5 Constitutional Misconceptions About...

5 Constitutional Misconceptions About Same-Sex Marriage

There are 152 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Dec 21, 2012, titled 5 Constitutional Misconceptions About Same-Sex Marriage. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

Just when liberals had begun to appreciate the virtues of federalism in the efforts to secure the right to same-sex marriage in states where the courts, legislatures and voters are most hospitable to it, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision that held that California's Proposition 8 -- defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#22 Dec 22, 2012
Nor will Chance ever be saved just by calling himself "saved."

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#23 Dec 22, 2012
The term Marriage has been associated with male female couples and is simply a word. I have seen repeated reference to a, "Civil Marriage", well how about this then. We make all of them, "Civil Unions" and drop the word marriage from anything persformed by the, "Civil" authorities? Leave Marraige up to religious institutionsm which perform the vast majority of them anyway.
Same sex marriage is not going to kill traditional marriage, which by the way also does not exist like the different race marriage etc pointed out here. Ut is not going cause the downfall of modern civiliation as some would have people believe either. All that being said I still don't believe that the USA is ready to place Dick and Bob, or Jane and Mary, on the same level as Dick and Jane when it comes to marriage.
I say abolish marriage by the State and create civil unions for everyone, and let the churches handle marriages.

Just as an aside here if you allow same sex marriage then why can't someone marry their sibling? I mean after all equal protection is equal protection.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#24 Dec 22, 2012
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage will always be a man and a woman, even if they succeed in changing the definition. Man can no more change the actual meaning of marriage than they can turn a dog into a cat just by calling it a cat.
Men and women will always be able to marry each other, that much is true. Allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages won't change that at all.

But the LEGAL definition of civil marriage has undergone many changes in different jurisdictions throughout history. People have changed the definition of civil marriage, or more precisely the limitations on who can enjoy the right to obtain one, countless times.

The religious or ceremonial definition of marriage, the one to which you may be referring, may exist in whatever frozen form your little brain desires.

That's really of little consequence, since ceremonial marriage doesn't have any legal weight at all. You're welcome to keep it as you wish in whatever house of superstition and myth you choose to attend.

That won't stop same-sex couples from getting married.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
They, like me seem to be optimistic. But they're concerned by the very fact that SCOTUS chose to review Perry. We had expected them to duck if affirmation was the likely outcome.
If Standing falls in the Prop h8 case, the entire proceeding goes into the trash.

Our opposition on the SCOTUS is real and as quietly vicious as a trapdoor spider.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#26 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
Nor will Chance ever be saved just by calling himself "saved."
Exactly!!!

Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas/Happy Yule:-)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#27 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
If Standing falls in the Prop h8 case, the entire proceeding goes into the trash.
Our opposition on the SCOTUS is real and as quietly vicious as a trapdoor spider.
I don't think we have any records to suggest Roberts' likely actions. Everyone assumes he's unsympathetic to GLBT's. But I suspect he's more sympathetic to the reputation historians will bestow his court, and I'm sure he knows which way the winds are blowing.

My guess is that at least one of the more-liberal justices voted to hear Prop 8. There are many procedural issues with the case that may have prompted them to do so.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#28 Dec 22, 2012
UR BS wrote:
The term Marriage has been associated with male female couples and is simply a word. I have seen repeated reference to a, "Civil Marriage", well how about this then. We make all of them, "Civil Unions" and drop the word marriage from anything persformed by the, "Civil" authorities? Leave Marraige up to religious institutionsm which perform the vast majority of them anyway.
Same sex marriage is not going to kill traditional marriage, which by the way also does not exist like the different race marriage etc pointed out here. Ut is not going cause the downfall of modern civiliation as some would have people believe either. All that being said I still don't believe that the USA is ready to place Dick and Bob, or Jane and Mary, on the same level as Dick and Jane when it comes to marriage.
I say abolish marriage by the State and create civil unions for everyone, and let the churches handle marriages.
Just as an aside here if you allow same sex marriage then why can't someone marry their sibling? I mean after all equal protection is equal protection.
"GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage simply doesn't exist, not does a thing called "TRADITIONAL" marriage exist......IT IS JUST MARRIAGE and regardless of calling every one a Civil Union from this point forward, there still will be legally married couples using the word "MARRIAGE".

