Author Topic: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April  (Read 14673 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« on: January 16, 2015, 01:00:01 PM »
About time they stopped kicking the can down the road.

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
Published January 16, 2015
Associated Press

The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.

The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.

The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.

Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are among the 14 states where gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry.

The number of states that permit same-sex marriage has nearly doubled in three months as a result of federal and state court rulings. The justices' decision to turn away same-sex marriage appeals in October allowed some of those rulings to take effect. Florida last week became the 36th state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/supreme-court-to-hear-gay-marriage-cases-in-april/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2015, 11:02:00 AM »
Obama: SCOTUS should recognize same-sex marriage
By BEN SCHRECKINGER 1/22/15

President Barack Obama hopes the Supreme Court issues a ruling on same-sex marriage that will legalize the unions nationwide, he said Thursday.
“My hope is that they go ahead and recognize what I think the majority of people in America now recognize,” Obama said of the justices on the high court. “Two people who love each other and are treating reach other with respect, and aren’t bothering anybody else, why would the law treat them differently.” His answer came during a YouTube interview that was part of his post-State of the Union push.

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear four cases on same-sex marriage this spring.
Obama has in the past focused on his desire to see same-sex marriage legalized on a state-by-state basis and demurred from discussing the issue on a nationwide basis.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-scotus-should-recognize-same-sex-marriage-114512.html#ixzz3Pflsu3xR

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2015, 04:16:01 PM »
I'd be happy if the Supremes said "what's this bullshit about marriage? The Government should recognize domestic partnerships between consenting adults, regardless of gender. Religious organizations are free to 'marry' consenting adults, which will automatically create a domestic partnership, but aren't compelled to marry anyone against their beliefs. Now get the fuck out of here. We're going to have pizza, beers and watch 'XXX - State of the Union'."

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2015, 04:30:21 PM »
I'd be happy if the Supremes said "what's this bullshit about marriage? The Government should recognize domestic partnerships between consenting adults, regardless of gender. Religious organizations are free to 'marry' consenting adults, which will automatically create a domestic partnership, but aren't compelled to marry anyone against their beliefs. Now get the fuck out of here. We're going to have pizza, beers and watch 'XXX - State of the Union'."

are religious organizations (I assume you mean churches but correct me if I'm wrong) currently required to marry gay couples in states where that is legal?

I was not aware this had anything to do with churches (for profit wedding chapels excluded since those are businesses)

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2015, 04:43:59 PM »
are religious organizations (I assume you mean churches but correct me if I'm wrong) currently required to marry gay couples in states where that is legal?

I was not aware this had anything to do with churches (for profit wedding chapels excluded since those are businesses)

I don't think they do, but that's not my point. My point is that government shouldn't have any sort of special recognition of "marriage." In other words, I think there should be a civil component (civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever we want to call them) that are the equivalent of walking into a Court and getting "married" by a Judge which should be available to all consenting adults, without regard to gender. If people prefer to get married in front of their God and their God (through his representatives) is willing to play along, then people ought to be able to have a religious ceremony that includes, automatically, the civil component.

I think that all people should be able to get the advantages currently associated with marriage and reserved for such couples through a civil framework - and the same goes for the disadvantages. And I don't think people have the right to demand that someone "marry" them - or more generally act - against his beliefs.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2015, 05:12:19 PM »
I don't think they do, but that's not my point. My point is that government shouldn't have any sort of special recognition of "marriage." In other words, I think there should be a civil component (civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever we want to call them) that are the equivalent of walking into a Court and getting "married" by a Judge which should be available to all consenting adults, without regard to gender. If people prefer to get married in front of their God and their God (through his representatives) is willing to play along, then people ought to be able to have a religious ceremony that includes, automatically, the civil component.

I think that all people should be able to get the advantages currently associated with marriage and reserved for such couples through a civil framework - and the same goes for the disadvantages. And I don't think people have the right to demand that someone "marry" them - or more generally act - against his beliefs.

where are people demanding that someone marry them against their beliefs

you started out by saying that you don't think they do and ended with repeating that they shouldn't be required to

also, the courts are involved because of the equal protection clause and it seems that all of these gay marriages are done by civil ceremony in states where it is legal except in cases where a particular church has no issue with it


avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2015, 05:56:01 PM »
where are people demanding that someone marry them against their beliefs

you started out by saying that you don't think they do and ended with repeating that they shouldn't be required to

also, the courts are involved because of the equal protection clause and it seems that all of these gay marriages are done by civil ceremony in states where it is legal except in cases where a particular church has no issue with it

I started by stating what I hoped the Supreme Court would say on this topic. Read my post(s) again, understand them and get back to me.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2015, 06:07:38 PM »
I started by stating what I hoped the Supreme Court would say on this topic. Read my post(s) again, understand them and get back to me.

