Supreme Court Nears Decision on Gay Marriage Cases

Dec 6, 2012 Full story: NBC Miami 99

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.

Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#1 Dec 6, 2012
"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."

I think that's probably untrue. I think they'll put it off til next year or even later.

"Justice delayed is Justice denied".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#2 Dec 6, 2012
I agree with most people that the court will take up at least 2 of the DOMA case and punt that California train wreck as far away as possible...

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#3 Dec 6, 2012
More of your usual silliness and self hating blather.

They'll pass on Prop 8, restarting marriage in California and take at least the most likely case that will allow them to take down DOMA. The stack of firewood is already stacked too high for them to ignore and a patchwork of laws would be a huge burden to enforce. Keep in mind no court case in support of DOMA exists.

Roberts knows this is a HUGE part of his legacy and even with his conservatism fully realizes he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
"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."
I think that's probably untrue. I think they'll put it off til next year or even later.
"Justice delayed is Justice denied".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4 Dec 6, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:

Roberts knows this is a HUGE part of his legacy and even with his conservatism fully realizes he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
<quoted text>
you guys love that creative writing...

the DOMA cases will help in his agenda of moving away from federal authority towards more state sovereignty as he did with the Obamacare decision and as he announced was the guiding purpose of his court...

you are not historic, you are merely a pawn in a bigger game...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#5 Dec 6, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
More of your usual silliness and self hating blather.
They'll pass on Prop 8, restarting marriage in California and take at least the most likely case that will allow them to take down DOMA. The stack of firewood is already stacked too high for them to ignore and a patchwork of laws would be a huge burden to enforce. Keep in mind no court case in support of DOMA exists.
Roberts knows this is a HUGE part of his legacy and even with his conservatism fully realizes he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
<quoted text>
Roberts is definitely NOT a "conservative" as evidenced by his Marxist-Leninist-Obamaniac decision to uphold the the Stalinist "Obamacare". Socialists brook NO DISSENT !
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#7 Dec 6, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Roberts is definitely NOT a "conservative" as evidenced by his Marxist-Leninist-Obamaniac decision to uphold the the Stalinist "Obamacare". Socialists brook NO DISSENT !
psst, he is, and he is about 3 moves ahead of you...

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#8 Dec 6, 2012
And fire hydrants cause fires.
Walter Harold Marlin wrote:
Gay marriage is just a step toward polygamy.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#9 Dec 6, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
And fire hydrants cause fires.
<quoted text>
and men are the same as women...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#10 Dec 6, 2012
Walter Harold Marlin wrote:
Gay marriage is just a step toward polygamy.
Nope! Totally different issues. Not even a little bit related, legally or otherwise.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#11 Dec 6, 2012
Walter Harold Marlin wrote:
Gay marriage is just a step toward polygamy.
If that were true, then why do countries that have lealizzed polygamy the same ones who have outlawed gay marriage ?(such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Indonesia, and Jordan).
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#12 Dec 6, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! Totally different issues. Not even a little bit related, legally or otherwise.
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...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#13 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys love that creative writing...
the DOMA cases will help in his agenda of moving away from federal authority towards more state sovereignty as he did with the Obamacare decision and as he announced was the guiding purpose of his court...
you are not historic, you are merely a pawn in a bigger game...
I don't understand your thinking. If he wants to overturn DOMA, how would that be less government. And if he wants to support DOMA, isn't that even more big government dictating to the states? Either way, isn't the government involved? One in telling states they must recognize or, conversely, telling states they can't do something? Either way the Feds have some sort of power over the states.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#14 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys love that creative writing...
the DOMA cases will help in his agenda of moving away from federal authority towards more state sovereignty as he did with the Obamacare decision and as he announced was the guiding purpose of his court...
you are not historic, you are merely a pawn in a bigger game...
My apologies. I didn't get it the first time I read it. So you are saying that only states can say what marriage is, and you are fine with that. So California and the others that have made Marriage Equality a reality are O.K. with you. Now I get it. You approve of what they have done. Thanks for coming over to the Bright Side.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#15 Dec 6, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand your thinking. If he wants to overturn DOMA, how would that be less government. And if he wants to support DOMA, isn't that even more big government dictating to the states? Either way, isn't the government involved? One in telling states they must recognize or, conversely, telling states they can't do something? Either way the Feds have some sort of power over the states.
Federalism. Its not just ONE government.

The state has the power to define Marriage so DOMA fails simply because it is a federal statute attempting to define marriage...