Besides, ALL Priest's, Rabbi's, Ministers or any other Clergy are in fact REPRESENTATIVE of the Civil Authorities of the State......that's why they MUST say these words, "By the power invested in me, By the stat of______ and County of _________" so, see in reality there is no such thing as a "RELIGIOUS" Marriage either!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#29 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
If Standing falls in the Prop h8 case, the entire proceeding goes into the trash.
Our opposition on the SCOTUS is real and as quietly vicious as a trapdoor spider.
That is simply not true......if the proponents don't have Article 3 standing....ONLY the 9th's ruling is trashed, not Judge Walker's!!!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#30 Dec 22, 2012
UR BS wrote:
The term Marriage has been associated with male female couples and is simply a word. I have seen repeated reference to a, "Civil Marriage", well how about this then. We make all of them, "Civil Unions" and drop the word marriage from anything persformed by the, "Civil" authorities? Leave Marraige up to religious institutionsm which perform the vast majority of them anyway.
I'd be all for it; as long as the laws protect couples equally and all couples obtain the same rights, that would be fine.

Now go and find some large churches (like the catholics, baptists, and mormons) and see what they have to say.
UR BS wrote:
Same sex marriage is not going to kill traditional marriage, which by the way also does not exist like the different race marriage etc pointed out here. Ut is not going cause the downfall of modern civiliation as some would have people believe either. All that being said I still don't believe that the USA is ready to place Dick and Bob, or Jane and Mary, on the same level as Dick and Jane when it comes to marriage.
Whether they're ready or not is of little consequence. The law demands equal protection. One class of citizen should not have to wait for the equal protections of the law until another class is "ready" to deal with it.
UR BS wrote:
I say abolish marriage by the State and create civil unions for everyone, and let the churches handle marriages.
Deal. Now ask the churches what they think.
UR BS wrote:
Just as an aside here if you allow same sex marriage then why can't someone marry their sibling? I mean after all equal protection is equal protection.
Civil marriage creates a legal kinship where none existed before. Aside from the obvious genetic problems should they have offspring, siblings are already legally related; there is no need to create another kinship. Doing so could create a whole host of legal problems that the government has no interest in being involved in. Removing the limitations on gender in marriage implicates no such legal difficulties.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think we have any records to suggest Roberts' likely actions. Everyone assumes he's unsympathetic to GLBT's. But I suspect he's more sympathetic to the reputation historians will bestow his court, and I'm sure he knows which way the winds are blowing.
My guess is that at least one of the more-liberal justices voted to hear Prop 8. There are many procedural issues with the case that may have prompted them to do so.
"many procedural issues" ?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#32 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"many procedural issues" ?
I don't think the word "many" is appropriate here, but ne of the procedural issues that SCOTUS will have to decide first is teh standing issue in the Prop 8 case. It might be best for us if SCOTUS decides that the plaintiffs do not have standing in this case.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#33 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"many procedural issues" ?
Standing is the most obvious procedural issue that justices may wish to study. There is also the giant question of jurisdiction: Does the federal government have any input on the rights that a state may or may not grant to same-sex couples without a finding that federal constitution grants them the right to marry? I'm looking forward to oral arguments as an indication of what aspects piqued the justices attention.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#34 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Standing is the most obvious procedural issue that justices may wish to study. There is also the giant question of jurisdiction: Does the federal government have any input on the rights that a state may or may not grant to same-sex couples without a finding that federal constitution grants them the right to marry? I'm looking forward to oral arguments as an indication of what aspects piqued the justices attention.
Probably only 4 of them were "piqued".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#35 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Standing is the most obvious procedural issue that justices may wish to study. There is also the giant question of jurisdiction: Does the federal government have any input on the rights that a state may or may not grant to same-sex couples without a finding that federal constitution grants them the right to marry? I'm looking forward to oral arguments as an indication of what aspects piqued the justices attention.
I don't think that there will be any "oral arguments", per se. I expect a question and answer session.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36 Dec 22, 2012
Wouldn't it be grand if Olsen and Boies were nominated to the SCOTUS?

