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.
Admittedly, but let's see what SCOTUS says when their feet are on the fire and they have to make a real decision on whether we are a union of states or a federal dictatorship.Let's see how far they will go for the gay cause.
Exactly.
The gay marriage debate ultimately will not be decided on the bogus "civil rights" grounds.
Notice how SCOTUS didn't even go near that argument in Hollingsworth v Perry. Instead, they decided on issues of standing, and the gay army acted like they had won the Super Bowl and were going to Disneyland.
They didn't win squat.
When SCOTUS finally hears a clean case (one not muddled by the dereliction of duty by the Democrat governor and secretary of state of California in refusing to defend their state laws) then it will be decided on the principle of federalism outlined in the 10th Amendment, and states will once again be free to make their own laws concerning marriage.
States will be able to make laws that allow gays to marry - and that is OK.
Harrier may not agree with those laws, but he grants the states the right to do so, which is preferable than a tyrannical judiciary overruling the will of the people, as was done here in California, as well as in Utah.
That isn't quite believing that gays are "less than human" - contrary to the baseless pronouncements of some peddlers of ad hominem attacks in this very thread against Harrier - now is it?
After listening to an hour of arguments regarding his controversial ruling last week allowing same-sex marriages in Utah, a federal judge on Monday denied the state’s request for a stay.
State attorneys had argued before U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that same-sex couples who marry in Utah may be irreparably harmed if efforts to overturn his ruling succeed and those marriages are later invalidated.
A hearing began at 9 a.m. to hear the state’s request for a stay. Shelby retired to deliberate at about 10:20 a.m. He issued his decision at about 11:15 a.m.
The State will have one last chance for a stay at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And, technically, at the United States Supreme Court - but since Justice Sotomayor is the Circuit Justice for the 10th, that's simply not going to happen.
The gay marriage debate ultimately will not be decided on the bogus "civil rights" grounds.
Notice how SCOTUS didn't even go near that argument in Hollingsworth v Perry. Instead, they decided on issues of standing
Yeah, we noticed that. We also noticed that the SCOTUS was forbidden from doing so. If the court determines the plaintiffs had no standing to sue, it has a duty to dismiss the case and not consider the merits.
of course a license should not be a "right". there are qualifications and conditions to any license, hence the term "license", and the state should be able to define those terms and conditions where the federal govt can not.
Very good point.
It would be interesting to know whether the gay army thinks that having a drivers license should be a right - instead of a privilege.
How about a hunting license?
If they so no to those, then it is hypocritical for them to claim that a marriage license is a right.
Oh well - they already believe that people should have a license to kill (See Roe v Wade).
Public support/pressure is not supposed to have any role in the decision-making of the judiciary.
Speaking of public support/pressure - didn't the judge ignore the public support of the people of Utah for their marriage law, as did the openly gay judge who overturned the clear will of the people here in liberal California to uphold marriage as between a man and a woman, something which we did twice, the last time even amending our state constitution?
In the Prop 8 case, there was proper standing to determine subject matter jurisdiction in the district court action; however there was a lack of standing of the appellants in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit and on the petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
However, gay marriage and traditional marriage do not have to become one in the same.
So then what do we have, separate but equal? Sorry, but that has been proven to not work and besides, the 1049 rights that go with civil marriage are granted by the federal government, not the states or the church. And the federal government has already stated that they will not recognize civil unions, nor domestic parnterships, that those unions should be commuted to marriage, since all the rights are already in place with just a simple marriage license. Unless conservatives expect that gay couples should receive less rights in their unions than straight people do, there is no reason to create a separate designation for gay couples unions if all the rights are the same. When they declared all bans on interracial marriage nulled, those unions were afforded the same rights, the same privileges and the same protections, not different, not separate. SEPARATE IS NEVER EQUAL.
We still have laws where the people have arbitrarily decided which people can marry each other, and which can't. Each state has different laws dictating to the people who then can marry and how and when.
If a state has legal protections called marriage, the state has to show how denying those legal protections to a segment of society will further a compelling state interest in order to legally deny that segment equal legal protections. The state has not been able to do so in the case of same sex marriage in any of the cases that have come before the court.
Example.
The state has licenses that a person has to get to be allowed to legally drive on public roads.
The state has a vote to deny drivers licenses to a segment of society.
*1. age
*2. gender
If the state can show how the denial of licenses promotes a compelling state interest those restrictions can stand.
*1. age. allowing 10 year olds to drive would cause more traffic accidents.
*2. gender. Denying males would not further a compelling state interest, so males are not denied drivers licenses.
Because it took, oh, 150 years for people to start standing up and fighting for their rights.
Really?
So, what were the colonists who defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, creating this grand republic in the process and aftermath, fighting for?
Did you really just dismiss the entire basis for why you are free to sit at your keyboard and type what you wish without reprisal from a government entity?
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.
