"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

Let them squirm!!

 

The GOP is in a bind.

On one hand, they still have a base of voters who are rabidly homophobic and DEMAND that the Party do ...or atleast say.....something in opposition to gay marriage rights.

On the other hand, they see the polls. A majority of Americans support SSM rights.....61% of young REPUBLICANS support SSM rights.

So they have to thread the needle and APPEAR to support their anti-gay bigots.....but not so much that they can't distance themselves from them (or try to) in a General Election where homophobia is now a political liability for them.

Guys like Huckabee and Santorum make the situation worse for the GOP by giving a spotlight and a "hero" for the homophobes to rally behind.....

Imagine if Mike or Ricky decide, lagging in the polls, to demand of their Republican opponents in a GOP Presidential Primary Debate - "State right now, _______, will you support States being allowed to ignore a USSC ruling allowing gay marriage or will you side with those who want to re-define 1000s of years of the traditional and BIBLICAL definition???"

And guys like Jeb, Christie, Walker, Romney ...are forced, to avoid boos and cat-calls, to sound like the homophobe heroes?

And then try to back-pedal out of it after they win the Nomination?

 

Ted Cruz To Introduce Federal Amendment Prohibiting Judges From Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

And this isn't even the first time he's brought it up. After the Supreme Court refused to hear five same-sex marriage cases in October, he released this statement:

“

 

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the four gay marriage cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee sets the stage for the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans to be decided once and for all.

With the high court's previous DOMA ruling in place and its refusal to stay lower court rulings bringing marriage equality to a number of states, it can be tempting to think nationwide marriage equality will be a sure bet this year.

For precautions sake though, Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson has spelled out what will happen should SCOTUS go the other way: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/01/what-happens-if-we-lose-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cases.html


With respect to same-sex couples who already have married as a result of court rulings, Lambda Legal strongly believes -- as a federal district court in Michigan ruled just yesterday with respect to marriages entered in that state before the 6th Circuit's adverse ruling -- that those marriages will remain valid and will need to continue to be respected by the states in which those marriages were entered. Nonetheless, the validity of those couples' marriages may be challenged and those couples may want to take additional steps (such as executing wills, durable health care powers of attorney, and securing second parent adoptions) to provide them and their families extra peace of mind and security.

With respect to whether same-sex couples would be able to marry and would have their marriages respected in other states, that would vary from state to state. States in which marriage equality was achieved by a ruling under the state's constitution, by legislative reform, or at the ballot box, would be unaffected. Unmarried same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (the states whose marriage laws the Supreme Court today agreed to review) would be forced to seek reform through the political process. States in which a final judgment has been obtained in federal court would be required to continue to allow same-sex couples to marry and to respect out-of-state marriages entered by same-sex couples unless and until someone with standing makes a motion to reopen the judgment and that motion is granted (unless stays are properly obtained before then). In some states, there may be no one with standing interested in seeking to set aside the existing judgment. Same-sex couples in states in which a judgment is on appeal or can still be appealed whose judgments have not been stayed should be able to continue to marry and to have their out-of-state marriages honored by the state until the existing judgment is stayed or reversed.

There's no question that it would be a mess. This is one additional reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the 6th Circuit's aberrant decision and hold that same-sex couples, like all other couples, share the fundamental right to marry and that it violates federal guarantees of equality and liberty to refuse to allow them to marry or to deny recognition to the marriages they lawfully have entered in other states.

 

Looks like they are finally smartening up enough to know that they don't wont to be on the losing side again

 

Overturning the voters will in the vast majority of states (39) is undemocratic at best. Five judges thinking they know more than the collective sum of human history - no state has thrived by encouraging homosexuality.

 

Welcome to the forum! You do understand that we are not a direct democracy, right? We are a Constitutional Republic, some times referred to as a Constitutional Democracy. The operative word is 'Constitution" The state is not encouraging homosexuality. They are among us. That is the reality. it is also the reality that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.

So, you are apparently opposed to same sex marriage. Please tell us why. Full disclosure. We have heard it all so spare us the appeals to tradition and other logical fallacies.

Nice to meet you.

 

Homosexuality cannot be discouraged or encouraged. It exists. And there is no reason to deny people who are homosexual equal rights under the law.

Also, according to the constitution, states may not make laws in violation of said constitution, not matter how many people vote for them. If they try, they will be struck down by the courts. That's how things work in the USA.

