUS understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of homosexual marriage.
Anonymous

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

JrEsq wrote:
If SCOTUS understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of homosexual marriage.
ahhh Tinkerbell - You in Fantasy Land? It aint gonna happen deary......there ARE NOW in America - 10's of 1000's of MARRIED Gay Cpls...Yep, MARRIED!!! You think SCOTUS is just gonna annul the Marriages of ALL those Gay cpls.....WAKE UP, you're DREAMIN'!!!! So poor you......why dont you go to Iran if you dont like Gay people?...and IF SCOTUS TRULY Understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will make Marriage Equality the LAW of the Land..you know, like those words ..Liberty & Justice for ALL....!! Sooo Poor you - you need a Waaambulance?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

JrEsq wrote:
If SCOTUS understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of homosexual marriage.
If they don't, will you find a different society? Please?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JrEsq wrote:
If SCOTUS understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of homosexual marriage.
If SCOTUS understands it's role as determining what "equal protetction of the laws" means, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of barring homosexual marriage.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If they don't, will you find a different society? Please?
if they do, will you?

I mean for consistency's sake...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 7, 2013
 
Good to know that the dates have been set......now, will they video cam it? or will we have to find out how the arguments went another way?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if they do, will you?
I mean for consistency's sake...
Jane Dough did ya change your nic again?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
if they do, will you?
I mean for consistency's sake...
What "consistency" do you mean? I wasn't the one complaining that the job of our nation's highest court is to create a second-class citizenry. People who complain that a society just isn't a society unless it has people that it can mistreat and exclude, are the ones who should live up to their own complaints. I made no such complaint. It wouldn't be "consistent" for me to follow up on JrEsq's complaints

So, no.

The only thing "consistent" is people who consistently prove that they can't SHARE society with their fellow citizens. They simply aren't happy unless they have someone "different" to point at, to make themselves feel better about their own differences.

JrEsq won't be consistent either, if SCOTUS finds as he fears. He'll stay in this society, and accept the decision. He'll be all talk, and no walk.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 7, 2013
 
I love being the first poster on a new thread. It really puts the homosexuals on the defensive. But when I start my own thread, it always gets deleted. I do that occasionally just to demonstrate that homosexuals can't stand the truth.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 7, 2013
 
JrEsq wrote:
I love being the first poster on a new thread. It really puts the homosexuals on the defensive. But when I start my own thread, it always gets deleted. I do that occasionally just to demonstrate that homosexuals can't stand the truth.
It really only makes us wonder how much time you spend online, searching for homosexual subject matter. Do you have your OWN life to live, or your OWN marriage to attend to? Don't they get neglected, while you're busy being curious about gay people?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 8, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane Dough did ya change your nic again?
I did.

Seemed people thought using a female name as a male was lying and dishonest...
which i found curious for a group defending real life transgenders
So i changed....
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 8, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What "consistency" do you mean? I wasn't the one complaining that the job of our nation's highest court is to create a second-class citizenry. People who complain that a society just isn't a society unless it has people that it can mistreat and exclude, are the ones who should live up to their own complaints. I made no such complaint. It wouldn't be "consistent" for me to follow up on JrEsq's complaints
So, no.
The only thing "consistent" is people who consistently prove that they can't SHARE society with their fellow citizens. They simply aren't happy unless they have someone "different" to point at, to make themselves feel better about their own differences.
JrEsq won't be consistent either, if SCOTUS finds as he fears. He'll stay in this society, and accept the decision. He'll be all talk, and no walk.
wow, you guys really play the victim card to the T...
but its overplayed....

you feel justified by your beliefs and no one else is...that's why you cannot seem to fathom "consistency"...

you are feeling like you are right...
but guess what, they feel they are right too..
imagine that!
you could if you could think consistently...

if the scotus finds WE are right....would that have any effect on you?

NOPE...so why are you trying to pretend it should mean anything to him?

consistency????

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 8, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I did.
Seemed people thought using a female name as a male was lying and dishonest...
which i found curious for a group defending real life transgenders
So i changed....
Is there something wrong with folks who feel they should have been a girl instead of a boy or the other way around? I mean you make it sound like being a true transgender person is somehow bad......why?

Frankly, it wasn't your nic that bothered me, but your attitude. Somehow you figured that because you claim you are this supposed "lawyer" that makes you some EXPERT on legal law and the rest of us incapable of giving an opinion on things we have been learning about, reading about and understanding about cases personally involving us or our marriages.

Thanks for at least responding to my post!!!
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 8, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there something wrong with folks who feel they should have been a girl instead of a boy or the other way around? I mean you make it sound like being a true transgender person is somehow bad......why?
no, actually, I was speaking to the idea that you guys argue what you have, yet take offense at a male using a female nic here...can you explain that wild inconsistency?
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

Frankly, it wasn't your nic that bothered me, but your attitude. Somehow you figured that because you claim you are this supposed "lawyer" that makes you some EXPERT on legal law and the rest of us incapable of giving an opinion on things we have been learning about, reading about and understanding about cases personally involving us or our marriages.
Thanks for at least responding to my post!!!
Again, notice I never insist or justify my argument with that, I just address Mona's constant attacks?
Who brings it up? Never me....
go look back, I am 100% confident...

your side makes daily ad hominem attacks and I defend with my attitude...
luckily, I have lots of confidence so that their bullying is ineffective...
So I have raised the fact I am an attorney (Months ago) only to show that Mona's stupid claim, and all the attacks about my level of understand have no effect on me because I am aware of this REALITY...

