In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,144

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#808 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup.
I think that's exactly what the prop 8 case is going to do...
okay here's my call: they are taking the prop 8 case to counter their DOMA decision so that its clear the states have the right to decide for themselves...
as CA did...
That's what THIS court might do, but my question was more about whether you think the Baker precedent (or a new Prop 8 precedent)will stand if there is a liberal majority on the SCOTUS in the next decade?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#809 Dec 7, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Full disclosure, Jane, we have already established that the high court neither heard oral arguments, nor issued a ruling.
AGAIN and again and again, they DID issue a ruling dope...
It was "affirmed" ON THE MERITS.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#810 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it depends on what the SCOTUS wants to do. If they want to uphold DOMA then they will do so under rational basis. If they want to overturn DOMA then they will do so under either an enhanced rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. It all depends on what the majority wants to do.
My guess is they're not taking the 2nd circuit cases because Justice Kagan would likely have recussed herself, which could have resulted in a 4-4 tie.
Nah, DOMA is dead on state's rights alone, they don't even need to do the EP analysis and so they likely will not...

My guess is this is exactly why they took Prop 8, to make clear that STATES can decided for themselves as CA did...

But yes, the standard of review will be everything...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#811 Dec 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what THIS court might do, but my question was more about whether you think the Baker precedent (or a new Prop 8 precedent)will stand if there is a liberal majority on the SCOTUS in the next decade?
It will because Perry will confirm it...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#812 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
AGAIN and again and again, they DID issue a ruling dope...
It was "affirmed" ON THE MERITS.
No ruling, Jane. Dismissal.

Feel free to make an attempt to defend your precious binding precedent. I don't think you have the chops to do so. Merely citing a case does not make a valid argument. particularly when you can only find one case to cite. Don't bother to offer the Ny State Court's decision which has been superseded by legislation, each time you do, you merely reinforce how feeble minded you really are.

You certainly lack the chops to offer any legitimate reason why same sex couples should be denied equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#813 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It will because Perry will confirm it...
Since it would most likely be the 4 conservatives plus Kennedy voting that way, you think that would stand if there is a 5 or 6 justice liberal majority on a future SCOTUS?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#814 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, DOMA is dead on state's rights alone, they don't even need to do the EP analysis and so they likely will not...
My guess is this is exactly why they took Prop 8, to make clear that STATES can decided for themselves as CA did...
But yes, the standard of review will be everything...
I think the standard of review will depend on what the justices intent is.

If they want to simply overturn DOMA and go no further, then they'll likely use some form of rational basis. But if they want to lay the groundwork for future challenges to state bans, then they'll likely use some form of suspect classification.

The standard of review all depends on what they want their ruling to do.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#815 Dec 7, 2012
Samatha wrote:
Do you really think you won some kind of victory?
DOMA has only been deemed unconstitutional because the Obama Administration refuses to defend it.
The truths about Gays are still true.
>>
<quoted text>
Obama quit defending it AFTER it was ruled unconstitutional, and then it was defended by the Republicans. The reason it continues to be declared unconstitutional is that it provides nothing to straight families while only harming gay families for no good reason. Irrational prejudice is the only excuse.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient to justify harming gay families while providing no benefit to straight families.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#819 Dec 7, 2012
OK, I'm gonna say something right now, every time I come back to this thread, there are *sixty to eighty* more posts, and I have a hunch that that is because ONE ANTIGAY POSTER is insistent upon answering every post addressed to her, fueling the fires, and going on and on with this matter when it's obvious that

no one

is going to budge.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#820 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misinterpreting my fending off daily personal attacks with bias...
I acknowledged that you were not being *literally malicious* in some of your earlier wording; it doesn't change my view of your intent. Wait, to be clear: It changes that I realize you are probably *not* being malicious, and that's all.
Jane Dough wrote:
In short, if many of the posters here were not so aggressive and chuck attitude, I wouldn't have to..
I almost laughed out loud. You have a long, long life ahead of you if you think you'll get the pro-gay to "stop" having these vicious attitudes.

Know what? I'll tell you how to stop these vicious attitudes: Go to the antigay and tell them to shut their fucking mouths, once and for all, and all of this would stop.

Mark.

My.

Words.
Jane Dough wrote:
I don't with those who don't, but if you want to pitch some obnoxious, clearly I can do that...
Oh, you'll be here for a looooong time. You're not gonna stop that nastiness; in fact, you're going about this backwards: Tell the *antigay*(the really virulent, hateful ones) to stop, and all of this will stop.

Mark.

My.

Words.

I gotta laugh; you're gonna be here *FOREVER*, "JANE DOUGH," trying to stop these people from mouthing off at you. You don't grasp, don't *WANT* to grasp, that *THEY* are fending off attacks from satanist rapists who are constantly trying to demonize them.