 

As Clarence Thomas Pens A Defeat, The Supreme Court May Have Already Showed Us How They Will Vote On Gay Marriage

 

Well, that is the question: Is homosexuality genetic or a learned behavior? If genetic, there is nothing to fear from gay marriage, as the % of those engaged in homosexual behavior would not change. However, if not genetic, then gay marriage makes homosexuality as legitimate as heterosexuality, and confers on the former the legally and governmental benefits of marriage - tax treatment, inheritance laws, etc. That encourages it. There are already gay rights groups talking about "the queering of America," once gay marriage is law. And of course, the gay lobby will demand that the schools teach our children not just the birds and the bees, but the birds and the birds and the bees and the bees. All of us, even those practicing homosexuality are here as the result of a heterosexual act. IF homosexuality is genetic, then why don't all twins have the same sexual orientation? As homosexuality increases, heterosexuality decreases, and our already declining birthrate will do so even faster; we are already well below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per female, 1.86 in 2013.. Encouraging homosexuality is akin to encouraging our demise as a species. If genetic, no worries, but I haven't seen any news flash that they found the gay gene. Until science can prove homosexuality cannot be learned, society should be under no obligation to incentivise a behavior so at odds with its own survival. The court acts with undo haste, assuming a genetic basis, without any factual confirmation.

 

I know you and other ignorant anti-SSM don't seem to understand the same people that are gay now in states that don't allow gay marriage will STILL be gay regardless of SSM being legalized or not.

You don't "encourage" people to be gay they just are. Tell us, when did you CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite sex. I know I just was, there was nothing choice involved.

 

Source? This is news to me. I think you need to define "the queering of America" for us.

Education should be based on reality. Sex education isn't solely about procreation. It's also about preventing sexually transmitted disease. Thus, it is applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual sex acts.

If by that you mean the combination of egg and sperm, yes. If you mean a man and woman having sexual intercourse, you would be mistaken.

"Genetic" means more than the straightforward inheritance of traits. Twins have been shown to have a greater chance of both being same-sex oriented than would be the result of mere chance. Whether or not this is the outcome of genetics alone, I don't feel has been proven, and I don't think you'll find any researcher saying so. That doesn't mean that genetics play no role, however.

There is no evidence that the rate of homosexuality has increased, or is likely to increase.

Now you've entered the realm of hysteria and slippery slope fallacies.

The Court acts according to the law, whether or not same-sex orientation is genetic, learned, or something else. Your argument relies on something you cannot begin to prove - that homosexuality endangers the continuation of the human species. I therefore find it easy to dismiss as hysteria.

 

And if that is true, you can of course show a direct cause and effect relationship between the declining birth rate and the acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage . Right ? We will be awaiting your documentation. Oh yes, I do believe that the US population is still increasing.

I would also like to see your source that shows heterosexuality is decreasing. If your basing that on more people being out and open about their sexuality, it does not prove that more people ARE BECOMING homosexual.

 

The courts are not assuming anything with regards to any genetic basis for homosexuality. It is being treated as an Immutable characteristic. You would know that if you had read a few of the courts opinions or legal briefs

You might also want to study up on the complexities of human sexuality. To imply that homosexuality is either fully genetic or learned is just dumbing it way down. It's much more involved that that. Do your homework!

 

There is every reason to believe that heterosexuality is genetic - it is how we have propagated as a species to this point - sperm banks and artificial insemination are all recent developments, so your heterosexuality was natural. Yet it doesn't take a genius to realize that sex can be had without intercourse, and frankly, its going to feel good either way. All those pedophile priests having sex with altar boys - did they KNOW those boys were gay and choose them accordingly? Or did they just talk them into "trying" something that "feels good," - the same way a dealer offers drugs? And what of those boys, are they going to be the persons they would have been if never having been exposed to gay sex? I simply believe that early sexual experiences greatly affect people, and if someone "trys" gay sex, they are likely to orient themselves that way. Legitimizing homosexuality by putting it on an equal basis with heterosexuality will only serve to encourage such experimentation, altering the inherent heterosexuality which is basic to our species. A gay gene would have long ago been bred out of our gene pool. Heterosexuality is the basis of our existence, it is why we exist. To deny that is truly ignorant.

