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.
This is just how the gay-hating right wingnuts are handling SS marriage. Smoke starts coming out their ears and then they have no choice other than saying, "There is no such thing as gay marriage! It doesn't exist! It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't!" while stomping their feet. The adult version of a pre-school tantrum lol!
Yep.
Sorta like a little girl cupping her ears and whining "La la la ... I can't hear you!!!"
Well won't you be salty when they rule the opposite way . You can drop that "They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex" because that argument has not only be laughed out of nearly every appeals court, and even the Chief Justice stated it creates an aire of sex discrimination. You just need to get over the fact that you are on the losing side of history.
They are already being treated equally. Any person is free to marry almost any other person (except for incest) of the opposite sex, which is what marriage actually is.
The advocates of homosexual "marriage" are not seeking equal protection, they are seeking to redefine what marriage is. And being able to redefine an institution like marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.
It appears likely that this is how the Supreme Court will rule on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
That same logic was already laughed out of the courtroom in Loving v. Virginia and California's Prop 8 case.
They are already being treated equally. Any person is free to marry almost any other person (except for incest) of the opposite sex, which is what marriage actually is.
The advocates of homosexual "marriage" are not seeking equal protection, they are seeking to redefine what marriage is. And being able to redefine an institution like marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.
It appears likely that this is how the Supreme Court will rule on this.
Apparently, you are ignorant of the case currently before the Supreme Court. Let me help you out.
SCOTUS is not being asked to rule on whether the dictionary definition should be changed. That's already been done, since dictionary publishers are better at keeping up than you are.
SCOTUS is not being asked whether it's OK for a state to sanction same-sex marriages. That's already been done.
SCOTUS is not being asked whether it's OK for same-sex couples to be eligible for marriage benefits. Same-sex couples in the entire US are eligible for the marriage benefits provided under federal law, such as Social Security survivors' rights. That's already been done.
SCOTUS is being asked whether a state that bans same-sex marriage is obligated to recognize a legal same-sex marriage performed in another state.
Which is what your side has said after they lost court case after court case. In either reality the left wins this battle. They either win the right to marry for same sex couples or they lose and the base turns out strongly in 2016 to go out for referendums.
Which is what your side has said after they lost court case after court case. In either reality the left wins this battle. They either win the right to marry for same sex couples or they lose and the base turns out strongly in 2016 to go out for referendums.
You are obviously very confident in your position and in what you hear in the leftist echo chambers about this.
In fact, these court cases have been so successful because these cases were intentionally filed in jurisdictions that were likely to be sympathetic to the left's presentation on this - and the members of the Supreme Court know that. Also, thanks to Harry Reid's decision to do away with the filibuster, the Obama administration has packed many of the appeals courts with judges sympathetic to his policy preferences on this and other matters - and the members of the Supreme Court are aware of that as well.
Of course none of this predetermines an outcome. However, the one-sided judgments that we have mostly seen on this topic are more due to court shopping than to a careful reading of the law. There have in fact been appellate rulings on both sides of this issue. The Supreme Court will now hopefully make it a priority to rule on this based on a careful reading of the US Constitution and the law, and are not likely to be manipulated by these blatantly manipulative tactics coordinated by the supporters of this issue on the left.
Despite what you have read or heard in the leftist echo chambers on this, this subject has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court. This will be the first time.
I would encourage you to listen to the 2.5 hours of arguments on this subject before the Supreme Court, if you have not already. Here is the audio for those arguments from CSPAN:
You are obviously very confident in your position and in what you hear in the leftist echo chambers about this.
In fact, these court cases have been so successful because these cases were intentionally filed in jurisdictions that were likely to be sympathetic to the left's presentation on this - and the members of the Supreme Court know that. Also, thanks to Harry Reid's decision to do away with the filibuster, the Obama administration has packed many of the appeals courts with judges sympathetic to his policy preferences on this and other matters - and the members of the Supreme Court are aware of that as well.
