"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

DOMA was actually ruled unconstitutional partly. SCOTUS ruled that the federal government had to recognize all marriages from all states, and all legally married gay couples had to be given all benefits offered by the federal government, regardless of whether the state they live in recognizes their marriage.

 

We have tried to educate you on the limits of the 10th amendment and of states rights under our Federal Constitutional Republic but either you can't learn or chose to remain ignorant. You might want to read one or two of the court opinions that overturned state bans on same sex marriage . There are lots and lots to choose from.

 

I'll try once more:

 

the precedent was already set with inter-racial marriage, the reason the courts are delaying it, is because they know they have no choice but to side with equality

- - - Updated - - -

exactly, no one wants to have to get married in all the states, when your married in one, you should be married in all

.

 

Why do bible-thumping Christians struggle so with the separation of church and state? They don't get to turn their interpretation of their holy scripture into law. This is not a theocracy. Please stop trying, fundies. This country was founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all, not on the principle of creating a Christian Utopia.

 

Their brand of Christianity would not result in Utopia It would mean tyranny. They are Christians that do not follow Christ. Ah, Christians in name only...CHINO's . Hey Chino, what's up?

 

I agree that it wouldn't be Utopia at all, but in their minds that's precisely what it is. And that's the scary part.

 

If the Supreme court actually takes a case, and it appears they they will, and if the ruling is favorable, this would not be necessary. In any case, it will be interesting to see what this new congress does with it, to see if Republicans have learned anything about being more inclusive.

 

Remember that Louisiana is the only state ( along with the territory of Puerto Rico) where a Federal Judge ruled to uphold a ban on same sex marriage. Officials in Texas and Mississippi-where bans were overturned- are bouncing of the walls today

Michigan is in the 6th Circuit, the only circuit to overturn a federal district court’s finding that a state ban is unconstitutional, setting up a circuit split and raising the probability that SCOTUS will now take a case.

Louisiana's is simultaneously being considered by the 5th circuit and it seems likely that SCOTUS waits to see what happens there before deciding if they will hear the case.

Kentucky involves the case of two Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon, have been together for 31 years and married in Canada in 2004, but because of Kentucky's anti-marriage laws, they are treated as an unmarried couple. The case seeks a permanent injunction requiring Kentucky to respect marriages between same-sex couples performed outside of the state. It is also a 6th circuit state

Ohio ‘s case also involves the issue of out of state marriages. A Federal district judge has already ordered that the state recognize the marriage and an appeal is pending to the circuit court. It is in the 6th circuit along with Michigan which upheld a ban on same sex marriage

Tennessee's case seeks review of a November 6 ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which reversed a lower court ruling in this federal case seeking respect for marriages legally performed in other states in Tennessee

I’m predicting that they will take the Michigan case and it will be the case that invalidates all state bans on same sex marriage. Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

Hmm, no action on any of the marriage cases, yet. Maybe we'll here something on Monday. I've a hunch they might remand the Michigan case back to the 6th Circuit with instructions concerning the level of scrutiny. But it's only a hunch. If they take no action coming out of this conference, then it may be rescheduled for a future conference.

 

I don't think you understand, this is the country of equality, everybody should have equal rights no matter who they are, what they believe and especially how they're sexually oriented. It shouldn't be up to the states to decide what is obvious, gay marriage should be as legal as opposing sex marriage. If all men are equal, then why can't a man love another man?

 

Welcome and thank you! You will soon come to see what you are up against here, but don't despair. Think of it as whack -a mole. Eventually they go away. Every now and then some one will see the light. Case in point, Tram posted that a while ago and I believe that since then, he has come around to endorse marriage equality, although I don't know how he feels about that "leave it to the states" nonsense.

 

Equality at the point of a gun is not true equality.

There are downsides to forcing equality on to people who don't want it, and I don't understand why people can't have their choices to be with who they want to be. You really don't see the irony and the contradiction of your statement, do you?

The irony is this:

We have the right to be gay but you have to be forced to accept them in your society.

In short you're only exchanging discrimination from one form to another, and that's not true equality.

And there is also something in the first amendment that you're missing:

The right of association.

And there is also the tenth amendment that states anything that is not covered in the Constitution goes to states rights, and the following amendments do not trume thaT EITHER.