I read it

I also read Bums post with these two sentences

The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.

The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.

Pray_4_War

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15801
  • Thot Expert
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2015, 09:29:59 PM »
I really hope they rule in favor of gay marriage so we can all move on with our lives and worry about something important for a change.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2015, 10:33:33 PM »
I really hope they rule in favor of gay marriage so we can all move on with our lives and worry about something important for a change.

Oh don't worry. I'm sure something else will crop up.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2015, 07:47:29 AM »
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage
By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated Sun January 25, 2015

Washington (CNN)Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage won't be enough to make it the law of the land overnight.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he wants to amend the Constitution to leave the decision over who can marry up to each state.

And former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a strident social conservative, just seems to want to be asked fewer questions about it.

Their comments -- all in media appearances the weekend of a conservative confab in Iowa hosted by Rep. Steve King -- made clear that the party won't be dropping its debate over just how to handle the electorate's growing acceptance of same-sex marriage anytime soon.

The Supreme Court's announcement that it will decide this spring whether states can ban same-sex marriage -- which, after a spate of lower court decisions in recent months, is now legal in 36 states -- has once again fueled debate about an issue that had faded from the focus of many Republicans in recent years.

Now, Republicans have to decide whether -- and how -- they can strike a balance between a conservative base that still sees marriage as between one man and one woman and a national electorate that is increasingly approving of same-sex marriage. A recent CNN/ORC poll found that 57% of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

They'll be running against a Democratic candidate who will almost certainly support same-sex marriage rights -- and could even raise it to highlight cultural differences with the GOP nominee.

Here's where some of the Republicans' top 2016 contenders stand on gay marriage:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: In a major reversal of his 1990s position of opposing same-sex marriage rights with some hostility, Bush recently called for respect for the court's ultimate decision in a statement, and for those on both sides of the debate.

"We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law," Bush said. "I hope that we can also show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue -- including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Though he stopped fighting against a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, Christie has said he hopes the Supreme Court won't mandate it everywhere.

"I don't think there's some referee who stands up and says, 'OK, now it's time for you to change your opinion,'" he said last year. "The country will resolve this over a period of time. But do I think it's resolved? No."

Sen. Ted Cruz: The Texas conservative firebrand has called for an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from telling the states how to handle marriage rights.

"The Constitution makes clear marriage is a question for the states," he said in a speech this month. "It's not a question for a bunch of unelected federal judges who may disagree with the democratic views of the people who live in the United States of America."

Huckabee: The socially conservative former Arkansas governor, Fox News host and 2008 Iowa caucuses winner said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman -- and that even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, procedurally, state legislatures would need to adopt laws implementing that ruling.

"I'm advocating an adherence to the Constitution," he said. "I'm really saying that there is a process to change the law, and it doesn't just involve one unilateral branch of government. ... Judges can't make law. That's judicial supremacy and that is not constitutional."

Jindal: The Louisiana governor, also known as a social conservative, said he'd like to amend the Constitution to allow states to define marriage. It's similar to then-President George W. Bush's push in his 2004 re-election bid to define marriage in the Constitution.

"I certainly support Ted Cruz and others that are talking about making an amendment in the Congress -- a constitutional amendment to allow states to continue to define marriage," he said. "I think it should be between a man and a woman."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: Paul, who has called for the government to play a smaller role in most facets, told CNN in October that he doesn't think lawmakers should get too involved in the issue.

"I believe in old-fashioned, traditional marriage. But I don't really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue," he said. When asked if he could change his own view on the issue one day, Paul shrugged.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: When a federal judge struck down the Texas law limiting marriage to one man and one woman in February 2014, Perry lashed out, saying the decision flew in the face of the state's voters' wishes.

"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens," he said in a statement then.

Later that summer, Perry compared homosexuals to alcoholics.

"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry said. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: The 2012 GOP nominee who is mulling another bid has stuck by his opposition to same-sex marriage, telling Fox News in 2013 that he considers one-man, one-woman households "the ideal setting for raising a child."

