Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

Feb 22, 2013 Full story: The Daily Democrat 220

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#153 Feb 25, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts it's the law of the land. Civil unions ARE unconstitutional because of their inherent inequality. The ruling, gave the court's REASONS.
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marri...
Of course, but he didn't ask "how" or "what" or "when" or "where" or "who", all easily demonstrable. He asked "why", which always asks for mere opinion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#154 Feb 25, 2013
I wish TOPIX allowed the use of ITALICS.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#156 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
Gee, and here I was SURE I voted for Clinton! Twice!
two actions do not suddenly reverse the fact that you are a charlatan.
BS Detector wrote:
Ah, your prejudice shows yet again. You must be so proud... to be outed as a fraud.
feel free to specifically illustrate my prejudice. I support equal protection of the laws. It's in the constitution.

the insult to your intelligence is implied.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#157 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
Irrelevant.
Do you understand equal protection of the laws as afforded by the US constitution? It's a 14th Amendment thing, it is not irrelevant, and if you do not comprehend that, then you really have no place in the debate.

Grow up.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#158 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Then go after the whacko fundies, idiot.
We are.... in Court. So don't suggest a CU. We're not settling for second class status.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#159 Feb 25, 2013
blue lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another delusional queer
Delusional, eh? How did SSM become legal in Massachusetts?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#160 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
<quoted text> Smearing nobody. And what, exactly, do you fantasize that I'm desperate about? The disparate tax issue has nothing to do with same sex marriage, pro or con. Simply illustrating the fallacy/myth of equal protection/treatment under the law.
Irrelevant? YOU are the one who brought up taxes, shit-for-brains.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#162 Feb 25, 2013
blue lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusional, that's 1 of 10 in your favor. I have 40 in my favor. Get real queer.
Hey genius,

Check the polls. Public sentiment is in favor of equality. Even if it weren't, read the 14th Amendment, equality is the law. One would have to be pretty dim to think that it was not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#163 Feb 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts that have denied equal treatment had to excuse irrational reasoning to do so, and the irrationality of those excuses has been exposed in subsequent court rulings, failing even the "rational basis" excuse for discrimination.
While Scalia and Thomas may hang their hats on those arguments, they now will have a more difficult to defending them, in light of the more recent court findings and rulings.
"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
I agree with it all, but that doesn't stop the justices from doing whatever they want.

If a majority wants to overturn DOMA using rational basis- they will.
If a majority wants to uphold DOMA using rational basis- they will.
If a majority wants to overturn DOMA using heightned scrutiny- they will.

It all depends on what the majority wants to do; once they've decided that, THEN they will find the necessary constitutional justification to support that decision.

To put it another way, I believe the justices first decide HOW they want to rule (i.e. uphold or overturn), and THEN they find a way to justify it; not the other way around.

There is the "possible" and the "probable". While literally anything is possible, only a few outcomes are probable. The most probable outcome in the DOMA case is they overturn it using some form of enhanced rational basis which stops short of declaring sames-sex couples a suspect class.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#164 Feb 25, 2013
blue lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusional, that's 1 of 10 in your favor. I have 40 in my favor. Get real queer.
And more states are moving toward marriage equality each year, while no states are moving the other way.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#166 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
So if and/or when your tantrums and demands are won, is it any wonder that so many people still won't like gays and the dishonesty of the politically lunatic fringe, feather boas and sequins?
Good post.
What you seem to not understand is we don't care if many people "still won't like gays". You can hate us all you want, as long as I have equal rights under the law, I couldn't are less. You can go to your grave hating gays, just as millions went to their graves still hating blacks after they finally got equal rights.

Bigotry is based on irrational prejudices, so the overwhelming majority of bigots will die bigots. Since they are irrational to begin with, no argument will convince them to change their minds; only death ends their bigotry.

Luckily the next generation is less bigoted than their parents, and their kids will be less biogted than their parents, and their kids will be less bigoted than their parents.

It's a steady progression from bigotry to acceptance throughout the generations. Nothing has ever been able to stop it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#167 Feb 25, 2013
blue lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
Get over it queer. Everyone's already equal.
Get over it? Not everyone has equal protection of the law, which ismandated by the constitution. Even a moron could see that. One wonders why you cannot?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#168 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You can claim whatever you want, but I will continue to point put to everyone that you are, indeed, a liar. And because you are such a liar, I just don't feel inclined to feel pity for you.
And you can claim whatever you want; every post proves how anti-gay you are.

I don't need anyone's pity.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#169 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
I am fairly certain, however, that you will not attain acceptance simply because of your demands and tantrums. If you want same sex relationships legally codified and sanctioned, I support that vis-a-vis civil unions. And if that isn't good enough for you or frauds like the sad and bitter liars like Sheeple et al, I'm okay with that.
Too late; we've already got marriage legally codified and sanctioned in 9 states & DC with more coming this year and next year and the year after that; in June we get federal recognition as well.

If you want a civil union, feel free to have one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#170 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Why do civil unions necessarily have to require less than equal treatment?
Because they aren't marriage.

You can't have equal marriage rights without marriage.

Just as you can't have equal voting rights without voting.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#171 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
As for myself, I don't need one.
Neither do I, since I'm already married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#172 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Then go after the whacko fundies, idiot.
That's exactly what we're doing by passing marriage equality.

One of the reasons I decided to get legally married after being together for 20 years was because I knew it would drive you & your fellow whacko fundies crazy!

It certainly seems to be working!!!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#173 Feb 25, 2013
blue lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusional, that's 1 of 10 in your favor. I have 40 in my favor. Get real queer.
This is your response to: "Delusional, eh? How did SSM become legal in Massachusetts?"

1 out of 10 in your favor? Are there 10 Massachusetts now? Geez.... if I'm delusional, that makes you bat-shit popemobile crazy.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#174 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what we're doing by passing marriage equality.
One of the reasons I decided to get legally married after being together for 20 years was because I knew it would drive you & your fellow whacko fundies crazy!
It certainly seems to be working!!!
Cheers!
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#175 Feb 25, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>We are.... in Court. So don't suggest a CU. We're not settling for second class status.
Let me get this straight (pardon the expression). It's quite fine for you to TELL me what I should or should not do (i.e., "...don't suggest a CU) but I am not permitted to support something different than *you* favor. Your hypocrisy is glaringly evident.

I haven't seen any class at all coming from you, second, low, or otherwise, and I'm not talking in a legal context. Don't you ever tire of being exposed as a fraud?

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
Judges Hear NSA Snooping Cases 11 hr SmokingSalmon 2
US court reconsiders order to have YouTube remo... Tue barefoot2626 46
Sea Shepherd 'in contempt of US court' Dec 19 Your Ex 1
Immigrants Closer to Driver's Licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 1
Immigrants closer to driver's licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 10
Young immigrants allowed to get driver's licenses Dec 18 OId Sailor 1
Supreme Court Justices reject Arizona bid over ... Dec 16 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
More from around the web