Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States

kinda like southern Jim Crow laws were found to be unconstitutional by federal courts. Gay marriage is no longer a question of if, only when. I predict within five years, it will be legal across the land.

 

If even that long. The only real question is, how to implement the benefits immediately after it's legalized without effecting other budgets.

 

As soon as it's legal across the nation? 90% of homophobes who ranted about how it would "destroy marriage" and "collapse America like the Roman Empire"...

will suddenly develop apathy and say "It never mattered to me, one way or the other" ....due to the fact they can NEVER admit when they lose.

The other 10% ...who won't "give up the fight"?.....are guys who get a little TOO "excited" when they talk about anal sex between men.

 

they can't, or the same would be true of inter-racial marriage, that has already been decided

 

You are right.

 

You mean for those who happen to be gay, while maintaining all other exclusions from marriage.

 

Have any class other than same-sex persons who want to be married brought forward any cases or evidence?

 

If so, Ill cotinue to advocate for marriage equality in my state of Texas, refuse to join with the federal governments agenda to promote homosexuality. An improper role of government in my opinion.

 

Of course, what comes along with this is an assault on personal morals, free speech, property rights, and freedom of religion. A true change in the culture by force of government.

Now a business owners are being sued and fined for following their moral principles and religious values.

 

No class other than homosexuals who want to be married has brought forward any case. Thats because when the first case was brought in Hawaii, they didnt create the Hawaii Commission on marriage to examine the issue, they instead created the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation.

 

we see more in your face heterosexuals in our lives then we will ever see homosexuals... that's just fact

 

Once again you missed my point here.

Each of these cases started in state courts who ruled the gay marriage bans unconstitional and where then appealed to higher courts up the chain.

Each case originated in a state court who ruled the ban unconstitutional. The state courts started the ball rolling and their decisions were ultimately what was ruled on by the appeals courts, and each one of them found the gay marriage bans unconstitutional and each federal appeals court agree with those decisions.

So yes...these were state courts rulings the where upheld.

Do try to keep up.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<. Every one of those cases STARTED in a FEDERAL court.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

Sure enough, just like clockwork, someone gets ruffled and fails to notice I used the word "PUBLIC" when talking about pride parades.

Here's what I said. Hope this helps:

don't put on silly public parades glorifying it,



- - - Updated - - -

Can you post a picture of a straight flag? Can you show a video of a straight pride parade?

Thanks in advance.

 

To be fair, a number of cases have been decided in favor of same-sex marriage in state courts, while at the same time, federal courts in those same states have also found that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Louisiana currently has a split in that the federal court upheld the ban, and a state court struck it down. Should be amusing to see how that plays out. I don't know if the 7 cases that the SCOTUS recently dismissed started out in state court or not, but they were certainly settled in federal court...

 

While today you might have a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, don't expect to hang on to it very long. It's pretty much toast at this point.

The Supreme Court is not likely to ever vote that marriage is solely a state function. That's a pipe dream by people who have little understanding about how the courts work, and specifically how the Supreme Court operates.

 

That's funny because that's exactly how Kennedy voted in regards to DOMA. And you only won DOMA because of Kennedy's vote. The reason he voted that way was because it was in regards to a FEDERAL law in DOMA which would give more federal control of marriage over the states. So he voted against it. However, what you folks are asking to occur is for the conservative supreme court including Kennedy (who is FIERCELY in support of state rights).

He actually eluded to this in the ONLY time he referenced Loving v Virginia in the majority opinion.

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, &#8220;regulation of domestic relations&#8221; is &#8220;an area that has log been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.&#8221;

When it comes down to State rights vs Federal rights all of the conservative Justices will vote in favor of State rights.

 

Keep dreaming. Most of them started as a person suing the county.

 

heterosexuals have Mardi Gras Beads

 

It's a free country, people are free to have parades. And I could not care less about what you think.

Every day is straight pride day. Are you kidding me? Look around.

 

All it will take is for one plaintiff to file a brief in each Federal District Court covered by the Appellate Court ruling (NC is in the 4th). The District Court judge will be bound by the Appellate Court ruling to issue a summary judgement and the marriage bans will be tossed out.

Of course, there won't be recourse to appeal because the appellate court has already ruled.

Some state's AGs will probably forgo even this process, knowing it's a waste to defend that which can no longer be (judicially) defended.

At best, days. At worst, weeks.

 

Not quite. Inter-racial marriage bans were overturned because it discriminated against two people because of race. Something that was rectified in the Constitution. It only had to do with marriage because that was the vehicle the racism was being perpetrated in.

There is no definition of what a marriage is, so if the SCOTUS decided to leave it up to the states to define marriage, then any state that defines it as strictly as a contract between one man and one woman would have to be allowed to do so and any legal proceedings at the Federal level would be null and void.

Now, I'm not arguing for or against, not am I arguing the likelihood of SCOTUS making such a ruling in the future. All I am arguing is that if they did, state law would trump proceedings at the federal level that attempted to overrule those state laws or state amendments.

 

Now liberals are for states rights hahaha.

Figures.

 

How do you know either is straight or gay?

 

My bolded text is the important section of that quote from the decision, not the other way around, because it plainly states that state marriage laws are still subject to the constitution, despite marriage laws normally being the purview of the state.

The 4 conservative judges had 7 opportunities to decide if they wanted to hear a case involving state marriage laws, and then decide if they are solely a states rights issue, and they passed on all 7 of the briefs filed. It only takes 4 justices to vote to hear a case, and yet 4 votes apparently couldn't be found. That should tell you something.