Author Topic: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April  (Read 14660 times)

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #75 on: June 18, 2015, 07:16:45 AM »
If God didn't destroy the US because of the genocide of the Native Americans or because of the slavery of the African children, then he really isn't going to give a shit about two people of the same sex marrying.

Religious idiots just need to get another brain cell and get over it.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #76 on: June 18, 2015, 09:20:35 AM »
Activists prepare for gay marriage decision
By Mark Preston, CNN
Thu June 18, 2015

Washington (CNN)New Mexico Pastor Steve Smothermon says he is ready to go to jail to protect his religious freedom. And he is not the only one.

Smothermon is one of more than 50,000 people who have signed a pledge to engage in social disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling this month that would legalize same sex marriage across the country.

"We want to help people, but we are not going to be forced by the government and society or the politically correct to say we are going to believe in it," said Smothermon, senior pastor of Legacy Church in Albuquerque. "If they said, 'Listen pastor, we are going to put you in jail if you don't honor this.' I am going to say, 'Then put me in jail.' "

READ: First on CNN: GOP presidential hopefuls urged to reject gay marriage

Emotions are running high as the nation waits to see how the Court will rule on whether states should be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples and if a state should be forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in another state. Some social conservatives argue that recognizing same sex marriage will weaken the nation's moral fabric as well as their religious freedom. Supporters of a constitutional right for same sex marriage say it is high time the nation recognized these unions.

No matter how the Court rules, it is expected to have dramatic political implications in the 2016 elections and beyond.

Shifting opinion
Until recent years, same sex marriage has been an issue relegated to the shadows, as politicians either did not support or would not publicly endorse it.

And it wasn't just Republicans who opposed same sex marriage. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that defined marriage as being between a woman and man. Clinton would later disavow his decision. President Barack Obama waited until 2012, seven months before Election Day, to announce his support of the right for gays and lesbians to marry.

READ: Carson: Gay rights aren't the same as civil rights

Support of same sex marriage by elected officials tracks with changing public opinion on the issue. A majority of Americans, 63%, believe that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married, according to a May CNN/ORC International Poll. In August 2010, the CNN/ORC poll showed that 51% of Americans believed that gays and lesbians did not have a constitutional right to marry.

"It is amazing thing for someone like me, who has been in politics for 35 years now, to see in your own lifetime an issue going from being a strong negative for your party to being a strong positive the way gay marriage has," said Richard Socarides, an openly gay Democrat, who served as a senior adviser to President Clinton. "Democrats supported gay rights and never wanted to talk about it and Republicans opposed gay rights and always wanted to talk about it. It has completely shifted in a very short period of time."

The many signs of #SCOTUS 
The many signs of #SCOTUS 14 photos
EXPAND GALLERY
This shift is particularly pronounced with Democrats and Independents. The 2010 CNN/ORC poll shows that 56% of Democrats and 57% of Independents supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to be married. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, support for a constitutional right for same sex marriage jumped to 74% for Democrats and 69% for Independents.

Republicans have also moved towards supporting same sex marriage, but a majority remains opposed. The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 60% of Republicans do not support a constitutional right to same sex marriage; in the 2010 CNN/ORC poll, 73% of Republicans were against it.

Dividing the GOP
Complicating matters for the GOP is that same sex marriage is a divisive issue within its own party. It not only pits social conservatives against centrist-leaning Republicans, but also younger people against their parents and grandparents.

The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 59% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents under the age of 50 supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry, while 61% did not.

READ: Rubio: Gay marriage proponents pose 'danger' to Christianity

Growing support for same sex marriage among young Republicans, polling data and the fact it is already legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia is enough for some in the party to say it is time to let the issue go. In March, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who is gay, and more than 300 GOP office holders, activists and operatives including former Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady submitted a brief to the Court expressing support for same sex marriage.

Brady, who stepped down as chairman in 2013 after sparring with social conservatives for supporting same sex marriage in Illinois, said it is not productive for the GOP to continue fighting this issue.

"When we run as the party of big ideas we do very well," said Brady. "Whether you agree or disagree on how the court has ruled, we need to focus on electing a Republican president."

Still, there is strong opposition in the GOP when it comes embracing same sex marriage, and social conservatives want to put people on the record on this issue -- specifically those running for the White House.

