Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay M...

Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases

There are 99 comments on the NBC Miami story from Dec 6, 2012, titled Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases. In it, NBC Miami reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide what it wants to do with a stack of cases filling its in-box on the subject of same-sex marriage as soon as Friday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Miami.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#42 Dec 6, 2012
Okay, once more for the slow learner:

Marriage cannot be based on an illegal relationship. Having a same-sex partner is not illegal. Bigamy is illegal. Incest is illegal.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but that doesn't stop you guys from trying to analogize RACIAL civil rights...
racial rights are not even close to gay marriage, whereas polygamy the denial of a marriage right, clearly is..
either we have the right to marry ANY consenting adult we wish or we don't.
I cannot fathom of ANY argument that justifies gay marriage that doesn't also justify polygamy...
it seems that's exactly what is happening in canada:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp...
frankly, the polygamists have religious freedoms at stake and to me their argument is even better than gays...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#43 Dec 6, 2012
People don't get to vote on other peoples' rights.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all true, but none of it changes that the people voted and that vote is being circumvented by the courts having themselves played legislature that was in conflict with the will of the people...
I have a big problem with an amendment being found unconstitutional...
amendments are often the people's response to bad court law...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#44 Dec 6, 2012
The averaage american can't find their own coutry on a goddamn map. When it comes to the law and constitutional rights, I would not trust them at all.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that you trust politicians MORE than you trust the average American.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#45 Dec 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
"His" decision? Were the other 8 justices at band camp or something?
<quoted text>
Well, when the court is 5-4, it is obvious that a single person made the most consequential decision. ESPECIALLY when he changes his vote right beforehand.

Wasn't Justis Lewis Powell rightly criticized in Bowers v.Hardwicke (1986) for his flip-flop voting in the case and his subsequent flip-flops on it ? He WAS the deciding vote. He initially voted to find the anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. He then at the last minute, changed his mind, vote to uphold the law, THEN he resigned from teh court and THEN said "I nade a mistake," in that case. He WAS the decing vote and tried to have it both ways.

He was wridely criticized for voting to uphold teh law, AND for taking the opposite postition publicly as soon as he resigned. Was not taht criticism justified ?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#46 Dec 6, 2012
There is no reason to hear a case that has no procedural or constitutional errors. In our litigious society, it would be impossible to hear every case forwarded to the SCOTUS.
DNF wrote:
Isn't SCOTUS employing Judicial activism every time it refuses to hear a case and every time it accepts a case?
Frankly I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that mandates SCOTUS hear every case that reaches it.
But then I don't have a government job that says I get to decide when to do my job and when to sit on my ass and do nothing.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#47 Dec 6, 2012
Powell is irrelevant to roberts. Roberts was one of 5, nothing more.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, when the court is 5-4, it is obvious that a single person made the most consequential decision. ESPECIALLY when he changes his vote right beforehand.
Wasn't Justis Lewis Powell rightly criticized in Bowers v.Hardwicke (1986) for his flip-flop voting in the case and his subsequent flip-flops on it ? He WAS the deciding vote. He initially voted to find the anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. He then at the last minute, changed his mind, vote to uphold the law, THEN he resigned from teh court and THEN said "I nade a mistake," in that case. He WAS the decing vote and tried to have it both ways.
He was wridely criticized for voting to uphold teh law, AND for taking the opposite postition publicly as soon as he resigned. Was not taht criticism justified ?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#48 Dec 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Okay, once more for the slow learner:
Marriage cannot be based on an illegal relationship. Having a same-sex partner is not illegal. Bigamy is illegal. Incest is illegal.
<quoted text>
And so is polygamy.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#49 Dec 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
There is no reason to hear a case that has no procedural or constitutional errors. In our litigious society, it would be impossible to hear every case forwarded to the SCOTUS.
<quoted text>
agreed. It also makes no sense to hear a case SCOTUS has declared contains no Constitutional or Federal Question like Baker.

