Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back To States

Jun 26, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: National Public Radio

The dual victories the Supreme Court handed to gay-marriage supporters Wednesday seemed to temporarily shift the focus of the fight from Washington to the states.

Comments
1 - 20 of 115 Comments Last updated Jul 3, 2013
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Fire the GOP

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Save marriage! Criminalize adultery and ban divorce!

Lol....if the right wing extremist TEA Baggers were actually concerned about saving the institution of marriage. Their fight against gay marriage is just bigotry in the meantime. Tackle the bigger threats first.
conservative crapola

Easton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
multi-thread spam. flagged

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
BILL CLINTON HAILS COURT FOR STRIKING DOWN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT...
...that he signed into law!
Actually buttercup, the passage of DOMA was a pretty good idea. It derailed any possibility of a federal anti-marriage amendment. Unconstitutional laws are a lot easier to undo than constitutional amendments.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wow, Jimbo! You've managed to average about 1 post every 25 minutes since you joined! Seriously, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
multi-thread spam. flagged
The loons keyboard cop strikes again.........give him a cookie.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

llDayo wrote:
Wow, Jimbo! You've managed to average about 1 post every 25 minutes since you joined! Seriously, you may want to reconsider your priorities.
Wow, I see you have a lot of time on your hands to derive this brilliant deduction. Thank you for playing.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Actually buttercup, the passage of DOMA was a pretty good idea. It derailed any possibility of a federal anti-marriage amendment. Unconstitutional laws are a lot easier to undo than constitutional amendments.
Well cupcake, all it got you was the judges over ruled the peoples vote, which is the only way the left gets their preverted wishes, just like Roe vs Wade.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
Well cupcake, all it got you was the judges over ruled the peoples vote, which is the only way the left gets their preverted wishes, just like Roe vs Wade.
Sweetie, the people's vote is why we have constitutionally guaranteed rights. Our founding fathers were leery of tyranny by the majority, so they made certain that some folk's rights couldn't be voted away by the whims of whatever majority happened to show up. You really should have paid better attention in 8th grade civics.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well cupcake, all it got you was the judges over ruled the peoples vote, which is the only way the left gets their preverted wishes, just like Roe vs Wade.
So you think the courts should be swayed by public opinion rather than the law?
What country do you think this is?

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well cupcake, all it got you was the judges over ruled the peoples vote, which is the only way the left gets their preverted wishes, just like Roe vs Wade.
The role of the judge is to verify the constitutionality of the law, not to be swayed by public opinion. That's why they aren't voted in. You may also want to look up the latest public opinion polls on the subjects.

Same Sex Marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_o...
59% in favor in California.

Abortion: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/19...

Cliffs: You're not in the majority.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, the people's vote is why we have constitutionally guaranteed rights. Our founding fathers were leery of tyranny by the majority, so they made certain that some folk's rights couldn't be voted away by the whims of whatever majority happened to show up. You really should have paid better attention in 8th grade civics.
The court over turned the wishes of the citizens of California. That is not a Republic, that is communism.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>
The role of the judge is to verify the constitutionality of the law, not to be swayed by public opinion. That's why they aren't voted in. You may also want to look up the latest public opinion polls on the subjects.
Same Sex Marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_o...
59% in favor in California.
Abortion: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/19...
Cliffs: You're not in the majority.
Fine, the law was not in accordance with the constitution, but it doesn't give you legality to change a 4000 year old definition. Call it what you want.......it's not marriage.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
The court over turned the wishes of the citizens of California. That is not a Republic, that is communism.
Dear, this wasn't the first time that the Federal Courts have overturned the wishes of the citizens of California. They should have learned a few decades back that the US Constitution doesn't condone the voters violating the rights of others.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>The court over turned the wishes of the citizens of California. That is not a Republic, that is communism.
No, it's called a "constitutional republic" you knucklehead.

You fail at basic American concepts. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority - whatever that minority should be - against the tyranny of the majority using the apparatus of the state.

In most cases, majority rules. But we made certain rights sacred and immune to that so that no majority could take these "sacred" rights away from anyone.

That's the whole point of having them.

So you essentially don't even understand the basic reason and nature of constitutional rights.

At all.

Hilarious.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, the law was not in accordance with the constitution, but it doesn't give you legality to change a 4000 year old definition. Call it what you want.......it's not marriage.
Actually it does, whether you like it or not.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dear, this wasn't the first time that the Federal Courts have overturned the wishes of the citizens of California. They should have learned a few decades back that the US Constitution doesn't condone the voters violating the rights of others.
Well tinkerbell, the 9 court of appeals is nothing but a liberal orgainization. They care nothing about counstitutionality or the vote of the people.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's called a "constitutional republic" you knucklehead.
You fail at basic American concepts. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority - whatever that minority should be - against the tyranny of the majority using the apparatus of the state.
In most cases, majority rules. But we made certain rights sacred and immune to that so that no majority could take these "sacred" rights away from anyone.
That's the whole point of having them.
So you essentially don't even understand the basic reason and nature of constitutional rights.
At all.
Hilarious.
Nothing is in the constitution that says gays can change the definition of marriage or the laws of nature.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think the courts should be swayed by public opinion rather than the law?
What country do you think this is?
The opinion of the public is called a legal election and voice of the people. You can't rewrite everything just yet pookie.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it does, whether you like it or not.
Obama Interrupts Activists' MSNBC Interview to Give Congratulatory Call...*To Date Obama hasnít called the families of the dead from Benghazi, the families of victims of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack and he hasnít called the families of the seal team six that have been killed under his orders.

Obama knows none of them will vote for him anyway.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing is in the constitution that says gays can change the definition of marriage or the laws of nature.
And you won't find the word "privacy" in there either, does that mean that you have no privacy rights?

Equal proteection under the law IS in the constitution, in the 14th amendment, and the states are bound by that to a certain extent. They cannot pass a law - about marriage or anything else - that violates equal proteection.

Banning gay marriage violates equal protection. That was not the central issue of THIS case, but the dominoes are falling.

You've already lost this argument, in actual court, and in the court of public opinion.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
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.

•••
•••