Analysis: Gay marriage votes could sw...

Analysis: Gay marriage votes could sway Supreme Court

There are 15 comments on the www.reuters.com story from Nov 8, 2012, titled Analysis: Gay marriage votes could sway Supreme Court. In it, www.reuters.com reports that:

After victories for same-sex marriage initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington state this week, the two sides in the national debate over gay marriage are positioning for advantage as the issue moves toward the U.S. Supreme Court..

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.reuters.com.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1 Nov 8, 2012
Upholding the lower court's decision on prop 8 would leave it at the states deciding one by one. This fellow Brown is offering a false argument that such a decision would impose gay marriage. His statement is either totally ignorant or completely cynical. Typical fear mongering reactionary rhetoric.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Nov 8, 2012
If the Court were to actually hear the appeal in Perry, their decision would pretty much seal the fate of all the others. It's why they WON'T be hearing the appeal in Perry. Olsen and Boies would be walking in with the argument that not only is California's amendment not sound constitutionally, but by extension, they all are. What do they do?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#3 Nov 8, 2012
Well, hopefully SCOTUS takes on the issue instead of tabling it, and declares marriage equality a constitutional matter.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4 Nov 9, 2012
Well, now there are several more states where the legal marriages they conduct are considered invalid by the federal government.

I would hope that might mean something to the court.
Really

Knoxville, TN

#5 Nov 9, 2012
Lacez wrote:
Well, hopefully SCOTUS takes on the issue instead of tabling it, and declares marriage equality a constitutional matter.
Well it is not, no were in the Constitution does it say we sould allow this garrbage, it is not justice it is wrong and the Bible plainly forbids it. Ever sence our moraless President made it ok for Gays to be in our military everyone of you all think you should have everything. It should be illegal to choose to be the way are and live, dont tell me you were born that way because that is bull too, yes we all were born sinners it is called sin nature but God does not make mistakes. Everything happens for a reason and if he did make a gay person that would be a mistake on his part. He did make us to be able to make our own decisions and we all do, some to live right and some to live wrong. I realize you will try your best to justify the way you are and that is ook what ever gets your mund off your pathway to Hell hope you like a warm climate. God made Adam and Eve and said a man should leave his parents and marry a woman there is no and if it is one of the ones I made to be gay they say leave there dads and moms and marry their Gay lover and the bible also says we should be fruitfull this means have babies and last time I checked the only set of people that can make babies are a Man and a women not two men or two women the bible does not say be friutfull unless you are gay then please buy a baby from a different country and raise it to be the same way I made you. So instead of our government patting your hands and saying it is ok to be who you are they need to be making it harder on you all and push you all to stop living a lie and striving for someones attention.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#6 Nov 9, 2012
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Well it is not, no were in the Constitution does it say we sould allow this garrbage, it is not justice it is wrong and the Bible plainly forbids it. Ever sence our moraless President made it ok for Gays to be in our military everyone of you all think you should have everything. It should be illegal to choose to be the way are and live, dont tell me you were born that way because that is bull too, yes we all were born sinners it is called sin nature but God does not make mistakes. Everything happens for a reason and if he did make a gay person that would be a mistake on his part. He did make us to be able to make our own decisions and we all do, some to live right and some to live wrong. I realize you will try your best to justify the way you are and that is ook what ever gets your mund off your pathway to Hell hope you like a warm climate. God made Adam and Eve and said a man should leave his parents and marry a woman there is no and if it is one of the ones I made to be gay they say leave there dads and moms and marry their Gay lover and the bible also says we should be fruitfull this means have babies and last time I checked the only set of people that can make babies are a Man and a women not two men or two women the bible does not say be friutfull unless you are gay then please buy a baby from a different country and raise it to be the same way I made you. So instead of our government patting your hands and saying it is ok to be who you are they need to be making it harder on you all and push you all to stop living a lie and striving for someones attention.
The second you mentioned religion was the second I stopped trying to decipher your comment. I skimmed through the rest and yup, as I thought, full of uneducated bull and grammatical errors. Can't you religious nuts come up with a coherent argument?

