Supreme Court Asked To Rule On Nevada Same-Sex Marriage Law

Dec 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS Local

An advocacy group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a challenge Nevada's ban on same sex marriage.

Comments
1 - 11 of 11 Comments Last updated Dec 6, 2012

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 5, 2012
 
Oh good, another marriage case for the SCOTUS to ignore......

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Oh good, another marriage case for the SCOTUS to ignore......
Isn't the usual procedure to go through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals first?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 5, 2012
 
So people in Nevada apparently think that prostitution and divorce are perectly moral, but 2 men or 2 women wanting to be civilly wed is immoral.

Humans are funny animals.

And if people are this irrational, why do people think they are rational enough to vote ?

(Elect ME King, and I will rule with an Iron Sceptre, but ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced.:))
disgusted american

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 6, 2012
 
can u imagine - Nevada of all places - where hetero strangers get drunk, and marry willy-nilly...then get divorced willy-nilly...left and right,day in - day out....what hypocracy!!!

Since: Sep 09

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 6, 2012
 
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And you love them so much you read every post about them on Topix
disgusted american

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 6, 2012
 
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a fine line between love and hate there Mr Fa$$ot.
thank u Mr Breeder....Now gFY

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 6, 2012
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't the usual procedure to go through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals first?
I think they're trying to jump on the coattails of the other marriage cases currently being considered by the SCOTUS. 2 of those cases (Golinski & Pedersen) haven't been ruled on by their appeals courts either. That could be part of the reason why the SCOTUS keeps delaying these cases.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 6, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they're trying to jump on the coattails of the other marriage cases currently being considered by the SCOTUS. 2 of those cases (Golinski & Pedersen) haven't been ruled on by their appeals courts either. That could be part of the reason why the SCOTUS keeps delaying these cases.
That may be the problem.......in which case they should send all of the cases back to the appeals court and deal with the cases that are ready for them.......I guess we will see what happens tomorrow!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 6, 2012
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be the problem.......in which case they should send all of the cases back to the appeals court and deal with the cases that are ready for them.......I guess we will see what happens tomorrow!!!
Unfortunately the cases which HAVE been ruled on by their circuit courts ALSO have problems. If they take the Gill or Massachusetts cases, Kagan would likely recuse herself resulting at best a 4-4 tie. The Windsor case involves a woman who got married in Canada before New York recognized such marriages, and her wife died before New York passed their own marriage equality bill.

Obviously they COULD find a way around those issues IF they wanted to. I just think this is a good excuse to delay dealing with the whole issue right now.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 6, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the cases which HAVE been ruled on by their circuit courts ALSO have problems. If they take the Gill or Massachusetts cases, Kagan would likely recuse herself resulting at best a 4-4 tie. The Windsor case involves a woman who got married in Canada before New York recognized such marriages, and her wife died before New York passed their own marriage equality bill.
Obviously they COULD find a way around those issues IF they wanted to. I just think this is a good excuse to delay dealing with the whole issue right now.
Well, they need to do something......that's what I know.......they are backing up other cases with regard to this issue involving DOMA!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 6, 2012
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they need to do something......that's what I know.......they are backing up other cases with regard to this issue involving DOMA!!!
Agreed. Unfortunately there's not much we can do about it. I can see the court not wanting to wade into yet another divisive social issue.

Maybe these delays are a good thing. Any ruling overturning DOMA and/or Prop 8 would only further energize our opponents which could hurt our efforts to get marriage equality in more states. Right now they're demoralized after their stunning losses this year. The more states we have with marriage equality, the more likely we will get a favorable ruling once the SCOTUS does finally decide to take on this issue.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••