Court Weighs Gay Marriage

[txradioguy]

WASHINGTON—Supreme Court justices appeared divided Tuesday during historic arguments over the fate of gay marriage in California, at some moments almost regretful they took the case and at others splitting neatly into well-worn ideological camps.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen holding a key vote, wrote both of the court's major gay-rights decisions, most recently in 2003. On Tuesday, however, he made clear that the case of Proposition 8, a 2008 California voter initiative that rescinded the marriage rights of same-sex couples in the state, had left him conflicted.

You're really asking…for us to go into uncharted waters," he told Theodore Olson, the lawyer challenging Proposition 8. "And you can play with that metaphor. There's a wonderful destination or there's a cliff."
 
Tuesday's arguments came in the first of two cases in which the high court for the first time is directly tackling gay marriage, now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. The court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law denying federal recognition and benefits, such as exemption from the estate tax, to same-sex spouses.
 
Lower federal courts have invalidated that law, saying the federal government has accepted state-authorized marriages in other instances. Decisions in both cases are expected before July.
 
In the California case, lower federal courts already have ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The justices could reinstate it or strike it down. They have a range of options in the latter scenario, including issuing a procedural ruling that would apply only to California or expanding same-sex marriage rights beyond California to some or even all of the 50 states.

Some justices appeared to search for a way to avoid placing the Supreme Court's imprimatur on a decision, one way or the other. Chief Justice John Roberts asked repeatedly whether the case should have reached the high court at all.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578383130230471720.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[Tucker]

This pic in today's (3-27) USA Today.

These people consider themselves normal?


Qween Amor dances during a rally.  Andrew P. Scott, USA TODAY

[formerlurker]

Prediction?  their ruling will be such that it won't come before them again: this is a state's issue.   See your state legislature and leave us alone.   Have a nice day.

What should be challenged is MA's gay marriage "law" which is no such thing as it was ruled from the bench.     Romney attempted to put it on the ballot and the super-super-majority in the statehouse denied him that request.  The voice of the people in the Commonwealth was silenced.  

That all said?   I care so little about this topic.    Our country is in dire straights.   Marriage/union?  who gives a flying fig.

[jtyangel]

This pic in today's (3-27) USA Today.

These people consider themselves normal?


Qween Amor dances during a rally.  Andrew P. Scott, USA TODAY

Gays who run in normal life and normal circles should be disavowing that stupidity of they want to be taken seriously. Is that really how they want to be defined by 'queen Amor'  what a joke.

[Tucker]

Prediction?  their ruling will be such that it won't come before them again: this is a state's issue.   See your state legislature and leave us alone.   Have a nice day.

What should be challenged is MA's gay marriage "law" which is no such thing as it was ruled from the bench.     Romney attempted to put it on the ballot and the super-super-majority in the statehouse denied him that request.  The voice of the people in the Commonwealth was silenced.  

That all said?   I care so little about this topic.    Our country is in dire straights.   Marriage/union?  who gives a flying fig.

I disagree.

If they push it back to the states, it will not address the issue on the ability of dependent status on federal tax returns.

[formerlurker]

I disagree.

If they push it back to the states, it will not address the issue on the ability of dependent status on federal tax returns.

...and, that is a Constitutional issue how exactly?   IRS laws/regs with regard to deductions are for Congress to figure out, not SCOTUS.

[Tucker]

...and, that is a Constitutional issue how exactly?   IRS laws/regs with regard to deductions are for Congress to figure out, not SCOTUS.

Filing status couldn't be changed without a legal definition of marriage and what constitutes as a spouse.

[Undies]

I want to see a list of the individual adults in this nation who cannot legally enter into a marriage.  Ok, I'll settle for just one name.

We all have the same "right".  The choice is up the individual whether or not to exercise that "right".  Most homosexuals do not desire to use their right because they are abnormal and not sexually attracted to the type of person required in a marriage in which they would be a part.

That's just the way it is.  No one is being denied any "right".   

[txradioguy]

These people consider themselves normal?

Yup and we're the freaks for not accepting them.   

[JohnnyReb]

Since marriage has always been a more or less religious union performed in a church after buying a license from the government, you'd think the "wall against religion" or "separation of church and state" DUmmies would want the government to get out of the marriage business all together. Since it's original intention was to join a man and woman together for the benefit of the children produced by that union and a high percentage are now born outside of such union and 1/2 of those unions dissolve in divorce, just eliminate the whole legal mess of marriage and divorce. That would save a lot of money in courts, lawyers, etc.. Also, since a woman has the sole power over what comes out or doesn't come out of her body alive, why isn't she held solely responsible for the results(baby) of what her body grows and expels? Why should a guy be held legally responsible for something he has no legal authority over.

See DUmmies, you ain't the only ones that can think outside the box......way outside the box. Keep pushing for gay rights and you might get more rights than you really wanted.

[Freeper]

My thoughts on this is, I will support gay marriage in exchange for a ban on abortion. Can you imagine the fighting between the feminazis and the gays? It would be epic.

[txradioguy]

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society.

[JohnnyReb]

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society.

Exactly....must destroy everything good and decent in our society so that socialism can thrive. "Thrive" may have been a poor choice of words there since socialism is anti-thriving for anyone and everyone but more like depriving anyone and everyone of anything.

[Eupher]

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society.

Bingo.

