US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 


Because we have laws that govern legal consent. C'mon, don't over think this.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Having followed the Prop 8 law and the lawsuits that followed the argument is alot more simplified that what is being posted:

A brief recap on this entire Prop 8 as follows:

San Francisco started to issue marriage liscence to homosexuals, before Prop 8 came about. Then it was objected to, a prop was put onto the ballot to be voted on. It passed by a narrow margin, and then it was challenged in court.

The Judge in the original hearing, after looking at the case, holding it after many different holds on those supporting the case, who did not show up with all of their expert witnesses in this case. The arguments during that case was very thin and even the judge found it very disconcerting that the witnesses for those supporting prop 8 did not even show up to answer any questions. After weighing the entire case and facts, found that it was unconstintutional. His findings were challenged, and it was taken up by the next higher court. Part of the reason why it was challenged is that he was gay and the loosing side stated he should have reclused himself.

The original case and the claims were reviewed by the appellet court and it found the that the judge acted properly and that the findings also were judicially sound, to include the reasons that the judge gave for his finding.

Now it goes up to the next higher court and here it sits as the court will take the case up and make a decision on if the lower courts were correct or not, and the arguments have to be there.

The Supreme Court is a busy court, and it has to determine what it will and will not hear, and that which it does, it grants a writ of certiorari, which means that all records of the prior case is given up and reviewed, so the court will have already taken alook at the prior courts decision. Unlike the rest of the local and federal branches of the government, the Judicial branch is required to justify any and all of its decisions in writing.

We will have to wait until March to hear the arguments that are given and June for the actual decision, and to see what the opinion of the court it. It is that opinion that all of the laws are judged on if they are within the constitution or not.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I'm glad they're hearing it at all. However, they should only rule on the constitutionality of disallowing gay marriage, not on the constitutionality of marriage itself. Marriage is not held to be a constitutional right, but a privilege. Married couples should not get any benefits at all, other than the rights afforded to families regarding inheritance, visitation in hospitals, etc. There should be no tax benefits for any married couple.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by davjan4
 


Because we have laws that govern legal consent. C'mon, don't over think this.


Well... maybe those are discriminatory laws and need to be changed.

Of course I don't really believe that, but you get my point...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?



Find another church.

Why do you want it to be called "married" if you're an atheist? Why would it matter. IT doesnt make a difference what the little piece of paper the government gives you says. It could read:

" Gay Rainbow HAPPY TIME CONTRACT" and as long as it provides the same rights, what's the issue?


There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.


No, there isn't.

Either you get married in a church, of ANYKIND, or you get a civil partnership. Both are the same in every aspect other than name.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If they truly consider same sex marriage under Constitutional guidelines, I can't come up with any reason as to what they can use to turn it down as being approved.

Even Conservative justices have to follow guidelines setup in the Constitution



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It was only a matter of time, and now it is only a matter of months before the issue of gay marriage is put to bed...

On that day in June, I still reserve my right to say... I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!!! ...which will be followed promptly with the "I Told You So!" dance...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.


Correct. Interesting how when the coin falls on the other side, people no longer like the game or want the game modified.


2) The government has no business defining marriage at all. They have no business in marriage at all. I support a union of two people of any sex who love each other and want to be a family. But the government needs to be out of it. No tax loopholes, no special benefits, nothing. Then it won't be a problem for anyone to get married.

/TOA


Correct again. This issue will sadly become another Roe V. Wade division escalating a policy up to the Federal level when itself, should remain at the State and local levels. The 21st Century's new Roe V. Wade for political pandering.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by The Old American
 




1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.


Correct. Interesting how when the coin falls on the other side, people no longer like the game or want the game modified.


So by this logic, if the majority decides to vote away your gun rights, or votes to establish a national religion, then screw the Constitution, we just have to abide by the "will of the people"?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So by this logic, if the majority decides to vote away your gun rights, or votes to establish a national religion, then screw the Constitution, we just have to abide by the "will of the people"?


No that would be faulty and I am the furthest away from being a "will of the people" proponent. The point made by TOA, as I read, was people cry that they want the will of the people to be heard and in this case, it was, but it wasn't their will, so they want it thrown out. That is the logic to follow here.

Hence the "Democracy Now!" and democracy happened and they, by first hand, realized the nature of mob-rule when they fell on the other side. Whereas they turned and screamed for justice to such democratic rule. It is more ironic than anything.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by windword
 



Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?



Find another church.

Why do you want it to be called "married" if you're an atheist? Why would it matter. IT doesnt make a difference what the little piece of paper the government gives you says. It could read:

" Gay Rainbow HAPPY TIME CONTRACT" and as long as it provides the same rights, what's the issue?


There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.


No, there isn't.

Either you get married in a church, of ANYKIND, or you get a civil partnership. Both are the same in every aspect other than name.

~Tenth


The religious community doesn't own the rights to the word "marriage." We can't allow a few people to put a "Scarlet Letter" on the chest of people who's union they disapprove of, creating a separate elite culture of "God approved" pious "married" people for themselves, and lowly unholy group that their God disapproves of, in a modern secular society.

