Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Take Gay Marriage Case

When the nine Supreme Court justices retreat behind closed doors on Friday for their regularly scheduled conference, they will consider the issue of gay marriage and decide whether to take up a case that could ultimately determine whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

[JrEsq]

"...and decide whether to take up a case that could ultimately determine whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage."
There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to the fundamental design of society.

[IrishmanLA]

JrEsq wrote:

"...and decide whether to take up a case that could ultimately determine whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage."
There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to the fundamental design of society.

You're on the wrong side of history, Jr, whether you like it or not.

More and more countries, and more importantly, PEOPLE, are determining that EVERYONE deserves the right to marry the PERSON they love. You simply aren't in that group at this point in time.

[Frank Stanton]

show your true face ameriKKKa.

pathetic 2nd rate country.

[JrEsq]

IrishmanLA wrote:

<quoted text>
You're on the wrong side of history, Jr, whether you like it or not.
More and more countries, and more importantly, PEOPLE, are determining that EVERYONE deserves the right to marry the PERSON they love. You simply aren't in that group at this point in time.

Negative. One of the fundamental rules of society is that not every individual comprising that society has the right to do anything they please.
One of the grave dangers that homosexuality poses to society, is that they attempt to diminish the right of society to self-determination, by promoting the untruth that the individual has more rights than society.
I have to admit though, that the homosexuals run a pretty effective mis-information campaign.
Traditional marriage and traditional parenting are two of the cornerstones of society and cannot be infringed. If SCOTUS understands their role as the protector of society first, and then the individual, they will rule to protect traditional marriage.

[IrishmanLA]

JrEsq wrote:

<quoted text>
Negative. One of the fundamental rules of society is that not every individual comprising that society has the right to do anything they please.
One of the grave dangers that homosexuality poses to society, is that they attempt to diminish the right of society to self-determination, by promoting the untruth that the individual has more rights than society.
I have to admit though, that the homosexuals run a pretty effective mis-information campaign.
Traditional marriage and traditional parenting are two of the cornerstones of society and cannot be infringed. If SCOTUS understands their role as the protector of society first, and then the individual, they will rule to protect traditional marriage.

Wow, I hadn't realized there was the potential for more mindless drivel available! Thank you for proving that the only difference between "intelligence" and "stupidity" is that there are limits to intelligence. You've shown you have no limits to worry about!

[DragonHung]

Sad wrote:

<quoted text>
I want to marry my sister, they won't let me, that ain't right. I should be able to marry the one I love, just like you said. Equal Rights.

Don't need to marry her, just keep on porkin' her like all your southern cousins do.

[Not Yet Equal]

JrEsq wrote:

<quoted text>
Negative. One of the fundamental rules of society is that not every individual comprising that society has the right to do anything they please.
One of the grave dangers that homosexuality poses to society, is that they attempt to diminish the right of society to self-determination, by promoting the untruth that the individual has more rights than society.
I have to admit though, that the homosexuals run a pretty effective mis-information campaign.
Traditional marriage and traditional parenting are two of the cornerstones of society and cannot be infringed. If SCOTUS understands their role as the protector of society first, and then the individual, they will rule to protect traditional marriage.

You and those opposed to marriage equality fail to show how refusing to treat others as you want to be treated under the law harms those who already have the fundamental right of marriage.

Gay people have been forming relationships and raising children since cave man times. Refusing to threat them equally does nothing to encourage straight relationships, while harming those denied equal treatment. You fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest in denial of equal treatment as required by the constitution.

The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."

Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement

[Peaches from Houston]

Sad wrote:

<quoted text>
I want to marry my sister, they won't let me, that ain't right. I should be able to marry the one I love, just like you said. Equal Rights.

We don't need to get married, sweetie. You and pa can share me. I'm a fine figured ham.

[EdmondWA]

Sad wrote:

I want to marry my sister, they won't let me, that ain't right. I should be able to marry the one I love, just like you said. Equal Rights.

You already HAVE equal rights. You and your sister are already family, and have no need of the familial bond that marriage provides. Marriage is a JOINING, and you are already joined. See if anyone stops you from visiting her in the hospital.

Besides, you're lying. Do you think that you fight well for a cause, by INVENTING people to fight for it?

[TomInElPaso]

We'll look at what you say the moment all pregnant women are required to marry and divorce is legal only for those without children. Deal?

You want cornerstones and yet don't address out of wedlock parenting and huge divorce numbers. Common sense would tell anyone those two issues are much more of an issue for society than gay marriage. Go clean your own house first and stay out of ours while we adopt and nurture the kids you and your ilk have tossed into the trash.

JrEsq wrote:

<quoted text>
Negative. One of the fundamental rules of society is that not every individual comprising that society has the right to do anything they please.
One of the grave dangers that homosexuality poses to society, is that they attempt to diminish the right of society to self-determination, by promoting the untruth that the individual has more rights than society.
I have to admit though, that the homosexuals run a pretty effective mis-information campaign.
Traditional marriage and traditional parenting are two of the cornerstones of society and cannot be infringed. If SCOTUS understands their role as the protector of society first, and then the individual, they will rule to protect traditional marriage.