Now can you please explain Baker to Jane D'Oh?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#50 Dec 6, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, when the court is 5-4, it is obvious that a single person made the most consequential decision. ESPECIALLY when he changes his vote right beforehand.
Wasn't Justis Lewis Powell rightly criticized in Bowers v.Hardwicke (1986) for his flip-flop voting in the case and his subsequent flip-flops on it ? He WAS the deciding vote. He initially voted to find the anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. He then at the last minute, changed his mind, vote to uphold the law, THEN he resigned from teh court and THEN said "I nade a mistake," in that case. He WAS the decing vote and tried to have it both ways.
He was wridely criticized for voting to uphold teh law, AND for taking the opposite postition publicly as soon as he resigned. Was not taht criticism justified ?
Here's the problem with your fuzzy math. Every one of those five held the deciding vote.

To cavalierly dismiss the other 4 is silly.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#51 Dec 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Powell is irrelevant to roberts. Roberts was one of 5, nothing more.
<quoted text>
I think it's a good analogy because like Powell, voted to strike down the law, just as Powell did, then at teh last minute, he changed his vote and voted to uphold a law that is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Anonymous

Monroe, VA

#52 Dec 6, 2012
Walter Harold Marlin wrote:
Gay marriage is just a step toward polygamy.
Good. It seems like a small step to me but maybe you're right. Maybe it's real progress toward providing legal protections to all families. Maybe it's a larger step than it seems toward reaffirming that the church isn't in charge.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#53 Dec 7, 2012
Not without hand puppets, which this format doesn't support.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>agreed. It also makes no sense to hear a case SCOTUS has declared contains no Constitutional or Federal Question like Baker.
Now can you please explain Baker to Jane D'Oh?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#54 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And so is polygamy.
I'm not so sure of that. While the first wife is legally married, the subsequent wives are only married in the religious sense. Since there are no legal niceties involving the subsequent wives, no laws are broken. At least that is the way it was explained to me by a Mormon.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#55 Dec 7, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're a little confused here on "gay rights". We don't claim Marriage Equality as strictly a gay right. We claim, and the Supreme Court has stated, that ALL citizens have a right to marriage.
and then they agreed that gays were not included.

So yes, it is a gay rights issue...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#56 Dec 7, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
under the law, they are.
<quoted text>
who has the right to chose an abortion?
men or women or both?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#57 Dec 7, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Okay, once more for the slow learner:
Marriage cannot be based on an illegal relationship. Having a same-sex partner is not illegal. Bigamy is illegal. Incest is illegal.
<quoted text>
WHY are they illegal?
So you say when sodomy was illegal that this was a proper justification to bar gays?
you do get the bigotry in what you are saying right?

of course you don't, you would have to have a degree of consistency to see that!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#58 Dec 7, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
People don't get to vote on other peoples' rights.
<quoted text>
don't be silly...

there are 32 states which seem to prove you wrong...

and you do get that polygamy is illegal?
so....
we vote on marriage rights all the time...
barring close relatives etc...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#59 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and then they agreed that gays were not included.
So yes, it is a gay rights issue...
If that is true, how come they are going to hear cases involving it. And when did they say we weren't included as citizens?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#60 Dec 7, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is true, how come they are going to hear cases involving it. And when did they say we weren't included as citizens?
what?

and what?

actually, forget it!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#61 Dec 7, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not so sure of that. While the first wife is legally married, the subsequent wives are only married in the religious sense. Since there are no legal niceties involving the subsequent wives, no laws are broken. At least that is the way it was explained to me by a Mormon.
Exactly. Polygamy is only illegal if the person gets legally married to more than one person at a time. That's still very easy to do by simply getting married in different counties as most local governments don't cross reference anyone's marital history. They just ask about it on the license and if you attest that you're available to legally marry, you can.

It's a lie, of course, if the person happens to be already married to someone else, but it can be done if someone wants to.

But unless the government wants to start monitoring and prosecuting adultery, there's nothing to stop a polygamous group from *religiously* marrying and behaving in exactly the same way they would if they were all civilly married to one another.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Sunnier 391,652
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min My Two Cents 15,035
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 2 min An NFL Fan 438
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 4 min Trumpproud77 7,053
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Blitzking 201,739
News Democratic chief Wasserman Schultz quits amid S... 5 min Ralph from Michigan 68
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min District 1 219,756
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min Cornelius Scudmister 233,594
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 29 min My New Alias RULES 1,406,078
News Trump bounces into the lead 1 hr Go Blue Forever 310
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 hr Bravo Uniform Mike 5,738
More from around the web