"We need to make sure we have presidential candidates standing up for religious liberty," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Brown's organization will unveil a 2016 presidential pledge Thursday, asking candidates to publicly state their support for marriage between one man and one woman. He said they would begin contacting campaigns immediately asking them to sign the pledge, much like Mitt Romney and other GOP presidential candidates did in 2012.

Already, two Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have added their names to the Defend Marriage Pledge, the online document Smothermon and 50,000 other people have signed in which they vow to ignore the Court's ruling if it violates the teachings of their faiths.

"A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order," reads the pledge. "As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line."

READ: Jeb Bush stands by opposition to same-sex marriage

Dr. Rick Scarborough, who helped launch the Defend Marriage Pledge, said it is critical for people to come together to fight for religious liberty. Scarborough, founder of the Judeo-Christian advocacy organization Vision America, said he is concerned that the government will try to force people and organizations to ignore the teachings of their faith and accept same sex marriage. In addition, he warned that if the Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage, it would a "slippery slope" resulting in the enactment of new laws that would further encroach on people's religious liberties.

Scarborough noted that California and New Jersey have already passed laws in recent years outlawing "reparative therapy," which supporters claim will help turn a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (The American Psychiatric Association disagrees and opposes such treatment).

"The real issue for us is the effort to silence us for what we believe is true," Scarborough said.

Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, said he does "not think anyone's religious liberty would be violated" if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage.

"I do not believe someone would force a member of the clergy to perform a marriage," said Olson, who successfully argued to overturn California's prohibition on same sex marriage. But Olson did add that merchants would be prevented from asking personal questions of potential customers.

"If you are in the commercial world, just as in the case of race, I do not think if you have a bake shop you can ask someone their sexual orientation," he said.

Issues for 2016
Opponents and supporters agree that regardless of how the Court rules on same sex marriage, the issue is not going away.

"We will work to overturn any illegitimate Supreme Court ruling and we will make sure that folks understand that it is an illegitimate ruling by the Court," said Brown, who will be present outside the Court on the day of the ruling.

Adam Talbot, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization would continue to fight for equality even if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, because people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are "still at risk for discrimination."

And expect to hear same sex marriage and religious liberty discussed on the campaign trail in the coming months -- like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush each did this past week.

"They turn their backs on gay people who love each other," Clinton said at a campaign rally over the weekend, accusing the Republican candidates of refusing to back same sex marriage.

Bush warned that if Clinton is elected president she would work to weaken their religious freedoms.

"These have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience," Bush said. "And the leading Democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to come. Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to the contrary those beliefs, quote, 'have to be changed.'

"That's what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage/index.html

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #77 on: June 18, 2015, 01:30:51 PM »
Smart move by Republican canditates to alienate independent and cross over voters just to appeal to Republican voters who are already going to vote for them anyway


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #78 on: June 25, 2015, 01:17:16 PM »
They better practice keeping their mouths shut.

This is absolutely true:  "The ones calling for tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant," said the Rev. James Merritt of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth.

Foes of gay marriage say speaking out can make them a target
Shelia M. Poole and Craig Schneider, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (TNS)
June 24, 2015

ATLANTA — Alveda King is certain of two things: She'll always oppose same-sex marriage, and people will always get mad when she says so.

How could the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. oppose gay marriage? they demand to know. At times the social media jabs, angry emails or tense phone calls are threatening, she said, although recent Twitter comments were merely critical.

Tennis great Martina Navratilova, who married partner Julia Lemigova in 2014, tweeted:

"@AlvedaCKing really tired of you guys telling me and my family we are 'wrong' in about every way imaginable. Shame on you."

In an unexpected turnabout, many opponents of gay marriage will not speak publicly in 2015 because of the backlash that will follow: the charges of bigotry, intolerance or worse. Not too many years ago, it was the proponents of same-sex marriage who were publicly condemned — by some of the very folks who won't speak out today.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any day now on the legality of same-sex marriage.

"The ones calling for tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant," said the Rev. James Merritt of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth.

The Rev. Bryant Wright of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in East Cobb noted during the recent Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Ohio, where gay marriage was at the top of the agenda, that when his church put a sign outside announcing they would discuss the topic of homosexuality, the young people in the church received a lot of criticism.

"Our students became concerned," he said. "The statements were so mocking them, so bullying them, so criticizing them. "People said to them: 'You're so hateful. Why do you go to that church?'"

He criticized gay and lesbian advocates for their aggressive approach in responding to the church's belief that gay marriage is wrong.

"It's a bullying, intimidating approach."

He said gay rights advocates "have been clever in making this a civil rights issue." But he believes it is not.

"A lot of pastors who believe in civil rights are so frustrated because they are being lumped in" with bigots, Wright said.

Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, an advocacy organization for the LGBT community, dismisses the idea that there is an organized plan to attack members of the clergy or their congregations for opposing gay marriage.

Since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2003, there have not been any instances in which a church was forced to marry a same-sex couple and a Supreme Court ruling won't change that, he said.

However, "when people directly attack our family, whether by word or deed, then there are members of the LGBT community who will point out that that is hate-mongering," he said.

Alveda King has even found her own life shared on social media. One person tweeted that King had been married three times, suggesting that she might not be the best person to talk about marriage.

"When I speak of adulterers, they don't write or call me a hypocrite and threaten to kill me," said King, who has often mentioned her divorces. "The fornicators laugh at me and tell me to get a life. When I speak out against gay marriage, the supporters of that movement threaten to kill me. "


Anytime she does an interview, she said, "it just surges. That's almost expected now. I don't get angry. I pray. I just pray."

It's not just high-profile figures feeling the heat.

Marshall Grant, an information technology worker from Roswell, opposes such unions, although he has relatives and friends who are gay. Grant says same-sex marriage goes against his Christian values, but he doesn't want to be painted as a bigot.

"Even though more people are accepting of it, they are less tolerant," said Grant, who didn't want his photo taken for this article. "The dialogue has shifted to, 'if you don't believe in gay marriage, I will not be tolerant of you.'"

Could it affect his relationships with co-workers or even his job?

"You can get fired for anything nowadays," he said. "It's a very sensitive topic. "

Experts say the widespread use and reach of social media play a big role in this feeling of being under siege.

The Internet gives "broadcast capacity" to anyone, said Dr. David Greenfield, of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction in Hartford, Conn. "Which means if you have an opinion, whether well informed or ill-informed, popular or controversial, you can have that opinion broadcast in a very large way without almost any effort."

So, for those taking unpopular stands, "it's absolutely true that you can be targeted because of freedom of speech. Unless you're defaming someone or threatening in some way, this is pretty much allowed."

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Foes-of-gay-marriage-say-speaking-out-can-make-6347487.php

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #79 on: June 25, 2015, 03:22:24 PM »
The Internet gives "broadcast capacity" to anyone, said Dr. David Greenfield, of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction in Hartford, Conn. "Which means if you have an opinion, whether well informed or ill-informed, popular or controversial, you can have that opinion broadcast in a very large way without almost any effort."

So, for those taking unpopular stands, "it's absolutely true that you can be targeted because of freedom of speech. Unless you're defaming someone or threatening in some way, this is pretty much allowed."

You can be targeted and yes it's "allowed." But don't worry: if those targetting you are being dumb, there's a fix and it's quick and easy: more speech... imagine that.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #80 on: June 25, 2015, 06:01:16 PM »
You can be targeted and yes it's "allowed." But don't worry: if those targetting you are being dumb, there's a fix and it's quick and easy: more speech... imagine that.

It isn't just the fact they are targeted.  It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation.  You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.  

I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offensive (answer:  more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc.  I don't think you can approach them the same way.  

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #81 on: June 25, 2015, 09:05:44 PM »
Some people really gonna whine and gnash their teeth over the decision.  Sucks to be them.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #82 on: June 26, 2015, 09:18:55 AM »
It isn't just the fact they are targeted.  It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation.  You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.  

I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offensive (answer:  more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc.  I don't think you can approach them the same way.  

Sure. But that's nothing new - extremists are extremists for a reason.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #83 on: June 26, 2015, 09:26:59 AM »
It isn't just the fact they are targeted.  It's the attempt to silence them through threats and intimidation. You cannot easily and quickly fix that kind of intimidation.  

I think you are mixing how to respond to speech that you find offense (answer:  more speech) with how to respond to threats, intimidation, censorship, etc.  I don't think you can approach them the same way.  

yes, very similar to how blacks protesting for equal rights were threatened, attacked, beaten, lynched, had their churches bombed, had crosses burned on their lawns, etc..

or how abortion doctors are threatened, attacked and murdered

you and your people are experiencing those same things ?

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #84 on: June 26, 2015, 10:36:24 AM »
Some people really gonna whine and gnash their teeth over the decision.  Sucks to be them.

Let the whining begin.  Or better yet, a mass exodus of the bigots as they flee to better countries.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #85 on: June 26, 2015, 11:47:25 AM »
Sure. But that's nothing new - extremists are extremists for a reason.

It's not just extremism.  It's the attempt to silence opposition. 

It's one thing to have an opinion; even an unpopular one.  It's quite another to tell others they cannot express opposing viewpoints without being persecuted. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #86 on: June 26, 2015, 11:49:00 AM »
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
June 26, 2015


Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage was a right, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that this Supreme Court has become a “threat to American democracy.

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Scalia said.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Here is an excerpt of a key passage from Scalia’s decion:

I write sepa­rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar­riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange­ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/scalia-court-threat-american-democracy?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-scalia-court-threat

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #87 on: June 26, 2015, 11:50:26 AM »
It's not just extremism.  It's the attempt to silence opposition. 

It's one thing to have an opinion; even an unpopular one.  It's quite another to tell others they cannot express opposing viewpoints without being persecuted

you have a right to express your opinion

you have no right to be free from criticism by others for having that opinion

no one is persecuting you by just criticizing or objecting to your opinion


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #88 on: June 26, 2015, 11:52:54 AM »
I'm no El Profeta, but I've been predicting this for years.  Not surprised at all. 

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.

Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The ruling means the remaining 14 states that did not allow such unions, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans. Already, gay marriages were underway Friday in several states where they had been banned. A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision. Other licenses reportedly were issued in Arkansas and Texas -- where Gov. Greg Abbott also issued a memo directing state agency heads to protect religious liberties.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices. He continued: "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. Cheers broke out outside the Supreme Court when the decision was announced.

Speaking in the Rose Garden, as he did a day earlier after the high court upheld a key component of his health care overhaul, President Obama called the ruling a "victory for America."

The president said it would "end the patchwork system we currently have" and the uncertainty gay couples face over whether their unions will be recognized in other states.

"This ruling will strengthen all of our communities," Obama said.

But other justices argued that the court should not be able to order states to change their marriage definition. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, called the ruling an "extraordinary step."

"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Each of the four dissenting justices also wrote a separate dissent. Prominent social conservatives, meanwhile, blasted the decision. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said it puts the government on a "collision course with America's cherished religious freedoms."

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere. They previously had their bans upheld by a federal appeals court.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #89 on: June 26, 2015, 11:56:22 AM »
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’

Roberts is going to have to give Scalia a good talking-to.   Let him know it's time to move liberal, as Roberts has.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #90 on: June 26, 2015, 11:59:05 AM »
I'm no El Profeta, but I've been predicting this for years.  Not surprised at all. 

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com


yeah, you and tens of millions of other people

congratulations

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #91 on: June 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM »
Roberts is going to have to give Scalia a good talking-to.   Let him know it's time to move liberal, as Roberts has.

For all his faults, and he has many, Scalia is a much better jurist than Roberts.

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2015, 02:08:29 PM »
finally.
case closed
move along, there's nothing to see here.
w

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2015, 02:38:23 PM »
Scalia: 'This Court' is a ‘Threat to American Democracy’

Well he can take his little prolapsed asshole and serve on another court in another country if he doesn't like this one. 

Talk about a whiny little bitch.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2015, 02:51:09 PM »
finally.
case closed
move along, there's nothing to see here.

Actually it's on to triad marriages, more lawsuits involving religious organizations and people of faith, civil disobedience, etc.  It's not going to change the court's ruling, but I wouldn't say the entire issue is being put to rest.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2015, 02:53:50 PM »
Dershowitz: Obama has 'Chutzpah' to Take Credit For Marriage Ruling
By Bill Hoffmann   
Friday, 26 Jun 2015

President Barack Obama has "chutzpah" to claim some credit for the Supreme Court's landmark endorsement of same-sex marriage, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.

"I wasn't surprised [at the ruling]. What surprises me is that President Obama is taking any credit for this," Dershowitz said Friday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" following the court's 5-4 ruling.

"He ran twice against gay marriage and it was only when he was not running for re-election, when the polls showed the vast majority of Americans supported gay marriage, that he had the courage of his convictions to come out and support it.

"So it takes a little bit of chutzpah for him to get on the radio and claim some credit … His Justice Department supported it, but for years they did not support it but that's true of most politicians. They blow with the wind."

In a speech at the White House Rose Garden, the president said, "There's so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American. But today we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we've made our union a little more perfect."

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already could wed in 36 states and the District of Columbia — but the 5-4 ruling means the other 14 states must lift their bans on same-sex marriage.

Dershowitz — a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas," published by RosettaBooks — said that the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage is "something that was inevitable."

"Even if the Supreme Court had not ruled in favor of gay marriage, within five or 10 years, every state would have legislated gay marriage because it's the trend," Dershowitz said.

"And so the question really is, is this the role of the courts or is this the role of the legislator? This was inevitable. It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about."

Dershowitz, a Newsmax contributor, said he believes that issues such as same-sex marriage are better decided by the people.

"Roe v. Wade — it would've been much better if the right of a woman to choose an abortion came from the legislatures instead from on high," he said.

He noted that the tides have dramatically turned from when America was founded.

"If you asked the framers of our Constitution 225 years ago, they would've laughed at you. Thomas Jefferson thought that gay people should get the death penalty," Dershowitz told Steve Malzberg.

"If you asked any justices in the Supreme Court 20 years ago, they would've laughed at you. Fifty years ago, if a lawyer had raised this question, he probably would've been subjected to sanctions. This is the quickest turnaround ever in constitutional history ... It's a great victory for those of us who realized that we have a living Constitution, that you can't treat the Constitution as if the words were there, to be interpreted as they were intended back in the 1800s."

Dershowitz said the Supreme Court's ruling will in no way trample on religious freedoms.

"No priest is going to have to marry two men or rabbis are going to have to marry two men. Nobody is going to have to violate their religious rights," he said.

"People who say that they have a religious right not to sell flowers to gay people, that's absurd. There's no religion that says you can't sell flowers to gay people or you can't cater their wedding. But you can't be forced to perform a rabbinical or a priestly function.

"We try very hard to balance liberty, equality, religious freedom, religious views and it's a work in progress. It's never perfect, but we're getting it right for the most part."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alan-Dershowitz-Same-Sex-Marriage-Marriage-Equality-Gay-Rights/2015/06/26/id/652438/#ixzz3eCv6Z8pa

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2015, 02:57:12 PM »
Actors, Celebs Whoop With Joy at US Gay Marriage Ruling
Friday, 26 Jun 2015

Actors, singers and Hollywood celebrities, many of whom have played a major role in driving acceptance of gay rights in mainstream culture, whooped with joy at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that made gay marriage legal nationwide on Friday.
Twitter lit up after the historic decision, with #LoveWins, accompanied by a rainbow-colored heart, and #Supreme Court quickly becoming the top trending items on the social media site.

Celebrities such as British singer Elton John and U.S. comedian Ellen DeGeneres, both of whom are in same-sex marriages, have spoken out in support of gay unions for years.

Popular American TV shows "Will & Grace", "Glee" and comedy "Modern Family" also are widely credited with playing an influential role in changing the perception of gays, lesbians and transgender people in the United States and beyond.

Following are some celebrity reactions to Friday's ruling, delivered via Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and statements:

Madonna, Singer

"Finally And at Last! The Revolution Of Love has Begun!"

Lady Gaga, Singer

"Same-sex marriage is now legal all across the US! Free to love. Free to marry. Free to be equal!"

Leonardo Dicaprio, Actor

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Katy Perry, Singer

"Really encouraged to be an American today... Love should live beyond labels & intolerance!"

Neil Patrick Harris, Actor

"It's a new day. Thank you Supreme Court. Thank you Justice Kennedy. Your opinion is profound, in more ways than you may know"

Ellen Degeneres, Actress And Tv Talk Show Host

"Love won."

