The Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Stevenson

Stevenson

Old School
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,175
Likes
5,419
Points
113
There are several reasons why the Supremes may find in favor of gay marriage:

* The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment
* Changing social values
* The fact that John Roberts will not want to overturn his own ruling in 10 years when there will be even more overwhelming support for gay marriage

But most of all, here is a big reason -

One of Justice Kennedy's best friend's was a gay man. The Dean who recruited him to McGeorge to teach (my alma mater) and who was his close friend for a long time was a not-so-closeted gay man.

I do think that that personal connection just may affect Kennedy's vote, and the outcome. I hope so!
 
I think at least 7-2 but maybe 9-0.

The only argument against gay marriage is that the court shouldn't legislate or overturn the legislature unless there is an actual constitutional question.

On the surface, the 14th seems like plenty of justification to overturn bans on gay marriage. However, one might look to Roberts' statement in the ObamaCare ruling. Basically, "elections have consequences." In other words, if you don't like what your government is doing, vote to change it.
 
87zJXJv.jpg
 
Gays are just the gateway lifestyle. Next, will be sex with animals!! :MARIS61:
 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...ises-its-superiority-over-the-redneck-masses/

.The use of gay marriage as a platform from which to announce one’s superior moral sensibilities can be seen in the way that its backers, those ostensibly liberal reformers, look down with undiluted snobbery upon their critics and opponents. Those who are against gay marriage, whether it is Catholic bishops or conservative politicians, are not seen simply as old-fashioned or wrong-headed, but as morally circumspect, possibly even evil. They are even branded as mentally disordered, being tagged as “homophobic” (that is, possessed of an irrational fear) if they so much as raise a peep of criticism of gay marriage. Here, ironically, gay campaigners rehabilitate the very same psychobabble that was once used to brand homosexuality as a disorder of the mind and wield it against anyone who now dares to say “I don’t like the gay lifestyle”.
Click to expand...

:MARIS61:
 
maxiep said:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

Frankly, government has no place in marriage. They should grant civil unions to any group (two or more) of consenting adults. Marriage should be a religious designation. If Episcopalians want to marry people of the same sex, go for it. If the Catholic Church doesn't, no big deal.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I actually think there shouldn't be marriage for anyone or civil unions. No tax breaks for that or spitting out kids. Fuck that.

Every man is an island.
 
The arguments against marriage equality are getting desperate to the point of being hilarious. The actual argument brought before the Court is "irresponsible procreation". Heterosexuals procreate irresponsibly, it is argued, and hetero only marriage is needed so that the results of this irresponsible procreation, i.e. children, have stable homes. In other words, gays can't get married because straights are irresponsible! Serious, this is the argument, it used to be gays are too irresponsible for marriage, now straights are too irresponsible for gays to get married. (illogical, I know) And another new one is that well, you claim to favor diversity, isn't a diverse family with parents of two sexes then better than a non diverse one with parents of one sex? If that's the case why do 50% of these diverse marriages break up?

Then they flat out insult the Chief Justice by saying that a heterosexual married couple adopting children like Justice Roberts and his wife did is second best. How to win friends and influence people!

BTW, also in attendance, Chief Justice Roberts' lesbian cousin and her partner.

All that being said they could still decide very narrowly, California only, or states with civil unions only, or say the plaintiffs (the bigots) have no standing to appeal California's lower courts rulings. On the face this would mean the rulings allowing marriage equality in California would stand but the bigots have already said if that happens they will challenge that interpretaion.
 
maxiep said:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

Frankly, government has no place in marriage. They should grant civil unions to any group (two or more) of consenting adults. Marriage should be a religious designation. If Episcopalians want to marry people of the same sex, go for it. If the Catholic Church doesn't, no big deal.
Click to expand...

I'll have to ask my wife if she took any of his classes.

But back on topic, the fact is as it stands now marriage is not a religious designation. I was married in a ballroom, by an officiant and without any mention of god in the ceremony (since we are not religious it seemed pretty disingenuous to have a religious ceremony). My marriage is just as valid as my friend who was married in St. James Cathedral in Seattle. Plus, churches won't be required to perform same sex marriages so it isn't infringing on their rights. Since that is the case, then there is no real religious argument against allowing gay marriage.
 
In all seriousness; I think marriage is when two people want to send the rest if their lives with the other. I am not one to judge anyone for their lifestyle. It's their choice.

We all complain on how the government wants to control is by taxes or trying to take away free thinking. This is one form of control.

I could only imagine if our government tried taking away the freedom of religion. I would be outraged if the government banned us from going to church. That they took away the "non-profit tax exemption" for church tithe. This is no different than taking away the tax credit for marriage of gay peeps/
 
Last edited:
I think Louis CK presents here the key point:

enhanced-buzz-31863-1308995619-2.jpg


For a long time, Americans just weren't comfortable talking to their "shitty little kids" about icky gay marriage. We're lazy and we just don't want to deal with anything that's personally inconvenient. But being gay is so mainstream now that it's just not as inconvenient as it used to be.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy to see this happen. I just think civil rights struggles aren't won when a minority finally pushes through with a winning argument for their freedom. It happens when the majority gives a shrug of "Meh, whatever..." and just stops being a dick.
 
Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/court-could-avoid-ruling-gay-marriage-ban-160234928.html

The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it could find a way out of the case over California's ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a major national ruling on whether America's gays have a right to marry.

Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts during a riveting 80-minute argument that the case should even be before them. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss it with no ruling at all.

Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Denny Crane said:
I think at least 7-2 but maybe 9-0.

The only argument against gay marriage is that the court shouldn't legislate or overturn the legislature unless there is an actual constitutional question.

On the surface, the 14th seems like plenty of justification to overturn bans on gay marriage. However, one might look to Roberts' statement in the ObamaCare ruling. Basically, "elections have consequences." In other words, if you don't like what your government is doing, vote to change it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agrees with the yahoo! article.
 
maxiep said:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

Frankly, government has no place in marriage. They should grant civil unions to any group (two or more) of consenting adults. Marriage should be a religious designation. If Episcopalians want to marry people of the same sex, go for it. If the Catholic Church doesn't, no big deal.
Click to expand...

Yup. This is why I don't understand the GOP anymore. Government has no place in deciding who can take vows before god. Now if they want to talk about civil unions and licensing, taxes, etc, that's another story. But if we're talking about legal documents and taxing, how can the government seriously say this isn't discrimination?
 
well, this one just popped up on my news feed.

uhh...


299273_10151281564907554_1997596220_n.jpg
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
POST THE FUCKING IMAGE. GEORGE TAKEI SAID SO!!!!

5429_633361256693331_1553419052_n.jpg
Click to expand...

George Takei did have this image:

482193_633113486718108_1618317712_n.jpg


But he changed it and later posted:

For those friends wondering, this special "red" equality symbol signifies that marriage equality really is all about love. Thanks to the Human Rights Campaign for this effort. Please consider changing your profile today in support--esp if you are a straight ally.
Click to expand...
 
what's up with the one with 3 rectangles, is that for trannys?
 
Thirty sports figures (heavy on NFL) have signed a petition to the Supreme Court asking them to rule in favor of marriage equality. Only one current NBA player - let's go Blazers, OK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top