Now. Which puckers would you like to see them replace on the bench?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#37 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Standing is the most obvious procedural issue that justices may wish to study. There is also the giant question of jurisdiction: Does the federal government have any input on the rights that a state may or may not grant to same-sex couples without a finding that federal constitution grants them the right to marry? I'm looking forward to oral arguments as an indication of what aspects piqued the justices attention.
And another procedural question they have to decide is if all the lesbians on SCOTUS have to recuse themselves !

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#38 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
Wouldn't it be grand if Olsen and Boies were nominated to the SCOTUS?
Now. Which puckers would you like to see them replace on the bench?
All the justices on SCOTUS are excelent attorneys.

And many people do not realize that there are NO REQUIRMENTS, NOR QUALIFICATIONS to be on SCOTUS, EXCEPT that you be nominated by the POTUS, and recieve at least a simple majority of the Senate to be confirmed.

One does not have to be an attorney, nor even have attended law school.

The fact that ALL present justices were also former federal appeals court judges is unique in American history. Some would argue that a better makeup of the court would be people from different occupational backgrounds. Remember that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, nor Chief Justice Earl Warren, nor one of my personal favorites, Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice in American history, were even judges prior to being nominated to teh court.
SirAndrew

Honolulu, HI

#39 Dec 22, 2012
Ray wrote:
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.
Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.
Marriage will still be correct between a man and a woman. It's just that it will ALSO be correct between two people of the same gender. You people like to use that man/woman statement to imply that allowing same gender marriages will somehow invalidate or eliminate the legitimacy of non-gay marriages. You people are idiots.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#40 Dec 22, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
"GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage simply doesn't exist, not does a thing called "TRADITIONAL" marriage exist......IT IS JUST MARRIAGE and regardless of calling every one a Civil Union from this point forward, there still will be legally married couples using the word "MARRIAGE".
Besides, ALL Priest's, Rabbi's, Ministers or any other Clergy are in fact REPRESENTATIVE of the Civil Authorities of the State......that's why they MUST say these words, "By the power invested in me, By the stat of______ and County of _________" so, see in reality there is no such thing as a "RELIGIOUS" Marriage either!!!
Spot on.

I would also add that those Priests, Rabbis, Ministers or any other Clergy are not required to officiate over civil marriage. They can choose to only perform their particular Rite of Marriage. Many ministers, mainly Unitarians, stopped doing civil marriages because their states did not allow same-sex couples marriage equality. If any priest, rabbi, imam, minister, etc don't like their state's definition of marriage, that don't have to participate.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#41 Dec 22, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
Why do you folks copy and paste BS without providing a source link to your information?
He's embarrassed to and with good reason, Larry and his assortment of imaginary friends only have one source for their learnin', the good Catholic Canadians at LifeSite News, which never lets the facts get in the way of a good "story".

This one is actually 7 years old and was written about Canada: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn...

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by th... Mar 25 Say What 3
News Judges shouldn't ignore what we all know Trump'... Mar 23 Dee Dee Dee 3
News Trump vows to appeal against travel ban ruling ... Mar 19 GOFIGURE 14
News The Latest: Government calls ruling flawed, vow... Mar 16 Retribution 11
News Trump travel ban faces key test in multiple cou... Mar 16 CodeTalker 8
News Fact-checking Donald Trump's Nashville rally Mar 15 Wildchild 1
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... Mar 14 o see the light 83
More from around the web