US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

Source

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday it will tackle the issue of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states are allowed to ban gay marriage.

The nine justices are expected to hear oral arguments in April and deliver a ruling by June.

The Court had before it petitions from four states -- Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan - all in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which recently went against the national trend and upheld gay marriage bans. The court granted petitions for all four states.

Looks like the "ban gay marriage" crowd has pushed the issue until the SC decided to deal with it once and for all. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hopefully they allow each state to make their own decision....Government shouldn't be allowed to make states do it that don't want to....The people need to vote, not the government telling!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Source

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday it will tackle the issue of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states are allowed to ban gay marriage.

The nine justices are expected to hear oral arguments in April and deliver a ruling by June.

The Court had before it petitions from four states -- Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan - all in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which recently went against the national trend and upheld gay marriage bans. The court granted petitions for all four states.

Looks like the "ban gay marriage" crowd has pushed the issue until the SC decided to deal with it once and for all. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

Well, i suppose it couldnt have been avoided. Whatever the outcome either side wont be happy i believe. What kind of world are we living in Benevolent Heretic???

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I would like to "Ban The Government" out of marriage.

Marriage is a social, legal, and sometimes religious union.

There should be no "wins or losses" because someone is single, married, etc.

Marriage is a legal contract so I imagine if they hear it they will be forced to rule that gay marriage is legal (otherwise they'd need to find a constitutional basis for discrimination).

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hopefully they allow each state to make their own decision....Government shouldn't be allowed to make states do it that don't want to....The people need to vote, not the government telling!

There is that pesky little thing called the 14th Amendment, that says states cannot make laws that treat their citizens differently...

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
What kind of world are we living in Benevolent Heretic???

A Crazy Chicken World... (First noted by "The Bowler" in Mystery Men)

Another issue that will never be resolved, inflame us against each other and distract from other waaay more important issues.

Bring it here too, why don't you?

I believe in equal rights...therefore gays should have to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

Looks like the "ban gay marriage" crowd has pushed the issue until the SC decided to deal with it once and for all. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

I don't think gay marriage or even marriage is a protected 'right' in the Constitution. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to get married, but I don't see how it is Constitutionally protected.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So if gay marriage is ruled legal, that means polygamy will be next. There is no logical reason for polygamy to be illegal if gay marriage is legal. In both cases, you have consenting adults wanting to be married. If fully expect all the gay marriage supporters to go to Utah and other states to support those that want to practice polygamy.

Just saying...

I think states should decide civil rights. That way we can make some no stupid bigot nut job states and we can all live in peace away from the hate.

Let the haters have Texas or something.

originally posted by: intrptr
Another issue that will never be resolved, inflame us against each other and distract from other waaay more important issues.

I'm sure some thought that interracial marriage issue would never be resolved, too. But, alas... This issue is WAY important to some people. Maybe not to you, but to some, it's critical.

As far as being "inflamed", if people are that angry about it, maybe they need to examine their prejudices... I'm thrilled about it. I'm sure many are happy to see this news.

Supreme Court Decision May Have Repercussions in 2016

It's a tough issue to talk about for Republicans, consultants say, because no matter what position they take, they're going to get in trouble with one side of the party or the other.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who adamantly stood against same-sex marriage during his unsuccessful 1994 gubernatorial run, struck a conciliatory tone last week when Florida became the 36th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

"We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law," Bush said in a statement, calling for "respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue."

If the SC votes FOR gay-marriage bans, it could hurt Republicans, as most people support marriage equality. If they vote AGAINST gay-marriage bans, the Tea Party types are going to be upset at Republicans for "caving".

Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, argue that anyone who thinks the fight will slowly die down is highly misguided. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said a Supreme Court decision that reverses same-sex marriage bans will be "a frontal assault on the religious liberty of all Americans."

"There are going to be profound consequences," he said. "If the Supreme Court rules, it will be just like Roe v. Wade all over again."

It may just turn out to be a 2016 issue.

I think it's INSANE that it's still an issue, just like abortion and birth control. NONE of this should be election fodder. But it is. Because they're emotional issues and people are known to vote for emotional, as opposed for logical, reasons.

a reply to: Edumakated

But there is no reason that adults can't decide their own relationship status. It is stupid for the state or indeed the fed to regulate relationships.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don't think gay marriage or even marriage is a protected 'right' in the Constitution. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to get married, but I don't see how it is Constitutionally protected.

Well, the 14th amendment says that if states make laws, they must treat all of their citizens equally under those laws. If a state has a secular contract for adults called "marriage", it should be available to ALL citizens of that state. That's the Constitution. And remember that a right doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution for it to be a right. (9th amendment)

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
I think states should decide civil rights. That way we can make some no stupid bigot nut job states and we can all live in peace away from the hate.

Let the haters have Texas or something.

As if you aren't a hater. It is just you hate those that don't agree with you.

a reply to: Metallicus

That's right. I do hate people who think that they can decide morals for everyone else even if no one is being hurt. You have a keen eye, friend.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So if gay marriage is ruled legal, that means polygamy will be next. There is no logical reason for polygamy to be illegal if gay marriage is legal.

You may be right. And I would support that, too. What possible reason would there be to deny polygamous marriages? I can see the state (or feds) putting restrictions on some things, like tax benefits, healthcare benefits, to prevent one man from marrying 10 women to give them all health care. That may end up costing the state (or feds) a lot of money. But to let one person marry multiple partners? I don't see an issue.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The urge to regulate the lives of people we don't agree with on the basis of personal morals is stupid. I really don't understand what their problem is.

No, wait I do. It turns out homophobes are more likely to be turned on by men then others who accept gays but are straight. Really they just hate themselves for wantin a nice big -censored- in the face.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

It's kind of the Supreme Courts job to make sure the Constitution is upheld... even by states. Marriage grants legal privileges, therefor it must be an option to all legally consenting non-related adults.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

as long as it is not like a cult where these old guys are marrying 13 year olds and the women all look like little house on the prarie