Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I voted that they will permit the states to ban. This is a conservative court and this is how they will rule. It will be interesting to see the legal reasonsing behind it....and how broad the ruling will be.
Guess you've never looked in the dictionary to figure out what "unnatural" means. You typing such a vile, disgusting post on a computer is unnatural. Homosexuality is quite natural.
I voted that they will permit the states to ban. This is a conservative court and this is how they will rule. It will be interesting to see the legal reasonsing behind it....and how broad the ruling will be.
Well, there are 5 justices that will support it, and considering there are no valid legal arguments against it, even a Conservative court is going to struggle coming up with one. Justice Walker specifically quoted Kennedy in his ruling on Prop 8. Kennedy is not likely to reverse his previous opinion.
No, that is not true, and that's my whole point. I specifically asked them if they would settle with an agreement which would grant them the same exact benefits as married couples, and not a single one has said "YES". Not a single one.
Its not equality. Separate,but equal is not actually equal.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday chose a Harvard professor of constitutional law, Vicki C. Jackson, to argue that the Court does not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. She will file a brief and appear to argue the two procedural issues that the Court itself had raised in agreeing last Friday to consider DOMA’s validity.
Jackson, who joined the Harvard faculty last year after several years at the Georgetown University Law Center, will contend that the executive branch’s agreement with a lower court that DOMA is invalid takes away the Justices’ authority to rule on DOMA, and that the House of Representatives’ Republican leaders do not have a right to appear in the case under Article III of the Constitution. The professor will appear in the case as an amicus to make only those points, not to join in the debate over the constitutionality of DOMA, which the Court also will be considering. (Professor Jackson’s resume at Harvard is here.)
When the Court accepted for review two cases on the same-sex marriage issue, it added questions to each on issues about its authority to rule. The second granted case involves the constitutionality of California’s “Proposition 8,” withdrawing the right of gays and lesbians to marry in that state. In that case, the Court also will be considering whether the proponents of “Proposition 8″ as a ballot measure have a right under Article III to appeal a lower court decision striking down that measure.
Thank you so much, Mictlantecuhtli! You are always contributing valuable information on law and the Supreme Court's decision to hear cases involving Marriage Equality.
Now, my question is this: does this mean SCOTUS can still send DOMA back and not rule on it? Will the Federal Circuit Court rulings stand? I hope you can interpret what these developments mean, and perhaps extrapolate upon it???
Inquiring minds want to know!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