"I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that's because I believe the ideal setting for raising a child is where there's a mother and a father in the home," Romney said. "Other people have differing views and I respect that, whether that's in my party or in the Democratic Party. But these are very personal matters. My hope is that when we discuss things of this nature, we show respect for people who have differing views."

Sen. Marco Rubio: The Florida freshman senator recently told CNN that he believes "the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman," but called for the Supreme Court's decision to be respected -- even if that decision is to allow same-sex marriage everywhere.

"I wouldn't agree with their ruling, but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed -- either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable," he said.

Santorum: Long known as an advocate for socially conservative cultural values, Santorum bristled at questions about same-sex marriage in Iowa over the weekend.

"What I think is important is marriage and the family. And I think the most important thing we can do as a party is to restore the importance of marriage, encouraging marriage from an economic point of view as well as a societal point of view," he said.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Though he's long said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, in 2014 Walker stopped fighting a court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in his state.

"For us, it's over in Wisconsin," Walker said then. "The federal courts have ruled that this decision by this court of appeals decision is the law of the land and we will be upholding it."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/25/politics/gop-2016-gay-marriage/index.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2015, 12:53:16 PM »
He's right.  It's over already.

Clarence Thomas: Supreme Court's Decision Suggests Justices' Minds Are Made Up On Gay Marriage
Reuters
Posted: 02/09/2015
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples.

Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.

Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court's move to allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.

Oral arguments in the cases, which are expected to result in a definitive nationwide ruling on the matter, are due in April with a decision expected by the end of June.

Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.

Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."

The group also told same-sex couples in the 13 states where gay marriage is still banned to "start your wedding plans now."

Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples. Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.

At the time of that ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage. That number has now hit 37, with federal judges playing the central role in paving the way for gay marriage in 23 of the 25 states where it has become legal since then.

As Thomas noted in his dissent, the court's normal practice would have been to put the Alabama case on hold until it had decided the cases involving the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.

One of the factors the court considers when deciding whether to put a hold on a lower-court ruling is the "likelihood of success" for the petitioners if the case were to be appealed.

The court in recent months has denied similar stay requests from other states, most recently Florida, thus allowing gay marriage to go ahead even while litigation continues.

Alabama's case was different as it was the first application to be made after the high court's announcement in January to take the four cases and settle the matter once and for all. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_6646404.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2015, 11:45:14 AM »
He needs to give it up.  He's just going to get fired again. 

Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
February 12, 2015

Washington (CNN)The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.

Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.

"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."

Moore has ordered lower court judges in Alabama not to implement a federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Moore's actions come despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to stay the federal ruling, effectively allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state for the first time on Monday.

Judges in some of the state's counties refused to allow same-sex couples to marry in spite of the federal court ruling.

"That's not the federal law. What you're confusing is law with the opinion of a justice," Moore told Cuomo. "What one lone federal judge says is not law."

Moore is personally opposed to gay marriage and steadfastly against legalizing gay marriage, insisting that Alabama recognizes the "divine" nature of the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage is Alabama judge's latest battle

Moore also characterized the federal judge's ruling that overturned the state's ban as an "attempt by the federal court to control the state," which he called a "federal intrusion into state sovereignty."

The battle Moore is waging is just the latest for a controversial judge who sticks to his guns and won't bend to federal law when he believes it is wrong.

Moore was booted from the state's supreme court when he refused to implement a federal ruling ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments at an Alabama judicial building in 2003.

He won a statewide reelection to reclaim his chief justiceship in 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/ray-moore-alabama-gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/index.html

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2015, 11:53:19 AM »
I look at this as a simple matter of the protection of communal property rights. Marriage at its most basic is a legal contract over property and money.  If two men want to enter into a legal contract it should be their right.   It's not the domain of the government to make moral judgements on this issue.
A

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2015, 12:04:44 PM »
I look at this as a simple matter of the protection of communal property rights. Marriage at its most basic is a legal contract over property and money.  If two men want to enter into a legal contract it should be their right.   It's not the domain of the government to make moral judgements on this issue.

I don't think it's necessarily a moral or religious issue, but it's going to happen nationwide. 

My concern is about what happens next.  I've been talking about triad marriages for a while.  That's probably where we are headed. 

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2015, 12:08:16 PM »
I don't think it's necessarily a moral or religious issue, but it's going to happen nationwide.  

My concern is about what happens next.  I've been talking about triad marriages for a while.  That's probably where we are headed.  