Yous ee, the Constitution is an all or nothing deal. You just can't pick and choose what you like and don't like, nor can you sau iy only applies to one group of people.

Even more so if you believe in an adult's right to choose.

When you force one group of people to accept another, that is taking the adult's right to choose, that is also a bad thing.

People have the right to learn to change on their own. And many people will in time.

But brow people into submission will only create more resentment which will only hurt things in the long run.

People really shouldn't be forced to accept people they don't want to accept, even if that is bigotry.

Because you see, if you can force other people to submit to you because you have the power, then other people who have more power than you have the right to force you to accept them.

And thus, a circular argument is created to which there is no real solution.

 

Conservatives don't want the Supreme Court to act on same-sex marriage.

why? cause the Constitution makes no distinction between men and women, and therefore states have no authority to tell men they can't marry men, or tell women they can't marry women.

the only way goverment can deny SSM is if they can somehow prove to the SCOTUS that in order to promote the general welfare of our society, SSM must be banned. Or by passing a Constitutional amendment making marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Tram, this country is a republic. The state is always at the point of a gun. That is the way it should be. The people must hold the power.

If you can show me a state interest in forbidding same sex couples from getting married than we have a discussion. There child be things I've over looked.

 

Yes I know, this country has always acted on the point of a gun. Doesn't mean I support that sort of thing either.

South Carolina is resisting the Supreme Court's decision on homosexual marriage:

And there are fifteen states that are appealing the decision of the Supreme Court:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/20/supreme-court-rejects-sc-stay-gay-marriage/?page=all

But I'm not sure what our discussion should be. I'm not in opposition to it myself, I just believe in an adult's right to choose for themselves on how they want to live their lives and whom they want to socialize with.

When you look at history you'll find that a fair amount of atrocities have been committed by single group countries forcing people to conform or die to their ideologies.

 

do who is losing the right to choose is being taken away? As far as I see it you are now able to make a choice you weren't previously. The states appealing the marriage decision are attempting to take away people's right to live how they choose. Thatis from my perspective any way. But I would like some elaboration on this part where people aren't able to live their lives.

 

What do you mean "forcing to accept people"? That doesn't make any sense, people don't have to accept them, people would still have free speech even if gay marriage is legalized nationally. People would'nt be forced to accept gays, they'd just have to accept that a man married a man or that a woman married a woman, they wouldn't have to accept it. All races have equal rights in America, but you don't have to accept that they do so long as you follow the law.

 

To them if you can't ban it....then its being forced onto them. Because something existing offends them.

 

They don't get the concept of coexisting.

 

Most people don't understand coexisting because most humans are tribal and xenophobic. Most still haven't learn to get out of Africa.

Neither has Toto, apparently.

They're still singing about being there.

 

Nobody is "forcing" you to accept another. You are still free to believe that homosexuality is a sin. You just won't be able to stop people from getting state recognized marriages.

Legal is not the same as acceptance. Tell me, do you consider strip clubs to be moral to your religion? Nope, but they are legal.

Having a legal choice does not mean it is necessarily moral. This is what the anti-SSM crowd simply does not understand.

 

okay, so how do you feel about the fact that I really and truly do believe that the act of homosexuality is a very disgusting thing to me?

 

Allow me to chime in here. Why should anyone feel anything about the way you feel? Whatever you feel is your problem and yours alone. I'm disgusted by smoking so I stay away from people who do it. All that you have to do is to stay out of the gay bars and off of the gay porn sites and you wont be disgusted.

And as I and others have said numerous time, we don't care about your acceptance. Acceptance is not the issue. The issue is legal recognition of marriage by the state. Didn't you tell me recently that you agree that same sex marriage should be legal? I'm sure that you did!

 

Yes I did. This was not about same sex marriage, but attitude.

You see, a lot of the tiume when I express this opinion, someone gets upset at me and insults and berates me to no end and calls me homophobe and all kinds of nasty things.

So, if the intent is not to get me to either correct how I feel or to prevent me from expressing this feeling, then I really don't understand the need to insult or berate me for it.

So therefore, his state of "Nobody is "forcing" you to accept another" is incorrect because the only purpose I can see to being insulted and berate over how I feel about the act can only be that of correcting my opinion or keeping me from expressing it, and therefore I can only conclude that it is about accepting homosexuals, not tolerating them.