You conveniently leave out the fact that Bush-appointed judges have also ruled in favor of same-sex couples.
Much as you'd like to make this a D-R fight, the battle lines are not nearly that tidy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Of course none of this predetermines an outcome. However, the one-sided judgments that we have mostly seen on this topic are more due to court shopping than to a careful reading of the law. There have in fact been appellate rulings on both sides of this issue. The Supreme Court will now hopefully make it a priority to rule on this based on a careful reading of the US Constitution and the law, and are not likely to be manipulated by these blatantly manipulative tactics coordinated by the supporters of this issue on the left.
Despite what you have read or heard in the leftist echo chambers on this, this subject has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court. This will be the first time.
Which subject? The court is not being asked whether a state can sanction same-sex marriage. That is obviously a done deal.
********
Edited to add - The court has already ruled that marriage is a citizenship right, that's been settled for decades.
********
The court has already ruled that the federal government has no compelling interest in denying legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are extended to married couples. The court is being asked to rule whether a state that bans same-sex marriage must recognize a same-sex marriage legally sanctioned in another state. These are facts, not rumors or wishful thinking or echoes in a chamber.
Now it's possible that SCOTUS will rule that a state doesn't have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. That would go against 150+ years of precedent, and I just don't see them doing that. If you know of any rulings they have issued that would tend to indicate otherwise, please cite the case(s).
Whether they will rule that all states must sanction same-sex marriage is a slightly different question. It's possible that they might choose to allow a state to prohibit SSM, even while requiring that same state to recognize legal SSM marriages from other states. I really don't see any of the justices thinking that is a satisfactory idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
I would encourage you to listen to the 2.5 hours of arguments on this subject before the Supreme Court, if you have not already. Here is the audio for those arguments from CSPAN:
Yes, the oral arguments were good, from both sides. All the ground was covered, and gives the justices their lists of issues to address in their opinions.
There's no question that this is a momentous decision, it's obvious that all nine are fully aware of that. I would like the court to unanimously uphold the idea that every US citizen has the same set of rights, no matter where they reside, but I'm not holding my breath for that. And even if the majority does decide that a state is not obligated to recognize the status of a legally-married same-sex couple from another state, the fact is that the genie is out of the bottle. The states that now recognize SSM will continue to do so, and, over time, the rest will follow. Because anything else will economically disadvantage the states who hold out. See: Arizona, Indiana.
I don't see where they have harassed christians. But this shouldn't even be a religious issue which is what christians are making this. This is more about civil rights. And the beginning of marriage had nothing to do with religion it was more about property.
One of the main reasons this is a religious issue is because homosexual thought police have made it a religious issue by targeting Christian florists and bakers requiring they participate in their homosexual marriage thereby violating their religious convictions or face lawsuits.
Didn`t need to do that.
With so many other service providers more than willing to cater same-sex weddings, the only reason for singling out Christians is to attack Christianity.
Civil rights are not voting rights?
Since when?
Popular referendums passed by voters exercising their civil rights by voting have had their votes discounted at the request of the very same people now claiming new civil rights based solely on their thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Same-sex marriage is a thinly veiled attack on the Constitution, individual liberty and the voice of the people.
I previously said YES in this poll, but I'm really more inclined to think NO
now, after reading Justice Kennedy's reasons for being the swing vote in
2013 (5-4) to rule DOMA unconsitutional. That was about the states marriages
to be recognized or not recognized federally. This ruling coming up is an entirely
different matter, legally speaking, because it would take away state rights.
It is intellectually consistent to oppose DOMA but also oppose taking away
states' rights.
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas: NO.
All 5 are Catholics. Pope Francis is coming.
I think there's some secret Vatican pressure.
Maybe not so secret. The wheels on the bus go round and round.
I have a feeling Kennedy won't let gay marriage be what he's remembered for.
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.
. You can drop that "They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex" because that argument has not only be laughed out of nearly every appeals court, and even the Chief Justice stated it creates an aire of sex discrimination. You just need to get over the fact that you are on the losing side of history.