The only solution might be for government to get ouf of the marriage business all together.  Distribution of communal property is determined by wills. You want to live with three people that's your business but the government doesn't recognize your union as it doesnt recognize any union. 
A

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2015, 12:48:08 PM »
The only solution might be for government to get ouf of the marriage business all together.  Distribution of communal property is determined by wills. You want to live with three people that's your business but the government doesn't recognize your union as it doesnt recognize any union. 

Makes sense, although I doubt we overhaul the entire institution nationwide.  Government rarely does the sensible thing. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2015, 10:31:25 AM »
McConnell, Cruz Urge Court to Reject Gay Marriage
April 3, 2015
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.

The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.

The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.

Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mcconnell-cruz-urge-court-reject-gay-marriage

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2015, 12:04:05 PM »
Arguments tomorrow. 

Sea change in the poll numbers.

Fox News poll: 48 percent favor same-sex marriage, 51 percent say legalize marijuana
By Dana Blanton
Published April 27, 2015
FoxNews.com

The country remains divided on same-sex marriage, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Currently 48 percent favor legalizing same-sex marriage, while 44 percent are opposed. 

Just 32 percent of voters said gays should be allowed to marry legally when the question was first asked on a Fox News poll in 2003 (58 percent were opposed).  Since 2012, the portion favoring it has been between 42 and 49 percent.   

Democrats favor it by a wide 62-32 percent margin.  That’s the opposite of how Republicans feel:  31 percent favor vs. 57 percent oppose.  Independents favor it by a 51-43 percent margin.

Sixty percent of voters ages 65 and over oppose it, while 61 percent of those under 45 are in favor. 

Those most likely to favor gay marriage include people who say they “never” attend church (79 percent), self-identified liberals (70 percent), Democrats (62 percent), voters under 45 (61 percent) and Northeasterners (57 percent). 

Groups most inclined to oppose it include those who identify as “very” conservative (75 percent) or as part of the Tea Party movement (68 percent), white evangelical Christians (68 percent) and regular church goers (64 percent).

. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/27/fox-news-poll-48-percent-favor-same-sex-marriage-51-percent-say-legalize/?intcmp=latestnewshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/27/fox-news-poll-48-percent-favor-same-sex-marriage-51-percent-say-legalize/?intcmp=latestnews

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2015, 02:09:11 PM »
most polls are in favor of gay marriage,fox poll ,take that with a grain of salt :D

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2015, 11:47:17 AM »
Supreme Court justices appear divided in historic gay marriage arguments
Published April 28, 2015
FoxNews.com

Supreme Court justices appeared sharply divided Tuesday as historic arguments on gay marriage ended, with one pivotal justice asking tough questions of both sides.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often is seen as the swing vote, said gay marriage has been debated for only a decade and wondered aloud whether scholars and the public need more time. He said marriage has been understood as one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time.”

"It's very difficult for the court to say `We know better,"' Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples.

Kennedy, in the course of arguments, posed skeptical questions of both sides, only adding to the uncertainty over how the Supreme Court may rule in this landmark case. He also pressed attorney John Bursch, representing the states that ban same-sex marriage, to explain how granting gay couples a right to marry would harm traditional marriages.

A decision is expected in late June.

Chief Justice John Roberts said gay couples seeking to marry are not seeking to join the institution of marriage.

"You're seeking to change what the institution is," he said.

The arguments offered the first public indication of where the justices stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

The session was interrupted after about 30 minutes by a protester yelling loudly. He was removed by security.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage "but who should decide the point." He expressed concern about the court imposing a requirement on the states that "is unpalatable to many for religious reasons."

Justice Stephen Breyer asked if the nation needs more time to "wait and see" whether gay marriage is harmful to society. Bonauto responded that wait-and-see has never been considered a justification for discrimination under the Constitution.

The court was hearing extended arguments, which also are exploring whether states that do not permit same-sex marriage must nonetheless recognize such unions from elsewhere. Same-sex couples now can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

People on both sides of the issue gathered outside the marble courthouse early Tuesday. Some waved gay rights banners, while others carried placards proclaiming marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Homo sex is a sin," read one sign. A man shouted into a microphone that gays violate the laws of God. A group of same-sex advocates tried to drown him out by singing "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Cheers went up in the crowd when the court's doors opened, allowing a lucky few who lined up days ago to get inside.

The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, four of the 14 remaining states that allow only heterosexual marriage. Those four states had marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That is the only federal appeals court that has ruled in favor of the states since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law.