It doesn't make me more right or wrong, but clearly I know in reality I am not stupid and I know the law VERY well...despite what non lawyers want to say about me...
see what I mean?

Its as if you were a musicians and I said you were tone deaf....you would KNOW it wasn't true...

you must see the nasty people on your side and how they attack?
right?

You would be surprised if you met me, I am not the person Mona aka Jane DoDo troll likes to pretend, but ad hominem is all that dude has....

anyway, nice to have a civil discussion with you...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 8, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, actually, I was speaking to the idea that you guys argue what you have, yet take offense at a male using a female nic here...can you explain that wild inconsistency?
Truly your nic is irrelevant to me.......so your comments concerning Mona are also irrelevant to me......that's between you and that poster!!!

I can't explain why others do what they do.......I can only explain what I do......somehow I would thought you'd have figured that out by now!!!

Peace
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 8, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Truly your nic is irrelevant to me.......so your comments concerning Mona are also irrelevant to me......that's between you and that poster!!!
I can't explain why others do what they do.......I can only explain what I do......somehow I would thought you'd have figured that out by now!!!
Peace
I would say you should not judge posters in a vacuum, but assess them in the context of the tripe they must deal with....
So why not limit your judgment of me to our discussions?

Have I not been more than civil with you when you have been with me?

Have I ever told you I was right because of my job and your job?

peace and elbow grease!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 8, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say you should not judge posters in a vacuum, but assess them in the context of the tripe they must deal with....
So why not limit your judgment of me to our discussions?
Have I not been more than civil with you when you have been with me?
Have I ever told you I was right because of my job and your job?
peace and elbow grease!
We've had our difference in the past and I don't believe I am qualified to judge anyone, I leave that up to a Higher Power, for me that's God......but that doesn't mean I won't stand my ground if I feel I am being negatively attacked.

That being said, I don't believe I have truly been nasty towards you, but more towards your particular position and how you have come across in your words.

I also will figuratively walk away from further discussions with you if I feel that we are just going in circles........but I will not get into a negative battle with you at this point about this issue.......regardless of our positions, SCOTUS will decide these cases regardless of how I personally feel about them.....but I do have very strong thoughts on how they might rule......but at this point, I'll keep those close to me and wait until June to express them.

Peace to you and yours, May the New Year bring you peace and prosperity!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 8, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
wow, you guys really play the victim card to the T...
"Guys"? ONE person speaks, and you attribute what he says to EVERYONE? To ALL gay people? Exactly how BROAD is your brush?
straight shooter wrote:
but its overplayed....
Because you say so?
straight shooter wrote:
you feel justified by your beliefs and no one else is...that's why you cannot seem to fathom "consistency"...
No, I just can't fathom YOUR USE of the word. I don't have to bitch about the same things that JrEsq bitches about. I don't have to agree that it's bad for society if gay people can legally protect their families. If JrEsq is crazy and hateful, I don't have to be EQUALLY crazy and hateful, just to satisfy your sense of "consistency".
straight shooter wrote:
you are feeling like you are right...
but guess what, they feel they are right too..
imagine that!
you could if you could think consistently...
There is nothing "right" about the belief that gay people should be locked out of social convention, and looked down on like criminals or worse. This is a xenophobic attitude held by those who simply don't understand people who are different from them, and who refuse to even learn. There is no rational argument in the position are out to "destroy" society, and there's no nobility in defending those who HOLD that position.
straight shooter wrote:
if the scotus finds WE are right....would that have any effect on you?
NOPE...
YEP.

Why do you think we're even FIGHTING this fight? Because the results would have no effect on us? What motivation would THAT hold? Do you think we're out to just rile people up for the fun of it?

We have families and loved ones that we're trying to PROTECT, man. Just like you do. Just like JrEsq does, I suspect. Current laws seriously impact how my partner and I can legally represent one another, and how well we can plan for our future together. Maybe you all take those protections for granted, I don't know, but I happen to think they're a precious thing to pursue.
straight shooter wrote:
so why are you trying to pretend it should mean anything to him?
consistency????
It SHOULDN'T mean anything to him. People like that need to realize that they don't have a dog in this fight, and that they should keep their noses OUT of it. No one is trying to take JrEsq's marriage rights away, or dictate who he can or cannot marry. His only involvement is to meddle in the lives of people who live differently than he does.

"Consistency" would mean that HE should live his life freely and happily, without infringement on others, just as I'M trying to do. Intead, he INconsistently spreads the propaganda that some of his fellow citizens are not worth sharing the country with, and that it is somehow "antisocial" for us to seek companionship, commitment, and inclusion.

And you stick up for him.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 8, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

Peace to you and yours, May the New Year bring you peace and prosperity!!!
right back acha...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 8, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

No, I just can't fathom YOUR USE of the word.
I know, its part of you inability to be consistent...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

There is nothing "right" about the belief that gay people should be locked out of social convention, and looked down on like criminals or worse.
how you take it is your problem, why we do it is for proper purposes...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Current laws seriously impact how my partner and I can legally represent one another, and how well we can plan for our future together.
no, plan as the law stands....
thats the way it will be...
you dont get teh benfits...

and ay why do you reject CU's....
all those reasons (your belief you are similarly a situated etc) have nothing to do with rights...it has to do with sameness....and you are not the same...you can take that as me saying you are worse, but that's your problem...saying the beatles are the best says NOTHING about the kinks, you are just crying and we" are tired of it...

YOU ARE FREE to go and live with, love and boink anyone you want, was that enough?
NO...
you need us to say you are the same, but you're not, so we won't say you are. Period.

That you need it to mean you are worse is your problem...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
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.

•••