The progs call this kind of thing "moving forward" and "accepting that which is already accepted" (my paraphrasing). I call it regressing into anarchy and dissolving the family unit.

There is NO WAY you can convince me that two faggots shacking up are "a family." What they are are two faggots shacking up and then some of these twinks introduce children into that lifestyle and call it "normal."

Like hell that's "normal."

[Big Dog]

I don't give a damn if people of the same sex get married. If the issue is equal access to the legal benefits of marriage, I say "eliminate all Federal benefits and advantages of marriage", based on my philosophy of "One citizen, one vote, one tax."

I do care about the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the power of the state and local governments. The MSM characterizes "Proposition 8" as an initiative, but it is actually an amendment to the California State Constitution. The State of California refused to defend its own constitution.

An essential question in this case is, "Does the Federal government have the authority under the US Constitution to declare a state's constitution "unconstitutional?" If the Supreme Court says that it does, it would invalidate the principle of Federalism, the entire history of the founding of our country, and issue a death sentence against the 9th and 10th Amendments and the protections of individual liberty in the state constitutions.

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society.

Hmmm.I think its about changing the definition of a word to justify abnormal behavior. Once they do that the flood gates are open for anything and everything because a precedent has been set.

[Ptarmigan]

I don't give a damn if people of the same sex get married. If the issue is equal access to the legal benefits of marriage, I say "eliminate all Federal benefits and advantages of marriage", based on my philosophy of "One citizen, one vote, one tax."

I do care about the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the power of the state and local governments. The MSM characterizes "Proposition 8" as an initiative, but it is actually an amendment to the California State Constitution. The State of California refused to defend its own constitution.

An essential question in this case is, "Does the Federal government have the authority under the US Constitution to declare a state's constitution "unconstitutional?" If the Supreme Court says that it does, it would invalidate the principle of Federalism, the entire history of the founding of our country, and issue a death sentence against the 9th and 10th Amendments and the protections of individual liberty in the state constitutions.

Interesting take.

[Eupher]

I don't give a damn if people of the same sex get married. If the issue is equal access to the legal benefits of marriage, I say "eliminate all Federal benefits and advantages of marriage", based on my philosophy of "One citizen, one vote, one tax."

I do care about the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the power of the state and local governments. The MSM characterizes "Proposition 8" as an initiative, but it is actually an amendment to the California State Constitution. The State of California refused to defend its own constitution.

An essential question in this case is, "Does the Federal government have the authority under the US Constitution to declare a state's constitution "unconstitutional?" If the Supreme Court says that it does, it would invalidate the principle of Federalism, the entire history of the founding of our country, and issue a death sentence against the 9th and 10th Amendments and the protections of individual liberty in the state constitutions.

How does your question square with the Supremacy Clause, i.e., Article VI, Clause 2?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment for decades. Why would the Supremes actually take a step backwards (so to speak) since the court's interpretation has subordinated the states to the feds already?

Why would the Supremes directly challenge a state's Constitution in the fashion you're suggesting?

It should be said that Nullification has attempted to go in the other direction - namely that the States hold final authority over the feds since the feds serve the states.

I can't see the Supremes ruling a state's Constitution as being unconstitutional, seeing as the likelihood that any given state's entire Constitution being challenged as a single court case is beyond ridiculous -- certainly a chunk of it, perhaps (secession anyone?) but not the entire document.

All of this queer marriage bullshit may be moot anyway. It looks like the Supremes are going to duck the issue anyway:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/26/17460260-supreme-court-hints-that-it-wont-issue-sweeping-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

[Splashdown]

Another irony is that it wasn't that long ago that our friends on the left said that marriage is meaningless--just a stupid piece of paper. When exactly did that stupid piece of paper become an inalienable right?

[Freeper]

Another irony is that it wasn't that long ago that our friends on the left said that marriage is meaningless--just a stupid piece of paper. When exactly did that stupid piece of paper become an inalienable right?

When they realized they could get tax breaks for it.

[CG6468]

Hmmm.I think its about changing the definition of a word to justify abnormal behavior. Once they do that the flood gates are open for anything and everything because a precedent has been set.

I agree completely. Marry your dog - that's just fine.

[JohnnyReb]

I agree completely. Marry your dog - that's just fine.

Court Weighs Gay Marriage....and the two lesbians out weighed the two queers by a long shot.

[Tucker]

Court Weighs Gay Marriage....and the two lesbians out weighed the two queers by a long shot.

There's no shortage of queer, Two Ton Tessies at the DUmp.

[Articulate Ape]

I care so little about this topic.    Our country is in dire straights.   Marriage/union?  who gives a flying fig.

Ditto.

[J P Sousa]

What's in our future ?????

Maybe this;

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’   

Commentator Andrew Coyne noted that the wording of Canada’s hate crimes law is problematic because it leaves much discretion in the hands of law enforcement.

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

Oh Canada! The Homosexual Agenda Steamrolls Religious Freedom

  The conflict between the homosexual agenda and religious freedom is real and carries grave consequences for religious freedom.  As Kevin Theriot pointed out in his recent blog, the current Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, was questioned about instances when religious liberty and homosexual “rights” conflict.  She stated that she would have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/uncategorized/oh-canada-the-homosexual-agenda-steamrolls-religious-freedom/
 

We are going down a very dangerous road with so called "gay rights".

.