Since even churches can't agree on much, I don't see how it's one bit logical to let them dictate who can say they are married and who can't. They should stick to caring the eternal souls of their members, and leave those who aren't members to their own morality. Churches don't dictate secular morality!

If we just appeased and gave into religious people's facist demands, we would have the 10 Commandments in courtrooms, abortion and most birth control would be completely illegal, creationism would be taught as a science and public school children would be forced into public prayers.
edit on 7-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 





Asking a religious organization to validate your sexual preference when it is against there principle beliefs goes slightly beyond equal rights and wades into the deep end of the pool as agenda pushing. Unlike being born an American citizen or obtaining citizenship and being granted rights afforded to us by our constitution, religious organizations have no such rights, if you do not align yourself with their morals, principles or practices..... Find another religion or practice it without the need to seek approval from others.


No one is asking a religious organization to validate anything. It's none of their business what other people do in their bedroom.

What is coming before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with churches being forced to marry anyone.


edit on 7-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


14th Amendment... It is being violated here... If it is not a Constitutionality question, SCOTUS would not be hearing the case. My post stands.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


14th Amendment... It is being violated here... If it is not a Constitutionality question, SCOTUS would not be hearing the case. My post stands.


I wasn't arguing that, so I am unsure what you are speaking to in regards to my reply. They should be hearing it and I echo TOAs point a few posts up; the Constitutionality of disallowing a legal contract between two adults (to be vague of course) and not what marriage is. The later portion is outside the scope of the Federal Government.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So by this logic, if the majority decides to vote away your gun rights, or votes to establish a national religion, then screw the Constitution, we just have to abide by the "will of the people"?


No that would be faulty and I am the furthest away from being a "will of the people" proponent. The point made by TOA, as I read, was people cry that they want the will of the people to be heard and in this case, it was, but it wasn't their will, so they want it thrown out. That is the logic to follow here.

Hence the "Democracy Now!" and democracy happened and they, by first hand, realized the nature of mob-rule when they fell on the other side. Whereas they turned and screamed for justice to such democratic rule. It is more ironic than anything.


I'm 100% for gay marriage/civil unions, but that was exactly my point. They whine about democracy then, when it works, but not in their favor, they sue. What if it had passed by, say, 51%? Wouldn't it be the same issue? Does the will of 49% of the people mean nothing? No, they would've danced a jig and said "nyah nyah!"

The SCOTUS should rule that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay marriage. That's it. Nothing else.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"A legal contract between two adults" is what a marriage is. If not, it would not take two lawyers and a judge to disolve one. It is the legal protections that said contract provides that are at the heart of this matter.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"A legal contract between two adults" is what a marriage is. If not, it would not take two lawyers and a judge to disolve one. It is the legal protections that said contract provides that are at the heart of this matter.


Yes I know...again, what are you arguing here? They need to hear the case, I never said they shouldn't. I personally think the State, outside of recognizing the contract, should exit the marriage business. As long as the contract is valid and not signed under duress (hence annulment procedures), the state should recognize it.

My contract, if I were in a same-sex marriage, should be the same as if I were in a traditional marriage.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"A legal contract between two adults" is what a marriage is. If not, it would not take two lawyers and a judge to disolve one. It is the legal protections that said contract provides that are at the heart of this matter.


Yes, marriage is contract. The legality to contract with another person for goods and services is constitutionally protected. But it's the contract that is protected, not the terms of the contract. I have a feeling that the SCOTUS is going to rule on the terms, not the contract, which is wrong.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
TOA, have you found the writ of certiorari for this? I would love to see the arguments on both sides on where they stand going into merits briefs.

Post Script: Posted way too soon! Okay, here is the granting of writs of certiorari for this: PDF



12-144 HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the Constitution in this case.

12-307 UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.


I still want to find the petition though. If you run across it, let me know. Sense court opinions can get muddled with spin (see numerous cases that I care not to mention), I want to read arguments and opinion first hand to create my own spin!

More Post Script:
Apparently the court did not consider the First Circuit cases that ruled DOMA unconstitutional; rumor is because of Justice Kagen, but that is just a rumor. Seems like they are taking the 5th Amendment approach which would be the correct application I believe. If one contract, applied to two adults, signed in good faith is good for one party, why not the other? The court will be at least forced to deal with that disparity. They will however, and hopefully, stay clear of the definition of marriage. I only say this because if they begin to muddle in that realm, it risks of giving credence that the Federal Government has a role and responsibility to even define it. Ignore it and push it back down to the States.
edit on 8-12-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I have to say i don't care one iota what they voted for, they voted to oppress
an entire segment of the population because of their religious views.
it is wrong plain and simple. what is their obsession with other peoples
sex lives anyway...... kinda creepy if you ask me.

These people need to understand even if you vote for oppression then
it does not make it right, moral or good in any sense. it is immoral.
this right here is the problem with religion, it encourages good people
to do immoral things in the name of morality. people who without
the threat of eternal punishment might not even have an opinion about
others sex lives.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join