Kennedy has written the court's three prior gay rights decisions, including the case from two years ago. All eyes are on him for any signals of his intention this time.

It was barely a decade ago that the first state allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. That was Massachusetts, in 2004. As recently as last October, barely a third of the states permitted it. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and Washington, D.C., a sign of the dramatic change in public opinion.

At the Supreme Court, the opposing states hoped to reframe the debate.

"This case is not about the best marriage definition. It is about the fundamental question regarding how our democracy resolves such debates about social policy: Who decides, the people of each state or the federal judiciary?" John Bursch, representing Michigan, wrote in his main brief to the court.

Other arguments by the states and more than five-dozen briefs by their defenders warn the justices of harm that could result "if you remove the man-woman definition and replace it with the genderless any-two-persons definition," said Gene Schaerr, a Washington lawyer.

The push for same-sex marriage comes down to fairness, said Bonauto, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The people who have brought their cases to the Supreme Court are "real people who are deeply committed to each other. Yet they are foreclosed from making that commitment simply because of who they are," she told reporters last week.

Arguments made by Bonauto, other lawyers for same-sex couples and more than six-dozen supporting briefs have strong echoes of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. In that case, the justices were unanimous that those bans violated the constitutional rights of interracial couples.

No one expects unanimity this time. The justices have  allowed orders in favor of same-sex couples to take effect even as the issue has made its way through the federal court system, but that was action through inaction.

Only 11 states have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples through the ballot or the legislature. Court rulings are responsible for all the others.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-historic-same-sex-marriage-arguments/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2015, 02:28:18 PM »
‘We will not obey’: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
By Todd Starnes
Published April 28, 2015
FoxNews.com

“We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ...  What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2015, 02:43:06 PM »
Why no civil disobedience of Adultery ?

You think the fundies would be all over that.

1.  It's a violation of a vow taken before god (in many cases)
2.  It's most definitely a choice (never heard someone say they knew when they were 6 years old that they were an adulterer)
3.  It clearly damages families
4.  It much more prevalent in sheer numbers than gay people
5.  It legal in many states and the states where is it illegal it's not really enforced

When Jeebus returns isn't he going to take care of the big shit first.
I would guess happily married, law abiding gay people are going to be way down on the list compared to adulterers

Why are fundies not out protesting adultery?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2015, 11:47:53 AM »
Are religious colleges at risk if Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage?
By Shannon Bream
Published May 07, 2015
FoxNews.com

Same-sex marriage foes are flagging a mostly-missed moment from last week's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of gay marriage, calling it a warning sign for religious freedom.

They point to an exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and the administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Alito asked if, in the event the Supreme Court holds that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would religious colleges risk losing their tax-exempt status if they continued to advocate for traditional marriage only.

Verrilli responded, "I don't deny that ... It is going to be an issue."

Travis Weber, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty, said he believed Verrilli's logic would eventually extend to churches and just about "anyone holding a traditional view of marriage."

Weber warned that if the current trend continues, those who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage could face "fines, potentially imprisonment."

Just days ago, speaking at the Women in the World Summit 2016, Democratic contender Hillary Clinton said, "Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

The statement sparked concern among those who believe the federal government should not be in the business of using its significant leverage to coerce others to adhere to any specific viewpoint.

There is also concern among the religious community that the IRS has reached some sort of agreement with the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which was in the process of suing the agency.

In a legal document dated July 29, 2014, the IRS pledged to engage in tougher monitoring and enforcement of political restrictions on churches, in exchange for FFRF's promise to drop its lawsuit.

Attached to that document is a letter explaining that at least 99 churches had been referred for a "high level examination" by the IRS' "Political Activities Referral Committee."

Despite numerous Freedom of Information Act requests for documents related to any deal with FFRF, the IRS has been less than forthcoming.

As a result, Judicial Watch, a conservative but nonpartisan organization, has filed a federal lawsuit asking that the IRS be forced to disclose them.

When asked to explain Verrilli’s comment, the White House referred Fox News to the Justice Department, which also declined comment and suggested contacting the IRS.The IRS did not immediately respond.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/07/are-religious-colleges-at-risk-if-supreme-court-approves-same-sex-marriage/?intcmp=latestnews

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31035
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2015, 08:50:25 AM »
So when the verdict is rendered, what is the excuse going to be?

Patriotic individuals upholding our Bible based Constitution?  Or Unchristian activists trying to legislate from the bench?