Our View: Supreme Court should settle Prop. 8 now

Nov 29, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Pasadena Star-News

In this Nov. 12, 2012, Karen Golinski, left, and Amy Cunninghis, look over a photo album of their wedding photos in San Francisco.

Comments
41 - 57 of 57 Comments Last updated Dec 6, 2012
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Dec 4, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I have comple faith they will indeed "blow it again". Look for more teabaggers to challenge any Republicans in primaries who agree to the coming tax increases- i.e. Susan Collins- Maine.
Trust me, they'll blow it again.
I don't see Collins being successfully primaried in Maine. They will probably try, but their tea-bagger governor left a bitter taste in everyone's cup.

But maybe a strong Democratic challenger will emerge. Collins could really hurt herself with this Susan Rice nonsense and with coming tax and debt votes.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the saddest part of this. For the anti-gays is just about "tradition" or "principle" or whatever; it doesn't affect their lives directly and cause them no harm.
On the other hand, as you note many gays & lesbians will die without ever seeing true equality; some as a direct result of the continued institutional discrimination we face on a daily basis.
Thus my withering disdain and animosity toward people like brian brown of NOM, who cannot shut his big mouth and cares zero about any of that; he is still on record recently, again and again, insisting that no matter what happens, he will never consider gay matrimony to be "real marriages."

The greatest point-and-laugh revenge at this point against scumbuckets like him is that it *is* happening and they hate it so much it's killing them inside. I couldn't be more joyous; I am constantly fueled by a joy that would scare them if they knew it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Dec 5, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus my withering disdain and animosity toward people like brian brown of NOM, who cannot shut his big mouth and cares zero about any of that; he is still on record recently, again and again, insisting that no matter what happens, he will never consider gay matrimony to be "real marriages."
The greatest point-and-laugh revenge at this point against scumbuckets like him is that it *is* happening and they hate it so much it's killing them inside. I couldn't be more joyous; I am constantly fueled by a joy that would scare them if they knew it.
Ditto.

I always tell the anti-gays that it's worth every day I have to wait for equality because I know how much it pisses them off every time we get another state or another court victory.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto.
I always tell the anti-gays that it's worth every day I have to wait for equality because I know how much it pisses them off every time we get another state or another court victory.
Slow, steady torture... I sure hope none of them burst any blood vessels.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto.
I always tell the anti-gays that it's worth every day I have to wait for equality because I know how much it pisses them off every time we get another state or another court victory.
I just read about Indiana. Another state is looking to attempt to "ban" this?! My jaw dropped (figuratively). It's like it never ends.

Wasn't it you who said something about waging smaller battles about individual state rights? I think that could be a great next step: In states even where these "constitutional bans" exist, fight like shrews on crack for various individual rights of marriage; I don't even love suggesting it myself, because it's one of those concessions I *viciously hate* making in light of what I see as a path to victory that has been horribly, horribly compromised -- but in the final analysis, hahahaha, I'll advocate fighting under *any* conditions for justice.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Dec 5, 2012
 
Oh, and I agree with you, by the way. If the supreme court takes the proposition 8 case, I will be so deeply suspicious that it's unlikely anyone will be able to talk me out of it. The lower court

SPECIFICALLY

found on narrow state grounds. The supreme court has

ZERO

reason to take that case,

PERIOD.

End of issue.

If they take it, I will be *certain* that it is with a confidence that they can overturn it.

I am simply happy that California has a Plan B that's actually probably gonna work: I *do* believe they have the votes for a state referendum, despite my *absolute-through-every-atom-o f-my-being hhhhhhhhhhhatred* of those state votes.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Dec 5, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
Oh, and I agree with you, by the way. If the supreme court takes the proposition 8 case, I will be so deeply suspicious that it's unlikely anyone will be able to talk me out of it. The lower court
SPECIFICALLY
found on narrow state grounds. The supreme court has
ZERO
reason to take that case,
PERIOD.
End of issue.
If they take it, I will be *certain* that it is with a confidence that they can overturn it.
I am simply happy that California has a Plan B that's actually probably gonna work: I *do* believe they have the votes for a state referendum, despite my *absolute-through-every-atom-o f-my-being hhhhhhhhhhhatred* of those state votes.
Most likely they will just hold the Prop 8 case until the DOMA cases are dealt with sometime next year, or the year after....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Most likely they will just hold the Prop 8 case until the DOMA cases are dealt with sometime next year, or the year after....
And if that is SCOTUS's action, then how do they finish up? After releasing the DOMA decision, do they just say "Okay. The Perry case is rejected. The Ninth Circuit ruling stays in tact. Or do they send Perry back to the Ninth Circuit for review? Or do they then accept the case?

I suppose they can do what they want. But the first option would seem very cynical.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Dec 5, 2012
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And if that is SCOTUS's action, then how do they finish up? After releasing the DOMA decision, do they just say "Okay. The Perry case is rejected. The Ninth Circuit ruling stays in tact. Or do they send Perry back to the Ninth Circuit for review? Or do they then accept the case?
I suppose they can do what they want. But the first option would seem very cynical.
Of course they can do whatever they want ! They're a separate branch of government. That's jr. high civics 101 class.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Dec 6, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Most likely they will just hold the Prop 8 case until the DOMA cases are dealt with sometime next year, or the year after....
REALLY.