So, overturning DOMA would be a strong STATE'S rights case, meanwhile it would provide very little by way of "gay rights".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#16 Dec 6, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
My apologies. I didn't get it the first time I read it. So you are saying that only states can say what marriage is, and you are fine with that. So California and the others that have made Marriage Equality a reality are O.K. with you. Now I get it. You approve of what they have done. Thanks for coming over to the Bright Side.
oops, wish I had seen this first.
yes, I do not mind when the people get to make their own rules...

BUT recall the actual people's vote in CA...
overturning that I do not like to see for ANY reason...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#17 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Federalism. Its not just ONE government.
The state has the power to define Marriage so DOMA fails simply because it is a federal statute attempting to define marriage...
So, overturning DOMA would be a strong STATE'S rights case, meanwhile it would provide very little by way of "gay rights".
Actually it would because when DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, what rational basis will teh federal government have for legally recognizing the marriages in some states while not legally recognizing the marriages of other states.

For example, couldn't the same logic be used for the federal government to say we will not legally recognize the marriages of 14 year old people, even though a particular state allows it, but we will legally recognize the marriages of 16 year old people ?

And since each states has their own marriage laws, the federal government will be faced with a crazy-quilt patchwork of marriages it legally recognizes depending on which state's laws teh federal government "likes" and which it "does not like". I think that approach is, unconstitutional and the courts would say so at some point.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#18 Dec 6, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>

And since each states has their own marriage laws, the federal government will be faced with a crazy-quilt patchwork of marriages it legally recognizes depending on which state's laws teh federal government "likes" and which it "does not like". I think that approach is, unconstitutional and the courts would say so at some point.
this is an argument made against the DOMA decisions handed down this year, that the states impede the federal govt's ability to administer its programs...
BUT I think the state's authority over marriage is pretty evident...
so like licensing professionals, or drivers, or medicaid, the states definitions will control and the fed will have to suck it up...
Come on ThunderChild

East Liverpool, OH

#19 Dec 6, 2012
Gay marriage bad, says Newt posting from a brothel.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#20 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
this is an argument made against the DOMA decisions handed down this year, that the states impede the federal govt's ability to administer its programs...
BUT I think the state's authority over marriage is pretty evident...
so like licensing professionals, or drivers, or medicaid, the states definitions will control and the fed will have to suck it up...
This is why DOMA is obviously unconstitutional on it's face, yet The Obamaniac fiercely defended it for years.

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#21 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
oops, wish I had seen this first.
yes, I do not mind when the people get to make their own rules...
BUT recall the actual people's vote in CA...
overturning that I do not like to see for ANY reason...
Jane, I live in California, and I want to enlighten you on why the voter intiatives, at least in this state, are a dismal failure.

Until about 15 or so years ago, they required a 60% majority to come into force, and this was good, because 60% is hard to get on most issues. However, someone got a voter intiative in place that reduced that to 50%+1 for a win.

Now, comes all the fun. California has had SO MANY voter initiatives that impact our state budget (and these can only be overturned by the courts or by voter initiatives), that we are legally OBLIGATED to dedicate more than 120% of our state budget to different funds. Every time this is brought up and someone wants to address it, "the will of the people" is the reason they can't correct it.

Also, the state constitution of any state is superceded by the US Constitution in ALL cases. If a state passes a law the directly impacts and violates the US constitution, regardless of how it is passed, it is not a valid law and the courts have a responsibility to remove that law.

In the case of Proposition 8 and California, we have a unique scenario. California courts has extended the right to civil marriage to same sex couples, and this was in practice for many months before the election occurred. Article IV, Section 1 and the 14th amendment, per each ruling, have been violated by voting to remove rights granted to citizens. This is the only state in the country where rights that had been extended to any group later were voted away. The purpose of the court system as it is set up in the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from stepping on any minority that has a history of discrimination. Thomas Jefferson's writings provide some great insight into this, if you've ever read them. He's the primary author of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

There is no true LEGAL reason for preventing same-sex couples from marrying, and, as far as CIVIL marriage goes, that's all that matters. If a law has no LEGAL reason for blocking access to state-sponsored activities for any group against which the courts can prove discrimination has occurred, the law is invalid. Whether you like it or not, the people voting laws into place does not guarantee that the laws are right, good or effective.

People are not educated enough to understand the impacts of the laws that they vote for, mostly because they CHOOSE not to learn what those laws will do. The people may speak, but it doesn't mean they spoke rightly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
White Power reestablished with Ferguson Klavern... 8 min Bama Yankee 1
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min -Dont Panic- 283,330
Obama's plan: 'Deport felons, not families' 45 min Chicopee 94
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 53 min Brian_G 48,533
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 180,818
Republicans strike early blow in U.S. midterm e... 1 hr WelbyMD 554
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Teaman 1,143,684

Barack Obama People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE