Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112584 times)

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1200 on: October 08, 2014, 01:31:49 PM »
last two posts:  excellent. funny. thank you.
w

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1201 on: October 08, 2014, 05:35:22 PM »
Scott Walker is right on gay marriage
By Jennifer Rubin

The difference between a governor in a purple state in a close reelection race and a freshman senator from a deep red state can be summed up by this Associated Press report:

    “For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” said Republican Gov. Scott Walker, whose state’s appeal was among those the court declined with a two-word order, “certiorari denied” — meaning the lower court’s ruling stands.

    Walker is seeking re-election in November and is expected to run for president in 2016 if he prevails.

    “To me, I’d rather be talking in the future now more about our jobs plan and our plan for the future of the state,” Walker said. “I think that’s what matters to the kids. It’s not this issue.”

    But for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the move by the high court was a rallying cry. The favorite of religious conservatives vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment designed to prevent “the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.”


Walker is slightly off in one respect — it is over in 30 states, where the ruling has allowed decisions striking down bans on gay marriage or where gay marriage was already legal. But Walker is correct legally and politically. In his state, as in most of America, the ship has sailed.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has it right as well, observing, “For the fall, I think . . . it’s about the economy; it’s about ObamaCare; it’s about what plans Republicans are gonna put forward to get our spending under control and do something in Washington, and it’s about governors’ races and about how to get state budgets under control and get people back to work.” It is hard to disagree with his assessment that gay marriage is simply not a “top-tier issue for the midterms.”

In reality, public opinion is not shifting back and there is zero possibility there will be a constitutional amendment on the issue. It boils down to a clump of states that presumably want the right to ban gay marriage. Or maybe not. Even there the ground is shifting: “Gay marriage has traditionally met its staunchest opposition in the South, but even those statistics are changing. In September, one poll from AP-GfK found 34 percent of Southerners favored the legalization of same-sex marriage. The year before, that same poll reported only 28 percent in the South said similarly, AP reported.” The Post’s Dale Carpenter summarizes where we stand:

The short-term result of the Supreme Court’s rejection of seven petitions for certiorari is that same-sex marriage will be available in eleven more states. This includes the five states whose marriage laws were directly struck down by their governing circuit courts (Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and, perhaps less quickly, the six other states in those same circuits (Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming). On that latter list, Colorado’s attorney general has already joined plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. Overall, marriage will be available to gay couples in 30 states covering more than 60% of the U.S. population. This includes almost two-thirds of the same-sex couples in the country.

Advocates can make their arguments to the remaining circuit courts and perhaps to the Supreme Court if it ever weighs in. But no senator or governor is going to have much to do with the outcome. The other Republican to weigh in yesterday, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, seemed to recognize this, although expressing his disappointment in the ruling. (“Whether to change that definition [of marriage] is a decision best left to the people of each state — not to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.”)  That’s certainly a defensible legal position that does not envision some quixotic campaign to lock courts out of the issue.

Frankly, after a few years when gay marriage has not “destroyed” heterosexual marriage in the many states that allow it, people will have a hard time remembering why this was such a big deal. In the meantime, rather than decrying what they cannot change, Republicans would be wise to follow Walker’s lead and address issues over which they do have control.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1202 on: October 26, 2014, 06:30:40 PM »
NC magistrates resign over gay marriage rulings
By Gavin Off

When a federal judge cleared the legal path for same-sex marriage in North Carolina earlier this month, it set off a flurry of weddings and celebrations, mostly in urban areas of the state.

But the joy was hardly unanimous, including among some public officials whose jobs include performing marriages.

At least six magistrates have quit or announced their resignations since same-sex marriages became legal Oct. 10, the Observer found.

Some left 20-year jobs that paid more than $50,000. Their decisions, they said, were based on religious beliefs.

“When you have convictions about something, you’ve drawn your line in the sand,” said Gayle Myrick, 64, a former Union County magistrate. “It (marrying gay couples) was not a consideration to me at any cost.”

Myrick joined magistrates in Gaston, Swain, Graham, Jackson and Rockingham counties who resigned – or announced plans to quit – because of the change in the marriage law. It’s unclear how many other magistrates have similar intentions.

Opponents of same-sex marriages said it’s likely other public officials feel the same but have chosen to keep their jobs for financial reasons.

The debate over a person’s individual rights versus their duties on the job is playing out across the country.

But the issue gets especially murky when it involves public officials, said Charles Haynes, director of the nonprofit Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute in Washington, D.C.

“From the beginning of our history as a nation, we have always valued our liberty of conscience and freedom,” he said. “(North Carolina’s situation) is one of the tougher areas, because when you work for the state, you serve the people.”

State Republican leaders are challenging the change in the marriage law. On Friday, Senate leader Phil Berger and 27 other Republicans asked the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts to grant protections to officials who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of religious beliefs.

Supporters of same-sex marriages said magistrates should do their job.

“State officials don’t get to pick and choose what laws they need to follow,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina. “They can’t turn people away just because of who they are and who they love.”

Decision to leave

Four years after becoming a magistrate in Swain County, Gilbert Breedlove, 57, was ordained as a Baptist minister. He preaches to about 20 worshippers in the mountain county. Breedlove saw the changes coming through the courts.

“There are many who won’t let their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs,” Breedlove said. “In this case, I had no option.”

Breedlove left the magistrate job that paid $52,000 annually, more than the county’s median household income of about $43,400.

With his minister position only part time, Breedlove said it’s unclear whether he’ll be able to make a living off it or by helping to bind and translate Bibles into American Indian languages.

“You either go for the finances or you go for the faith,” he said. “I know the Lord has something for me to do.”

Breedlove said he’s received support from family and friends, though he acknowledged that critical online comments from news articles have been hurtful.

Like Breedlove, Tommy Holland quit the job he held since the early 1990s. He was a magistrate in Graham County, on the Tennessee line, and also earned about $52,000 a year. He, too, is Baptist.

Holland, 58, said the decision to leave was tough, but simple. The county’s three magistrates received a state memo detailing the law change and reminding them that it’s their duty to perform marriage ceremonies no matter the sexual orientation of the couple.

“When you’re a magistrate, you take the oath to uphold the law of North Carolina,” he said. “It’s up to you to honor it. I just couldn’t.”

Jackson County magistrate Jeff Powell and Gaston County magistrate William Stevenson confirmed they left because of the change but declined to comment.

Magistrates’ duties

Same-sex marriages became legal this month when two federal judges ruled North Carolina’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Since then, 188 gay couples have married in Mecklenburg County, said David Granberry, register of deeds. No state figures were available.

While registers of deeds issue marriage licenses, magistrates perform the ceremonies. Magistrates also issue warrants and set bail. They can accept guilty pleas and payments of fines for minor misdemeanors and traffic violations. Magistrates must hold a four-year college degree or a two-year degree, plus relevant work experience, according to the state. North Carolina employed about 670 magistrates last fiscal year.

Challenging the law


Berger, the Republican senator, said he’ll craft a bill that would protect state officials who refuse – because of religious reasons – to issue marriage licenses or marry gay couples.

He discussed his plans in Rockingham County, where magistrate John Kallam Jr. said he’d rather step down than marry same-sex couples.

“Here, in Rockingham County, forcing Magistrate Kallam to give up his religious liberties to save his job is just wrong,” Berger said.

On Friday, Berger and other state Senate Republicans sent a letter to the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts director, Judge John Smith. They said the courts failed to tell magistrates of religious protections afforded to state employees.

Two magistrates told the Observer that a memo they received from the Administrative Office of the Courts hinted at criminal prosecution if they did not perform gay marriage ceremonies.

“Assertions amounting to threats about job loss and criminal prosecution without acknowledgment of recognized and existing workplace protections appear to have misled some supervisors to believe that the law will not tolerate the actions of reasonable men and women,” stated Berger’s letter to Smith.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, said a law that lets government workers choose who they serve “violates the principles of fair play.

“That’s not religious freedom,” Esseks said. “That’s discrimination.”

A balancing act

Haynes, the director at the Newseum Institute, said he expected push-back in states with newly minted marriage laws. In 2012, North Carolina voters passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriages by approving Amendment One.

That ban, along with an existing state law limiting marriages to a man and a woman, were overturned after two federal judges said they were illegal under an earlier gay marriage ruling by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Haynes said there is a balancing act between society’s interest and the interest of a person’s religious freedom.

“Nondiscrimination and religious freedom are both core American principles,” he said. “If we can have marriage equality and also protect freedom of conscience, then I think that’s really the best way to go forward.”

Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis have hired lawyers to appeal the federal marriage ruling. They’re hoping to get another hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court about the legality of the state’s constitutional marriage ban.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said there were no more legal options left and Gov. Pat McCrory said all state agencies would comply with the federal decision

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1203 on: October 27, 2014, 03:35:55 AM »
Quote
“When you’re a magistrate, you take the oath to uphold the law of North Carolina,” he said. “It’s up to you to honor it. I just couldn’t.”

You know what... I can respect this guy. He realizes that his job as a Magistrate is to uphold the law and when faced with a situation where the law goes against his personal convictions he does the right thing: he neither sacrifices his convictions nor allows them to interfere and resigns. Good for him.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30986
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1204 on: October 27, 2014, 06:29:05 AM »
You know what... I can respect this guy. He realizes that his job as a Magistrate is to uphold the law and when faced with a situation where the law goes against his personal convictions he does the right thing: he neither sacrifices his convictions nor allows them to interfere and resigns. Good for him.

Unlike other hypocrites who would have stuck around in a failing attempt to be "right".

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1205 on: January 05, 2015, 03:05:43 PM »
36 states now permit same marriage.

Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County
By Patricia Mazzei, Steve Rothaus and Carli Teproff

Miami-Dade County became the first place in Florida to allow same-sex couples to marry on Monday, half a day before a gay-marriage ban that has been ruled unconstitutional is lifted in the rest of the state.

Weddings began around 1:30 p.m., less than three hours after Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel lifted the legal stay she had placed on her sweeping July decision declaring the ban discriminatory.

Two of the six couples who had sued — Catherina Pareto and Karla Arguello of Coconut Grove, and Jeff and Todd Delmay of Hollywood — were the first to be married, by Zabel herself.

The couples exchanged rings surrounded by family, friends and a pack of television crews at downtown Miami’s historic civil courthouse following Zabel’s 11 a.m. ruling.

“In the big picture, does it really matter whether or not I lift the stay or leave it until tomorrow?” Zabel said from the bench. “I’m lifting the stay.”

The elected clerk of courts, Harvey Ruvin, at first said same-sex marriages would begin at 2 p.m. But once his office received a signed copy of Zabel’s two-page order at noon, he let couples apply for marriage licenses immediately.

“All of our offices are now fully prepared to follow the judge’s order, and everyone will be treated equally,” said Ruvin, a Democrat in a nonpartisan post.

Same-sex couples are now able to marry in 36 states and Washington D.C. The ruling also means gay marriages performed outside Florida will be recognized in Miami-Dade.

Cheers erupted in the courthouse with Zabel’s decision. Some of the plaintiff couples cried tears of joy. Outside, surrounded by reporters and photographers, they held hands and raised their arms in victory.

“I feel good. I am relieved. I feel vindicated,” said Pareto, of Coconut Grove. She and Arguello, her partner of more than 14 years, arrived in cream-colored dresses, ready to get hitched. They were the first couple to later obtain a marriage license.

“Finally,” Arguello said. “Finally, our family will not be treated any differently.”

The Delmays bought $10 silver wedding bands while on vacation in Hawaii 12 years ago and have worn them on their right hands ever since. On Monday, they switched the rings to their left hands once their union was legal.

“We have been reserving that spot for when it became official,” Todd Delmay said as he held his husband’s hand. “This means so much to us.”

Four years ago, Jeff Delsol and Todd May legally changed their surnames to the blended “Delmay” before their son was born. But they wanted to get married in the state they call home. “We never for a second considered going anywhere else,” Jeff Delmay said.

Outside of Miami-Dade, most Florida court clerks will start marrying gay couples Tuesday — some of them at 12:01 a.m. — following a federal judge’s order. Several counties in conservative North Florida and the Tampa Bay area have stopped marrying people in their offices, in part to avoid marrying same-sex couples, although they will still have to issue marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, declared the state ban unconstitutional in August, but stayed his decision through Monday to give some time for legal appeals. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, sought extensions of the stay from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, but both turned her down.

The ban was approved in by 62 percent of Florida voters in 2008 as part of Amendment 2, an initiative organized by the Orlando-based Florida Family Policy Council.

In a statement issued Monday, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was “deeply disappointed” by Hinkle’s decision and by the appeals courts’ refusal to grant Bondi an extension.

“Marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes is the lifeblood of family, and family is the foundation of our society,” the bishops said. “The crisis that sadly the family is experiencing today will only be aggravated by imposing this redefinition of marriage. Society must rediscover the irreplaceable roles of both mother and father who bring unique gifts to the education and rearing of children.”

Last year, Zabel was the second state judge — after Judge Luis Garcia in the Florida Keys — to overturn a 2008 voter-approved amendment to Florida’s Constitution that required marriages to be between a man and a woman. In all, four South Florida judges sided with same-sex couples who either sought to marry or divorce, or to have the state recognize their out-of-state marriage. The other two judges hailed from Broward and Palm Beach counties.

In the Keys, Judge Garcia vacated his stay Monday afternoon, but made the order effective at midnight, which means same-sex couples will be able to marry there beginning at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. The office of Monroe County Clerk Amy Heavilin, a Republican, plans to open at that time to marry 100 couples. First in line will be Aaron Huntsman and William Lee Jones of Key West, who filed the case that prompted Garcia’s ruling.

“By refusing to intervene, the higher courts have allowed Judge Hinkle’s ruling to take full effect,” Garcia wrote. “As a result, the law of the land in Florida is that the ban on same-sex marriage, as codified in statutes and the Florida Constitution, is in contravention of the rights insured by the United States Constitution and is thus unenforceable.”

Broward Clerk Howard Forman, a Democrat, also plans to grant licenses beginning at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale, with a mass wedding scheduled for 3 a.m.

Zabel ruled in favor of six same-sex couples from Miami-Dade and Broward, and the LGBT-rights group Equality Florida Institute, who sued last Jan. 21. They were the first plaintiffs to challenge Florida’s ban in court.

On Monday, Zabel kept her decision short: “The Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized to issue marriage licenses forthwith to prospective spouses of the same gender,” she wrote.

In addition to Pareto and Arguello and the Delmays, the other plaintiff couples were Jorge Isaias Diaz and Don Price Johnston of Miami; Dr. Juan Carlos Rodriguez and David Price of Davie; Vanessa and Melanie Alenier of Hollywood; Summer Greene and Pamela Faerber of Plantation.

Pareto’s and Arguello’s mothers, who accompanied their daughters to Monday’s hearing, later stood on chairs to see over the crowd as their daughters signed their marriage license.

Ruvin’s office had no time Monday to print new license applications, so Pareto signed as “groom” and Arguello as “bride.”

“Take lots of pictures,” said Marlene Pareto, who was tearing up. “My daughter looks prettier today than ever.”

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30986
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1206 on: January 06, 2015, 07:42:16 AM »
Bimbo Bondi must be on suicide watch at this point.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22722
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1207 on: January 06, 2015, 07:45:01 AM »
36 states now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH   good.


I wonder if the Thumpers will try and make ADULTERY a state or federal crime?

Victor VonDoom

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1424
  • ...and Doom shall control the world!
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1208 on: January 06, 2015, 08:19:00 AM »
Neither man nor woman is worthy of Doom's hand in marriage, but good for those who wish to marry.  Bah!

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30986
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1209 on: January 06, 2015, 08:55:31 AM »
36 states now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH   good.


I wonder if the Thumpers will try and make ADULTERY a state or federal crime?

The braindead GOPinhead Bondi claimed she was opposing and attempting to outlaw gay marriage due to current law.  According to current FL law, it is also illegal for a man and woman who are not married to live together  "Cohabitation" of unmarried people is currently a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by $500 or up to 60 days in jail. The same penalty applies to cheating husbands and wives — though only to opposite-sex couples.

Think she will make an attempt to uphold the law here or will she just continue to be a laughing stock due to her insecure hypocrisy?

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1210 on: February 09, 2015, 04:58:45 AM »
Alabama Judge Defies Gay Marriage Law
By ALAN BLINDER

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — In a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court on Sunday night ordered the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin here.

“Effective immediately, no probate judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama probate judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent” with the Alabama Constitution or state law, the chief justice wrote in his order.

