Poll: How Will The Supreme Court Rule On Same Sex Marriage? (party affiliation, statistics)
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.
Justice Roberts revives an old argument that could save gay marriage. “Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
I think it is a stretch that Roberts would vote in favor of SSM on the issue of sexual discrimination, but then again why did he raise the question?
That would not be a split decision. If someone can end run around one states laws by going to another state, it renders the state law moot.
No, the states where people do not support it and don't want to deal with lawsuits against bakeries forcing people to bake wedding cakes for them, would not have to deal with those things.
No, the states where people do not support it and don't want to deal with lawsuits against bakeries forcing people to bake wedding cakes for them, would not have to deal with those things.
Both bakery cases, and the photography case, happened in states where SSM was not yet legal. Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with the marital status of the people being refused service.
Scalia asked the obvious question: "who should decide?".
This trend where courts make laws against the will of the citizens must end, because that is not what democracy is.
When it comes to the constitutionality of a law the court is supposed to decide. That is their job.
Remember the questions before the court.
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Those are the only two questions before the court on this issue.
I've seen some speculation of a mixed decision, in which states can decide whether or not to legalize it, but would have to recognize marriages in other states. I could see Kennedy going with that.
As a gay man I would be satisfied with that. I have no interest in getting married in my home state, but they should recognize it if I get married elsewhere.
Justice Roberts revives an old argument that could save gay marriage. “Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
I think it is a stretch that Roberts would vote in favor of SSM on the issue of sexual discrimination, but then again why did he raise the question?
He might be looking for a consensus that the majority of the court can get behind. Or simply that he wants to join the majority but not on the aspect of it being a right.
And for many millennia before that it was not and didn't not have religion as a major component of it. Christianity doesn't suddenly get the trademark on something that predated it since time immemorial.
Sorry, but I disagree. There has always been a tie to whatever "belief" that particular culture established whether identified as a religion or something else and to my knowledge has always been between a man and woman. Even the multi-wife marriages of both Middle East and a few scattered cultures over the centuries were always "between man and woman." The history I have studied have always explained multi-wife situations as being based on continuing of birth rate in order to not die out. Back in history the death rate of babies was extremely high.
I repeat that I do not believe government should be involved...especially at the Supreme Court area of Constitutionality. This has nothing to do with our Constitution's description of equal rights. I believe that is a ridiculous position and blame all the $-hungry lawyers/attorneys that have screwed up most of our laws by their garbage interference with "plain-spoken English" which is the language of our fantastic U.S. Constitution. Government offices issue marriage licenses only to raise money...IMHO to spend foolishly.
If other than a man and woman wish to live together, the call it Civil Union or whatever...it is IMHO not a marriage.
Sorry, but I disagree. There has always been a tie to whatever "belief" that particular culture established whether identified as a religion or something else and to my knowledge has always been between a man and woman. Even the multi-wife marriages of both Middle East and a few scattered cultures over the centuries were always "between man and woman." The history I have studied have always explained multi-wife situations as being based on continuing of birth rate in order to not die out. Back in history the death rate of babies was extremely high.
I repeat that I do not believe government should be involved...especially at the Supreme Court area of Constitutionality. This has nothing to do with our Constitution description of equal rights. I believe that is a ridiculous position and blame all the $-hungry lawyers/attorneys that have screwed up most of our laws by their garbage interference with "plain-spoken English" which is the language of our fantastic U.S. Constitution. Government offices issue marriage licenses only to raise money...IMHO to spend foolishly.
If other than a man and woman with to co-habitate, the call it Civil Union or whatever...it is IMHO not a marriage.
Marriage has primarily been between a man and a woman, but not always. If you research same sex marriage in history you would see that same sex unions have existed in numerous areas of the world over time, including the Americas. It is not new and religions do not have a monopoly on marriage. If government did not control marriage and its rights, there would be chaos with different churches and religions competing on who's marriage has validity. If you knew anything about the history of marriage as you confess, you would know that in European history various churches have monopolized marriage and its associated rights, denying marriage to those of other religions unless they had it in their church. Marriage evolves, women are not chattel any longer, they are equals in marriage. Nor is interracial marriage a problem for the government, for that is what civil marriage is, but any religion can refuse to perform or recognize an interracial marriage or a second marriage. Civil marriage should not be governed by any specific religion.
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.