So *shrug* have fun with that. Because I *PROMISE* you between you, me and god you'll be doing this for the rest of your life -- UNTIL the prejudice against gay and pro-gay individuals *STOPS*.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#821 Dec 7, 2012
"JANE DOUGH," I'll tell you one good thing for your "cause" -- I believe the supreme court is going to uphold proposition 8 in California.

There was *Z-E-R-O* reason for them to take that case except to overrule the previous courts, as the second of those previous courts ruled on *narrow state grounds*.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#822 Dec 8, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Since it would most likely be the 4 conservatives plus Kennedy voting that way, you think that would stand if there is a 5 or 6 justice liberal majority on a future SCOTUS?
Let's not forget that Chief Justice Roberts broke ranks on ObamaCare. It's not over until it's over,and this hasn't even been argued yet.

As Jane frequently illustrates, there is no valid argument against marriage equality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#823 Dec 8, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not forget that Chief Justice Roberts broke ranks on ObamaCare. It's not over until it's over,and this hasn't even been argued yet.
As Jane frequently illustrates, there is no valid argument against marriage equality.
I don't think the justices actually base their decisions on the constitution. They have to JUSTIFY their decisions based on constitutional grounds, but I think on issues like this they already have their minds made up.

They're just looking for a good reason to either uphold or overturn the law, depending on their point of view.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#824 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I don't think the justices actually base their decisions on the constitution. They have to JUSTIFY their decisions based on constitutional grounds, but I think on issues like this they already have their minds made up.
They're just looking for a good reason to either uphold or overturn the law, depending on their point of view.
I don't disagree. However, there is only so far one can rationalize their position before it simply becomes blatant judicial activism (ahem, justice Scalia).

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#825 Dec 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the justices actually base their decisions on the constitution. They have to JUSTIFY their decisions based on constitutional grounds, but I think on issues like this they already have their minds made up.
They're just looking for a good reason to either uphold or overturn the law, depending on their point of view.
I, too, have often thought that Supreme Court hearings were just a good show. We have in hand at least one case, however, where Chief Justice Roberts changed his position as deliberations moved forward. I don't think changes happen often, but perhaps its worth all the hoopla for the few occasions that it does.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#826 Dec 9, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I, too, have often thought that Supreme Court hearings were just a good show. We have in hand at least one case, however, where Chief Justice Roberts changed his position as deliberations moved forward. I don't think changes happen often, but perhaps its worth all the hoopla for the few occasions that it does.
And remember that for all of our fears of how the Justices might rule, things are changing in the real world and it might be okay to be hopefully optimistic, yet realistically cautious all at the same time.

It is my belief that with all the evidence regarding DOMA, and the previous wins at the lower Courts, that I believe the Justices will find Section 3 Unconstitutional, but I would have liked Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on this one.........seeing what she wrote about the Sodomy law regarding Lawrence vs Texas.

With regards to Prop 8, it could be the Standing issue alone that finally causes the plug to be pulled, but again, with 18,000 still legally married Same-Sex couples and then telling other Gay and Lesbian couples that they can't marry because they missed a window of opportunity......I just believe that they won't overturn, at least Judge Walker's ruling, maybe the 9th because of the Standing issue.......but we will see soon enough!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#827 Dec 9, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
With regards to Prop 8, it could be the Standing issue alone that finally causes the plug to be pulled,
both cases could be decided upon standing alone, however I doubt the high court would take either case only to throw it out on the basis of standing.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#828 Dec 9, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
both cases could be decided upon standing alone, however I doubt the high court would take either case only to throw it out on the basis of standing.
I agree.......but it is an easy out for them if they can't make the more complex ruling and do the right thing!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#829 Dec 9, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.......but it is an easy out for them if they can't make the more complex ruling and do the right thing!!!
I doubt they would have taken the cases only to dismiss for lack of standing. Not accepting the cases would yield the same result.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#830 Dec 9, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt they would have taken the cases only to dismiss for lack of standing. Not accepting the cases would yield the same result.
Again, I agree with you, but let's face reality here.......the Standing issue does give them an out if for some reason, let's say that the Conservative Justices can't convince Justice Kennedy to go in their direction......they may decide then to say that the proponents of Prop 8 never had standing, overturn the 9th's ruling and leave Judge Walker's ruling in place........at this point whatever we think, is just speculation......we will have to wait and see what happens, but I do have faith in Olson and Boies being able to win in our favor.......and I do have a little faith in SCOTUS when it comes to ruling in favor of individual rights.......but I am also realistically cautious that it could go against us........hopefully, I'll have a happy celebration in June!!!

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min B as in B S as in S 49,215
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Agents of Corruption 293,136
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Incognito4Ever 1,154,072
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Blitzking 132,662
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 13 min Knights Realm 5,420
The uncomfortable truth about racism in America 19 min Chicopee 240
Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in... 27 min Otter in the Ozarks 6
US sends 4 Afghans back home from Guantanamo 1 hr Ciprian 3
2016 hopeful Ben Carson pledges support for Israel 1 hr Hooogle It 6
Obama calls on women only at news conference 2 hr Hooogle It 11
More from around the web