The order, coming just hours before the January decisions of United States District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade were scheduled to take effect, was almost certainly going to thrust this state into legal turmoil. It was not immediately clear how the state’s 68 probate judges, who, like Chief Justice Moore, are popularly elected, would respond to the order.

Since Judge Granade moved last month to declare Alabama’s prohibitions against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the chief justice has insisted that the probate judges were not required to abide by her decisions. But, in an interview on Wednesday, he said he thought he could do little more than guide the probate judges on how to respond.

“I think I’ve done what I can do: advise the state court probate judges that they’re not bound by any ruling of the Federal District Court,” he said.

But by Sunday night, the chief justice, faced with the prospect of many judges allowing same-sex marriages to move forward, acted, in part, “to ensure the orderly administration of justice within the State of Alabama.”

Reached by telephone late Sunday night, Ben Cooper, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, said that same-sex couples expected to be issued marriage licenses Monday morning.

“We are continuing to move forward tomorrow,” Mr. Cooper said. “If we walk in and licenses are refused, if they do not comply with the federal order, then these probate judges could be personally liable,” said Mr. Cooper, who added that he expected legal actions to be filed against the individual probate judges if they do not issue the licenses.

Some judges across the state had already signaled they would do nothing to aid gay couples and, in some instances, any couples. “Marriage licenses and ceremonies are no longer available at the Pike County Probate Office,” the office said.

And Washington County Probate Judge Nick Williams released a “declaration in support of marriage” in which he said he would “only issue marriage licenses and solemnize ceremonies consistent with Alabama law and the U.S. Constitution; namely, between one man and one woman only, so help me God.”

Several judges elsewhere announced variations of those plans after a push by Chief Justice Moore, who rose to national prominence in the early 2000s when he defied a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a Montgomery building and was subsequently ousted from his post leading the high court. He staged a political comeback, became chief justice again in 2013, and has in recent weeks said that Alabama’s probate judges are not bound by a federal trial court’s decisions. His argument has deep resonance in a place where a governor, George Wallace, stood in a doorway of the University of Alabama in 1963 in an unsuccessful bid to block its federally ordered integration.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Although much has changed from Wallace’s era, Chief Justice Moore had used a series of strongly worded letters and memorandums to insist that Judge Granade, an appointee of President George W. Bush who joined the federal bench in 2002, had instigated a grave breach of law.

The result had been a legal and cultural debate rife with overtones of history, closely held religious beliefs and a chronically bubbling mistrust of the federal government that was expected to play out at Alabama’s courthouses Monday.

“I didn’t start this,” Chief Justice Moore said last week of the controversy. “This was a federal court case pushed on our state.”

Judge Granade has signaled that she expects probate judges to carry out her decisions, and judges, before the chief justice’s order, had often said they would.

“With all due respect to Chief Justice Moore, he’s on the Alabama Supreme Court, and he’s not a federal judge,” said Alan L. King, a probate judge in Jefferson County, said last week.

The chief justice’s misgivings speak to widespread concerns here about federal overreach and same-sex marriage in Alabama, where about 81 percent of voters in 2006 supported a constitutional amendment banning gay nuptials. Few here doubt the force of his belief that Judge Granade’s orders hold only “persuasive authority,” and not binding power, on Alabama judges.

“My guess is that is actually the way Roy Moore sincerely understands the federal-state relationship,” said Joseph Smith, a judicial politics expert at the University of Alabama. “He’s also an elected politician, and he knows who his constituency is.”

So he has for now turned his words against Judge Granade.

“She can’t order them to recognize the unconstitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment by her views,” the chief justice said in a telephone interview during which he quoted Alabama statutes verbatim and resisted comparisons to Wallace.

Despite Chief Justice Moore’s protests, some analysts see parallels between his arguments now and those Wallace advanced in his own time.

“It’s a very similar strain of ideology: the state’s rights, resisting the national tide, resisting liberal movements in policy,” Dr. Smith said.

Some legal scholars say that the chief justice may be correct in his interpretation of the immediate scope of the federal court’s rulings and how they apply to the probate judges. But his eagerness in pronouncing his views unnerved some in Alabama who feared that it might stir local judges to resist Judge Granade.

“I don’t want to see judges make the same mistakes that I think were made in this state 50 years ago, where you have state officials not abiding by federal orders,” said Judge Steven L. Reed of Montgomery County, who added, “The legacy always hangs over us until we show that we’re beyond it.”