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Actor And Star Of Tv Comedy "Modern Family"

"Hugely emotional that marriage equality has finally come to the U.S. History! Love ALWAYS wins."

Liza Minnelli, Actress And Singer

"I have always said that everyone has the right to love who they love and today, with the historic decision from the Supreme Court, I am so happy it is now the law of the land."

Ian Mckellen, British Actor
"America now joins in all the other countries that have been doing the same thing. I think it's going to be a rapid domino effect. It will have a big effect beyond these shores, I hope."

George Takei, Former "Star Trek" Actor
"This is a happy day, not just for LGBT Americans, but for all Americans. It is the beginning of an era where we no longer will speak about same-sex marriage, but of marriage. And one day, we need not speak of LGBT rights, for they simply will be human rights. Across this great land, families are celebrating because we truly are one family."

Marc Jacobs, Fashion Designer

"Seems I'm always a bridesmaid and never a bride! Still, my heart is huge with this great news!! We can love who we want and how we want!!!"

Sam Smith, Grammy-Award Winning British Singer

"All 50 STATES!!!! So happy. Times are changing my friends. We have such a long way to go and so much more fighting to do so I hope nobody stops and thinks everything's ok because it isn't, BUT it's days like today, and moments like this that we've all gotta have a drink and celebrate how far we have come. I couldn't be prouder to be gay x love to all x"

Lance Bass, Singer, Former Member Of NSYNC

"We are so proud to be American today! All of our #LGBTbrothers and sisters can now love freely! Thank you #SupremeCourt for doing the right thing."

Seth Macfarlane, Director, Creator Of Tv's "Family Guy"

"Congratulations America for finally catching up to the modern era with this landmark step forward for gay and lesbian rights."

Whoopi Goldberg, Actress

"BRAVO Supreme Court!!! We knew you had it in you. . . looking out for equality and looking out for healthcare. It's a good day in America!!!!!!"

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hollywood-gay-marriage/2015/06/26/id/652437/#ixzz3eCwp7fWE

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2015, 03:07:47 PM »
Actually it's on to triad marriages, more lawsuits involving religious organizations and people of faith, civil disobedience, etc.  It's not going to change the court's ruling, but I wouldn't say the entire issue is being put to rest.

certainly plenty of biblical precedent for that so I assume you're all for it


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2015, 03:34:33 PM »
For all his faults, and he has many, Scalia is a much better jurist than Roberts.

roberts is a left wing puppet now.  He and hilary will wreck what is left of the constitution and the borders.

all the john roberts puppets from a few years back...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2015, 04:22:16 PM »
‘Court is not a legislature’: Roberts rips gay marriage ruling, day after he backed ObamaCare
Published June 26, 2015
FoxNews.com

A day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided squarely with the Obama administration on the health care overhaul, the same jurist came out swinging against the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."

The dissent underscored how unpredictable -- and to his critics, confounding -- the chief justice, appointed by a Republican president, can be.

He has earned many critics on the right for, twice, helping save vital elements of the Affordable Care Act -- conservative justices effectively accused him of twisting the law to save ObamaCare in Thursday's ruling. But in his dissent on the 5-4 gay marriage ruling, Roberts accused others on the court of, similarly, overstepping their bounds.

"It does sound like two different people," said Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News.

Roberts wrote in Friday's dissent: "The Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.

"... But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens --- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today."

Roberts was joined by two other conservative justices on the court -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- who each filed their own dissenting opinions.

"Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept," Roberts wrote.

The other dissenting justices were no less critical.

Scalia wrote: "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

And Samuel Alito wrote: "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women.

"Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."

But Roberts' dissent was striking, a day after his opinion upheld ObamaCare subsidies. That case centered on whether the language of the law, which technically limited subsidies to policies in exchanges set up by the states, could also apply to policies bought through the federal exchange. Roberts and the six-justice majority said Congress intended subsidies to be available for all.

His conservative colleagues viewed this as an overreach.

"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Scalia wrote, joined by Thomas and Alito.

But on gay marriage, the conservatives stood together, particular on the issue of the high court's right to decide what they said was a state issue.

On this, the majority strongly disagreed.

"The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who read the majority opinion. As for the court's role, he said:

"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/court-is-not-legislature-roberts-rips-same-sex-marriage-ruling-day-after-backed/