 

How can a characteristic be immutable if not genetic? Genetic characteristics are not easily changed: Michael Jackson tried to change his race, having dozens of facial surgeries and skin bleachings, and he never did really look "white." Some folks try to change their genders, resorting to hormones and surgery, and yet no man turned woman is ever going to have a child - genetic things do not change, yet people do. If homosexuality is so immutable, why did Ellen Degeneres' main squeeze, Anne Heche, get married to a man. (Pregnant, too.) See, I agree sexuality can be complicated, but I think that is because people try things they should not, do things they should not. I would not blame a young man for thinking he is gay if he had been exposed to gay sex at an early age. I read about some preschoolers who were caught engaging in oral homosexual sex during nap time! Where did they get that idea? I have had no doubts about my heterosexuality, but I was not even aware of sex at that age. But if someone had given me oral sex, I am sure it would have felt good! If that person was of the same sex, then I would have likely associated that pleasure with the same sex. I believe that homosexual experiences alter ones natural heterosexuality. Putting homosexuality on par with heterosexuality will serve to increase the very experimentation that alters one's heterosexual path - and that is the real crime, for all those addicted to heterosexual sodomy are missing out on their natural genetic heritege; it is being taken from them by an idea - homosexuality. It is not an idea we should legitimize or encourage.

 

You are really unable to learn anything from what I and others have been saying here, are you?

You ask: How can a characteristic be immutable if not genetic? Why don’t you ask a lifelong fundamentalist Christian that? Ask if their faith can be altered. Ask if it is not an essential part of who they are as a person.

It’s apparent that you ignorance extends to not understanding the difference between sexual orientation and life styles and I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you since I doubt that it would help.

It’s also apparent that you have a pathological obsession with gay sex. What do you suppose that’s about? Now, do you have anything to say that is intelligent and on topic? Anything pertaining to the legal issues?

 

I don’t suppose that there is any reason to believe that you will be able to see the absurdity of claiming that heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality is not. It has to be two sided of the same coin. It’s like saying that maleness is genetic and femaleness is not. Even if being gay was the result of the absence of a straight gene. It is still genetic. Can you possibly not understand that?

The fact is that neither a specific gay gene nor a straight gene has been identified, although there is evidence of genetic markers that influence sexuality along with a myriad of other factors including environmental influences. However, I’m sure that such consideration are way too sophisticated for you to delve into. You just want to believe the dumbed down clap trap about it being either genetic or a choice. So be it.

In any case the issue of genetics is not even relative to this thread. Few people are talking about it. Those who do concern themselves with it are mainly the ones who want to moronically prove that homosexuality is a choice. The courts are certainly not concerning themselves with it. No case ever has, or will turn on the issue of why people are gay.


Lastly, “legitimizing” homosexuality will not create more homosexuals. That is just ridiculous. The only thing that may have changed is that more people are open about their sexuality and that’s a good thing. The human species has never been endangered, and never will be by homosexuality. Making those sorts of claims is irresponsible and just makes you look stupid.

PS I had previously asked if you can of show a direct cause and effect relationship between the declining birth rate and the acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage . Apparently you either did not understand the question, or you have no answer. I rest my case.

 

They're grasping at straws in complete and utter desperation. The smart ones know it's over, as SCOTUS has, as you pointed out, all but come out and said "This is how we're going to rule." Of course, I question the intelligence of anyone who holds anti-SSM views in the first place, so maybe that's not true.

 

I've seen pretty concrete evidence that sexuality is not mutable. As far as it being genetic, that's neither here nor there. The idea is that straight people don't become gay, and gay people don't become straight. And here is the evidence as I see it.

First, homosexuals have always existed and it doesn't seem that the percentage in society goes up or down based on the permissive or forbidden status of homosexuality.
Second, there has been over a century of work attempting to understand the cause and undo homosexuality and so far there is nothing understood about what makes a person gay.
Third, all attempts by society to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, be it by churches, clubs, or legitimate psychologists, has been an utter and total failure.
Fourth, and I admit it's anecdotal, many homosexuals have tried to not be homosexual to no avail. Often times damaging their own psyche.

 

Today, plaintiffs in the four cases before the United States Supreme Court will submit their briefs to the Court explaining why the freedom to marry matters.http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/...ain-why-marriage-matters-to-the-supreme-court

On January 16, the United States Supreme Court granted review of an out-of-step ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which ruled in November against the freedom to marry in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. In each of these cases, federal judges had ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for all, and the 6th Circuit reversed each decision

 

This is unbelievable! How stupid and crazy can these people be? Not only do they have no legitimate first amendment claim, but the also have no understanding of how our system of government works.

 

I don't think you can have any clearer evidence that gaybashing is from latent homosexuality on the gay bashers part than the above. Apparently they honestly do believe that we're all just waiting for SSM to be legal so we can run right out and get Mr T to (*)(*)(*)(*) us up the ass.

NewsFlash, guys, that's just you, deal with it

 

Neither does Governor I'm Your Huckleberry, and he's running for President.

 

I notice Nebraska's ban was abolished today, without any stay of the ruling. So only 13 states to go. By the summer, a SCOTUS decision is either incredibly perverse, or a meaningless rubber stamp.