But there had been only limited talk of plans for sweeping defiance by probate judges, including those who say that same-sex marriages conflict with their religious views. In Geneva County, Judge Fred Hamic said Wednesday he would issue licenses to gay couples but that they would have to go somewhere else to wed. “I believe I would be partaking in a sin, and I sin every day, don’t get me wrong,” he said. “This is one sin I do not have to participate in, not that you have to participate in any sin.”

For many here, it is unsurprising that Chief Justice Moore emerged as a strident voice in a social debate after the dispute about the Ten Commandments display, known as “Roy’s Rock,” forced him from power.

“Unfortunately, sometimes it makes for very good politics here to be seen as opposing federal intervention, whether it’s from a court or a federal agency,” said David G. Kennedy, who represents two women involved in a case that prompted Judge Granade’s decision. “The situation here is that this is not federal intervention. It’s not federal intervention at all. What it is, is a federal court declaring what same-sex couples’ rights are under the federal Constitution.”

Erik C

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2516
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1211 on: February 09, 2015, 09:04:11 AM »
It appears that homosexuals have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry and start a family.

The distinction of "protected class" melts away under the weight of a US citizen's fundamental right.

I, for one, am glad that government is being restrained from interfering in the private lives of citizens.  Aren't you?

Marriage isn't "private," it is Public! The government allowing queer marriage, is enabling pervert behavior. That's not what the government should be doing. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, isn't always something that should be promoted, and approved of, by the government.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1212 on: February 09, 2015, 01:32:40 PM »
Strawpajamafag and Lurkerqueer and Andreisatwink can all get married now and leave thew rest of us alone. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1213 on: February 09, 2015, 01:44:47 PM »
Strawpajamafag and Lurkerqueer and Andreisatwink can all get married now and leave thew rest of us alone. 

Go back to bed loser.

Erik C

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2516
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1214 on: February 09, 2015, 02:05:49 PM »
you seem to be contradicting your self
marriage is more than a bedroom activity

The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1215 on: February 09, 2015, 03:56:50 PM »
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.

If you cannot handle it, self immolation is always an option.  ::)

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1216 on: February 09, 2015, 04:32:24 PM »
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.


Or, we could just live and let live.


chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1217 on: February 09, 2015, 07:17:50 PM »
The bedroom is private. Publicly no one wants to see, hear or approve of your mentally ill, perverted, so called, life.
i do; that's why I like to watch str8 porn now and then.
w

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1218 on: February 12, 2015, 02:27:06 PM »
Federal judge orders Alabama County to issue licenses for gay marriages
By Sandhya Somashekhar

A federal judge on Thursday ordered Mobile County, Alabama to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, a ruling that could pave the way for other local officials across the state to follow suit.

In an eight-page decision, U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade reiterated that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage had been struck down and clarified that Mobile County’s probate judge, Don Davis, had to adhere to that decision.

Though her ruling only applies to Mobile County, gay rights groups hope it will provide clarity to probate judges in all 67 Alabama counties, more than half of whom refused to give out marriage licenses to gay couples this week even though same-sex marriage became legal in the state on Monday.

“We’re very happy that our plaintiffs and other same sex couples in Mobile can now obtain marriage licenses and the protections of marriage, and we hope this will provide sufficient guidance in probate judges in other parts of the state,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a nonprofit that helped represent the four plaintiff couples.

But critics of same-sex marriage said the ruling may not put the issue to rest. Mat Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm representing more than a half-dozen of the state’s probate judges, has asked for further clarification from the Alabama Supreme Court.

It was Roy Moore, the state’s chief justice, who prompted the defiance of many probate judges by ordering them late Sunday not to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

“We still need a ruling, no matter what it is, from the Alabama Supreme Court,” Staver said.

News of Granade’s decision sent applause and cheers through the lobby of the probate court, where dozens of people gathered Thursday afternoon in hopes that the marriage license windows that had been closed all week would finally open. Among them were about 20 gay couples hoping to obtain marriage licenses.

Lawyers told the crowd that they had been informed that the marriage license window would be opening momentarily.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30986
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1219 on: February 15, 2015, 07:25:23 AM »
Strawpajamafag and Lurkerqueer and Andreisatwink can all get married now and leave thew rest of us alone.  