No wonder you keep talking about how long they're taking. I had no idea you believe they will hold this for literal years.

It's funny what goes through my head whenever we discuss this.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Sorry Sheep but NO, NO, NO. There is absolutely no court support in the higher courts for DOMA.

And I'm not looking for a plate of crow to munch on. DOMA goes down in 2013. I saw it on the new Mayan calendar.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Most likely they will just hold the Prop 8 case until the DOMA cases are dealt with sometime next year, or the year after....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Dec 6, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
REALLY.
No wonder you keep talking about how long they're taking. I had no idea you believe they will hold this for literal years.
It's funny what goes through my head whenever we discuss this.
I just think it's pretty clear they don't want to deal with this issue right now, but since the 1st & 2nd circuit have both overturned DOMA their hands are tied. They don't want to overturn DOMA, but they can't just deny cert to those cases because then the lower court ruling stands and some married same-sex couples will get federal benefits while other married same-sex couples won't.

That's why I think they'll just hold ALL the cases indefinitely. I hope I'm wrong (we'll see what they do tomorrow), but all these cases have problems. For instance, in the Windsor case she got married in Canada before New York allowed gays to marry. In the Gill & Mass cases, Justice Kagan would likely have to recuse herself leaving a likely 4-4 tie. The Golinski & Pedersen cases haven't been heard by their respective circuit appeals court yet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Dec 6, 2012
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And if that is SCOTUS's action, then how do they finish up? After releasing the DOMA decision, do they just say "Okay. The Perry case is rejected. The Ninth Circuit ruling stays in tact. Or do they send Perry back to the Ninth Circuit for review? Or do they then accept the case?
I suppose they can do what they want. But the first option would seem very cynical.
The most likely outcome is the SCOTUS eventually rejects the Prop 8 appeal, but it's anybodys guess as to when that will happen.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Dec 6, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
In the Gill & Mass cases, Justice Kagan would likely have to recuse herself leaving a likely 4-4 tie.
This would leave the circuit court decision in tact. But it would not set a precedent.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Dec 6, 2012
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
This would leave the circuit court decision in tact. But it would not set a precedent.
Correct.

It would also create a mess, since only same-sex couples who married in Maine, Massachusetts, & New Hampshire would be recognized by the federal govt, while all other married same-sex couples wouldn't be. It also complicates all the other DOMA cases from other circuits.

I think that may be why they are holding these cases; they all have problems and none of them give the SCOTUS the "clean case" they're looking for if they're going to overturn DOMA.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Dec 6, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I just think it's pretty clear they don't want to deal with this issue right now, but since the 1st & 2nd circuit have both overturned DOMA their hands are tied. They don't want to overturn DOMA, but they can't just deny cert to those cases because then the lower court ruling stands and some married same-sex couples will get federal benefits while other married same-sex couples won't.
That's why I think they'll just hold ALL the cases indefinitely. I hope I'm wrong (we'll see what they do tomorrow), but all these cases have problems. For instance, in the Windsor case she got married in Canada before New York allowed gays to marry. In the Gill & Mass cases, Justice Kagan would likely have to recuse herself leaving a likely 4-4 tie. The Golinski & Pedersen cases haven't been heard by their respective circuit appeals court yet.
Notice that despite my concerted and repetitive disagreement with some of your premises, I'm not arguing much. Surely you've noticed. I'm pretty much conceding and/or staying silent while making glaringly clear my *LACK* of respect for the court for not moving on the cases.

Why?

Because every time you present an analysis, you make perfect sense, hahahaha. I believe you; you are making total sense. I'm not faulting anything you say; I'm saying the *court* is not respectable in these matters and I *WILL NOT* back down on that; but ... you don't seem to have a direct and literal problem with my saying that, and may even agree.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Dec 6, 2012
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
This would leave the circuit court decision in tact. But it would not set a precedent.
Unlike some of you, I don't care *one jot* how the cases are won. I don't care if they're won on a technicality so ludicrous that *all of you* are embarrassed for YOUR OWN rights movement; could. not. care. less. So long as equality WINS, I sit back and shrug and say, too bad for the antigay.

I'm through with all the arguing and BS and vomit; it's clear who's right and who's wrong, no matter *WHAT* a person like "justice" Scalia says. Equality is right; every other viewpoint is uneducated and frighteningly weak-willed. Seriously. So the wins can happen any way whatsoever, so far as I'm concerned; they simply need to happen.

I'm actually, honestly and literally frightened by the uneducated in this matter; it *literally scares me* that someone like Scalia thinks he's right when he sounds like someone who didn't graduate high school. He sounds self-pitying, he sounds like a victim, he sounds spineless, and he sounds uneducated -- I am not kidding you one bit. I don't wish evil upon the man, but I have *z-e-r-o* respect for him and I hope he's not influential enough to turn our supreme court into a *scummy joke*, to put it bluntly. I don't know how he got there; I simply don't get it. He doesn't even sound logical or reasonable; he sounds like he's living in the year 1500, and his recent *SLURS* against gay people make him fair game for every insult in the book, including his clear lack of education. Imagine, seeing a supreme court justice and believing *tenth-graders* are smarter.

It's scary, sir. Seriously.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
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.

•••
•••