[EdmondWA]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

You and those opposed to marriage equality fail to show how refusing to treat others as you want to be treated under the law harms those who already have the fundamental right of marriage.
Gay people have been forming relationships and raising children since cave man times. Refusing to threat them equally does nothing to encourage straight relationships, while harming those denied equal treatment. You fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest in denial of equal treatment as required by the constitution.
The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."
Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement

Wasn't that just the freaking BEST!?

"I don't know."

HAH! That's some first rate lawyerin' there!

[Faithman]

TomInElPaso wrote:

We'll look at what you say the moment all pregnant women are required to marry and divorce is legal only for those without children. Deal?
You want cornerstones and yet don't address out of wedlock parenting and huge divorce numbers. Common sense would tell anyone those two issues are much more of an issue for society than gay marriage. Go clean your own house first and stay out of ours while we adopt and nurture the kids you and your ilk have tossed into the trash.
<quoted text>

Well spoken & thank you! All the claims they make about the "good of society" is a smokescreen for power & control issues, a front for bigotry & prejudice.

[Not Yet Equal]

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wasn't that just the freaking BEST!?
"I don't know."
HAH! That's some first rate lawyerin' there!

Yes, a great moment in court. Yet that shows he has some honesty, and even a first rate lawyer has no real argument beyond irrational prejudice.

[IrishmanLA]

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wasn't that just the freaking BEST!?
"I don't know."
HAH! That's some first rate lawyerin' there!

He was hired to defend a law. Whether there is any rational basis behind it, he did his job the best that he could. Saying "I don't know" is a helluva lot better than making up absurd scenarios that just don't happen.

"Honey, those gay men next door are getting married. I guess our marriage is over. I'll pack your bags and you can move out the day they get married."

[EdmondWA]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Yes, a great moment in court. Yet that shows he has some honesty, and even a first rate lawyer has no real argument beyond irrational prejudice.

IrishmanLA wrote:

He was hired to defend a law. Whether there is any rational basis behind it, he did his job the best that he could. Saying "I don't know" is a helluva lot better than making up absurd scenarios that just don't happen.
"Honey, those gay men next door are getting married. I guess our marriage is over. I'll pack your bags and you can move out the day they get married."

If I ever have to go to court for any reason, I hope that my lawyer, whether he (or she) is "first rate" or not, has the "honesty" to tell me BEFOREHAND that he doesn't have a clue how to defend my case. When my lawyer goes up before the judge and is challenged with the VERY CRUX OF THE CASE, I sincerely hope his response isn't "Golly, your honor, that's a good question!". You kind of have to hope that your lawyer has ANTICIPATED a question like that, and has a slightly better response prepared than "I don't know".

[IrishmanLA]

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
If I ever have to go to court for any reason, I hope that my lawyer, whether he (or she) is "first rate" or not, has the "honesty" to tell me BEFOREHAND that he doesn't have a clue how to defend my case. When my lawyer goes up before the judge and is challenged with the VERY CRUX OF THE CASE, I sincerely hope his response isn't "Golly, your honor, that's a good question!". You kind of have to hope that your lawyer has ANTICIPATED a question like that, and has a slightly better response prepared than "I don't know".

I totally agree with you. However, since everyone KNOWS there's no better answer than "I don't know", I'd rather he be honest with that, than try to come up with some absurdity that just makes him look like a fool AND and idiot. At least, this way, he only looks like an idiot.

The problem here is that the people who are defending this law DO NOT have any legal reason for the law to exist. They only have hateful reasons that have no place in law. Given that, the lawyer can either come across as a bigot that he may truly not be, or he can use the truth and say he has nothing to work with on this case.

[Not Yet Equal]

IrishmanLA wrote:

<quoted text>
I totally agree with you. However, since everyone KNOWS there's no better answer than "I don't know", I'd rather he be honest with that, than try to come up with some absurdity that just makes him look like a fool AND and idiot. At least, this way, he only looks like an idiot.
The problem here is that the people who are defending this law DO NOT have any legal reason for the law to exist. They only have hateful reasons that have no place in law. Given that, the lawyer can either come across as a bigot that he may truly not be, or he can use the truth and say he has nothing to work with on this case.

Tradition and fear of the future were his best arguments.

He hoped tradition, including Baker, would be an excuse for not moving forward, coupled with the fear that we don't know what will happen, but any change should be feared. Society could collapse. The sky could fall. etc. Oh, and "What about the children???" Be verrrry afraid...

[IrishmanLA]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Tradition and fear of the future were his best arguments.
He hoped tradition, including Baker, would be an excuse for not moving forward, coupled with the fear that we don't know what will happen, but any change should be feared. Society could collapse. The sky could fall. etc. Oh, and "What about the children???" Be verrrry afraid...

Those arguments were used in the "Loving" case that decriminalized different-race marriages, and dismissed. I doubt they'd be seen as relevant in these court proceedings.