Ever consider taking an actual English and spelling class?  I know the requirements to be a debt collector aren't high, but it could help you out in other areas.  

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1220 on: February 15, 2015, 09:46:35 AM »
I would argue that the supreme court affirming homosexual unions doesn't legitimize the concept religiously.  Religious Americans should consider the issue in that light and not feel threatened.  As of yet religious institutions aren't being required by law to validate a gay union theologically.
You can still feel homosexuality is a sin.  Look at it as the government is allowing two individuals to form a contract over assets.    My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business entirely.  A person can have a private ceremony if they choose.  For legal purposes they can arrange a will or contract to determine how assets are distributed if they severe their union or one should die.
A

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30986
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1221 on: February 15, 2015, 09:41:10 PM »
I would argue that the supreme court affirming homosexual unions doesn't legitimize the concept religiously.  Religious Americans should consider the issue in that light and not feel threatened.  As of yet religious institutions aren't being required by law to validate a gay union theologically.
You can still feel homosexuality is a sin.  Look at it as the government is allowing two individuals to form a contract over assets.    My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business entirely.  A person can have a private ceremony if they choose.  For legal purposes they can arrange a will or contract to determine how assets are distributed if they severe their union or one should die.

You are asking too much of religious nut bags.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19426
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1222 on: April 28, 2015, 03:07:46 PM »
A Landmark Gay Marriage Case at the Supreme Court
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The lawyers defending state bans on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court Tuesday morning tried their best to put a friendly face on their arguments. But if anyone doubted the depth of the discrimination that gays and lesbians continue to face across America, an outburst partway through the arguments provided a bracing reminder.

At the close of the first half-hour, a man in the back of the gallery began shouting that same-sex marriage violates the teachings of the Bible, and that its supporters will burn in hell. After he was dragged out kicking and screaming, Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “It was rather refreshing, actually.”

The heckler’s tirade, which cut through some of the tension in the courtroom, made one thing clear: Opponents of marriage equality are not going down without a fight.

And that is one of the major reasons the court needs to resolve, finally, the question it has been dodging for more than four decades — is there a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? In 1972, the justices summarily dismissed a petition asking them to grant that right, finding that the case did not present “a substantial federal question.”

Since then, the legal landscape has changed greatly. In 1972, no state permitted same-sex marriages. Today, 36 do, as does the District of Columbia. But 13 states continue to ban it (its status in Alabama is unclear). Couples from four of those states — Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan — petitioned the justices to find that these bans violated the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.

For two-and-a-half hours — more than twice as long as a typical oral argument — the justices weighed two questions: Does the Constitution require states to license marriages between people of the same sex, and if not, must states at least recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other states?

The conservative justices, not normally eager to acknowledge legal traditions outside the United States, cited everyone from the ancient Greeks to the hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari in making the argument that marriage has been universally understood to be between a man and a woman.

“This definition has been with us for millennia,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “It’s very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we — we know better.” Justice Kennedy has written all three of the court’s major gay-rights rulings, and his vote will very likely determine the outcome here. But his questions on Tuesday gave fewer clues than many had hoped as to where he would come down this time.

In 2013, when the court voted 5-4 to strike down the heart of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Kennedy emphasized the equality and dignity of same-sex couples, but also the importance of respecting states’ rights. With this in mind, the lawyers defending the bans insisted that each state should be allowed to make its own decision about same-sex marriage. John Bursch, a special assistant attorney general in Michigan arguing on behalf of his state’s ban, asked the justices to give way to the “democratic process,” which he said “forces neighbors to sit down and civilly discuss an issue and try to persuade each other through reason, love and logic.”

To this naïve and oversimplified view of how state-sponsored discrimination actually works, Justice Elena Kagan had an apt rejoinder:

“Mr. Bursch, we don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy. And the Constitution imposes limits on what people can do, and this is one of those cases.”

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1223 on: May 23, 2015, 12:48:01 PM »
congratulations! Oscar Wilde was just 100 years too early.
w

B_B_C

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2369
  • change is the lot of all
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #1224 on: May 23, 2015, 01:16:36 PM »
congratulations! Oscar Wilde was just 100 years too early.
Mr Wilde confused his wit with wisdom
c