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#7 Nov 9, 2012
Really wrote:
<quoted text>... the Bible ... we all were born sinners ...God ... Hell ...God ...Adam and Eve ... the bible ... the bible ....
Fortunately, your religious beliefs will not be a source for civil law debate in the courts.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Nov 9, 2012
Really wrote:
Well it is not, no were in the Constitution does it say we sould allow this garrbage, it is not justice it is wrong and the Bible plainly forbids it.
First off sweetie, you version of the Bible really doesn't matter outside your home or church. Just because you have chosen to believe something, doesn't mean that those of us who choose not to have to live according to your beliefs. Secondly, we the people, as individuals, have the fundamental constitutional right to enter into state sanctioned marriage, whether your version of God approves or not. The question is whether that right is shared by those who would rather make that kind of commitment to someone of the same sex.
Really wrote:
Ever sence our moraless President made it ok for Gays to be in our military everyone of you all think you should have everything.
Luckily for your ilk, we don't want everything dearie, merely equality under the law. By the by sweetie, just because someone isn't sharing in some of what you are passing off as morals, does not mean that they are "moraless".
Really wrote:
It should be illegal to choose to be the way are and live, dont tell me you were born that way because that is bull too, yes we all were born sinners it is called sin nature but God does not make mistakes. Everything happens for a reason and if he did make a gay person that would be a mistake on his part. He did make us to be able to make our own decisions and we all do, some to live right and some to live wrong. I realize you will try your best to justify the way you are and that is ook what ever gets your mund off your pathway to Hell hope you like a warm climate. God made Adam and Eve and said a man should leave his parents and marry a woman there is no and if it is one of the ones I made to be gay they say leave there dads and moms and marry their Gay lover and the bible also says we should be fruitfull this means have babies and last time I checked the only set of people that can make babies are a Man and a women not two men or two women the bible does not say be friutfull unless you are gay then please buy a baby from a different country and raise it to be the same way I made you. So instead of our government patting your hands and saying it is ok to be who you are they need to be making it harder on you all and push you all to stop living a lie and striving for someones attention.
Our government shouldn't be doing the dirty work of anyone's Gods sweetie. If he don't like the "way we live", that would be his and your problem, not ours. You don't get to make our lives miserable here on earth, if the "way we live" is not causing harm to you, others or ourselves.

Dumpling, you have every right to CHOOSE to believe God loves/hates the **** and you also have the right to CHOOSE to believe that your God and by extension you, are the only ones who are right, but you need to remember that WE have every right to CHOOSE to believe that God clearly believes differently than you do. We all have the right not to live according each others beliefs, get used to it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9 Nov 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
If the Court were to actually hear the appeal in Perry, their decision would pretty much seal the fate of all the others. It's why they WON'T be hearing the appeal in Perry. Olsen and Boies would be walking in with the argument that not only is California's amendment not sound constitutionally, but by extension, they all are. What do they do?
Exactly.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 Nov 9, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Exactly.
I think they would rather wait and see if we can take one down with a popular vote of our own before deciding on the fate of the rest. This time it's the baby that goes, were keeping the bathwater.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11 Nov 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I think they would rather wait and see if we can take one down with a popular vote of our own before deciding on the fate of the rest. This time it's the baby that goes, were keeping the bathwater.
Not sure I understand your point here.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Nov 9, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Not sure I understand your point here.
Since they aren't going to want to address the problems with the bathwater (the questionable constitutionality of all such amendments), the baby currently in it (California's Amendment) is going to be pretty unceremoniously tossed in its stead. It will have to be addressed eventually, but in order to make overturning the whole lot of them all at once more palatable, we will have to prove that the tide has indeed finally turned and we are able to take one of these bad boys down at the ballot box.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14 Nov 10, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Since they aren't going to want to address the problems with the bathwater (the questionable constitutionality of all such amendments), the baby currently in it (California's Amendment) is going to be pretty unceremoniously tossed in its stead. It will have to be addressed eventually, but in order to make overturning the whole lot of them all at once more palatable, we will have to prove that the tide has indeed finally turned and we are able to take one of these bad boys down at the ballot box.
I see. IOWs the Supreme Court is highly influenced by public opinion. I have been saying that interpretation of the law is highly subjective. I guess you agree.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Nov 10, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
I see. IOWs the Supreme Court is highly influenced by public opinion. I have been saying that interpretation of the law is highly subjective. I guess you agree.
The Supremes have always been very, very wary of public opinion. The right to marry movement is on the cusp of having proved that that public opinion has swayed our way, but a lot of effort went into all these amendments and we just haven't proved that the public sentiment has turned against them yet. To do that, we'll probably have to take at least one of them down the way they were put up. The Supremes have always been amenable to allowing the really unconstitutional go on for ages when they think the public really isn't ready for it. Look how long we had to live with the consequences of Bowers v Hardwicke before Lawrence came along.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16 Nov 11, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Supremes have always been very, very wary of public opinion. The right to marry movement is on the cusp of having proved that that public opinion has swayed our way, but a lot of effort went into all these amendments and we just haven't proved that the public sentiment has turned against them yet. To do that, we'll probably have to take at least one of them down the way they were put up. The Supremes have always been amenable to allowing the really unconstitutional go on for ages when they think the public really isn't ready for it. Look how long we had to live with the consequences of Bowers v Hardwicke before Lawrence came along.
True. Segregation was eventually stopped with the fourteenth yet for many years SCOTUS ignored the provisions.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Nuculur option 1,277,071
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 2 min Learn to Read 356
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min Eagle 12 12,750
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 5 min Belle Sexton 470
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Taletha 341,167
News Today Hillary Clinton says she has supported il... 6 min tomin cali 5
News Jeb Bush Endorsed By Eric Cantor: Poster Boy of... 8 min Taletha 2
News GOP establishment plans Trump takedown 28 min Le Jimbo 127
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 45 min brad 193,946
More from around the web