The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on March 27, 2013, 02:53:35 AM
-
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 On Tuesday, however, he made clear that the case of Proposition 8, a 2008 California voter initiative that rescinded the marriage rights of same-sex couples in the state, had left him conflicted.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
-
This pic in today's (3-27) USA Today.
These people consider themselves normal?
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/03/26/scotus032613_0011-4_3_rx513_c680x510.jpg?6c3c24a06b2ec04d15c066f5e9a76a10a837ffd4)
Qween Amor dances during a rally. Andrew P. Scott, USA TODAY
-
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.
-
This pic in today's (3-27) USA Today.
These people consider themselves normal?
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/03/26/scotus032613_0011-4_3_rx513_c680x510.jpg?6c3c24a06b2ec04d15c066f5e9a76a10a837ffd4)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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".
-
These people consider themselves normal?
Yup and we're the freaks for not accepting them. :whatever:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)) 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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I care so little about this topic. Our country is in dire straights. Marriage/union? who gives a flying fig.
Ditto.
-
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.â€
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".
.
-
More important story is the libtards hating of polyamourous people and incestuous people. Such haters.
-
More important story is the libtards hating of polyamourous people and incestuous people. Such haters.
They really do hate the Mormons, yet I think polygamy is more acceptable than gay marriage.
-
When they realized they could get tax breaks for it.
How do you figure? Funny, but when they used the phrase, "Marriage penalty," they weren't joking.
-
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.
Well said, sir.
-
It's just an online poll, but it's kind of interesting how very lopsided it is. Both sides had the opportunity to stack the poll so one cannot say that the results are completely with merit when considering the views of the greater population. It would seem that a tiny but noisy group of Leftists have taken over the helm of this great nation and are steering us into the shoals. The tail is wagging the dog, so to speak. That dynamic needs to change soon if the America we love is to survive.
From Latina magazine (http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/politics/latinos-support-gay-marriage-more-general-us-population)' which certainly shows how Hispanics lean on this issue.
Do You Support Same-Sex Marriage?
[Yes] it's time for change.
[ No ] I have traditional views.
Yes, it's time for change.
8.9%
No, I have traditional views.
91.1%]
Wouldn't it be neat if the people we sent to Washington DC to do our will actually did our will? Now that's a novel idea.
-
They really do hate the Mormons, yet I think polygamy is more acceptable than gay marriage.
True. But I know for a fact that if I had 16 wives...they would all be mad at me at same time.
Mr Mann ~~ flowers x 16 = budget breaker
-
How do you figure? Funny, but when they used the phrase, "Marriage penalty," they weren't joking.
Maybe I don't understand how the tax code works but my tax burden was less as was my wife's if we filed jointly. If we filed married but separately we would have paid more.
-
Maybe I don't understand how the tax code works but my tax burden was less as was my wife's if we filed jointly. If we filed married but separately we would have paid more.
Same thing for us.
-
The lower tax happens when a married couple only has a single income earner.
-
The lower tax happens when a married couple only has a single income earner.
Is that income only wages and salaries, or does it also include dividends, social security, and pensions?
-
Is that income only wages and salaries, or does it also include dividends, social security, and pensions?
Not sure, but I would think it includes all incomes. I know I'd pay more if I filed separately or as head of household than I do filing jointly, since my wife doesn't work.
-
Not sure, but I would think it includes all incomes. I know I'd pay more if I filed separately or as head of household than I do filing jointly, since my wife doesn't work.
I'm retired, and my wife works.
-
Elena Kagan, 2009: ‘There Is No Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage’
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane. It’s 2009, and Elena Kagan is answering questions during her confirmation hearing for the position of Solicitor General within the Obama administration. According to William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who posted this piece on March 25, this is what she had to say about gay marriage:
PJ Media (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/28/kagan-09-there-is-no-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/)
-
How does that work? A big, bad bull-dyke saying something like that? Hypocrite, self-loather, or gigantic liar.
-
Assuming Kagan conveniently forgets about what she's said, the tragedy is, nobody can force her to eat her words, throw her out, impeach her for having "evolved."
The dyke is fixed and permanent.
-
Maybe I don't understand how the tax code works but my tax burden was less as was my wife's if we filed jointly. If we filed married but separately we would have paid more.
Right--but even if you file married/joint you'll end up getting hammered if you're a "DINK" (dual income, no kids) because you'll have to file Single-Zero and have some serious deductions, otherwise you're going to end up owing because ALL of the second income at the marginal rate for your income bracket rather than the lower rates.
Couple that with some states (Maine and CA are two which come to mind) where your state taxes are based on your federal return. You could in theory get hammered so hard if the spouse works part-time it's barely worth working.