Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: Oral Arguments on Same-sex marriage today [Live Thread] (Audio available by 2:00 ET)
Free Republic/C-SPAN ^ | 03/26/2013 | BuckeyeTexan

Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for about 80 minutes in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is the lawsuit regarding California's Proposition 8. Two gay couples brought suit on the grounds that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Since the State of California refuses to defend Proposition 8, opponents of gay marriage sought to enforce it in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Generally, citizens do not have legal standing to enforce laws with which they agree. Several justices expressed doubt that gay marriage opponents have standing in this case.

"I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that," said Chief Justice John Roberts.

"I just wonder if this case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

"Why is taking a case now the answer?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Addressing the merits of the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on the "imminent injury" to children in California.

"There’s some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."

Justices Alito and Kennedy raised the possibility that the court is moving too fast to address whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito.

On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, "How does this cause and effect work?"

On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; FReeper Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bigfag; demagogicparty; fdrq; gaymarriage; hollingsworth; hollingsworthvperry; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; nambla; nytimesagenda; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; scotus; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan

>>> On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, “How does this cause and effect work?”

If I say what I want to say, I will be banned.


21 posted on 03/26/2013 10:28:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

He didn’t.

While I believe that gay-marriage is legally a states’ rights issue, my Christian faith leaves me firmly against the idea. So as a Christian, I was somewhat disappointed in Cooper’s defense because he refrained from a direct attack on gay marriage. As a states’ rights advocate, I appreciated the fact that he tried to convince the court that important, democratic, timely, public debate should continue as is with various states banning and allowing gay marriage.


22 posted on 03/26/2013 10:29:02 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Agreed.


23 posted on 03/26/2013 10:31:23 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Agreed. Again.

There was a particulary “funny” exchange between Scalia and Kagan on this subject.


24 posted on 03/26/2013 10:35:25 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Why?


25 posted on 03/26/2013 10:36:42 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.


26 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:00 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.


27 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:31 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’m not disagreeing with your reasoning, but a caller to Rush, and Rush himself, just got through saying that if the 9th circus granted standing to an entity that didn’t deserve it and heard the case and ruled, that the entire proceeding of the 9th circus could be invalidated, which would leave in place prop 8.

I don’t know. I’m quoting what I heard. Rush said this is one reason for a lot of confusion in this case.


28 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:37 AM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear..."(Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Link to transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

Link to Real Audio audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/12-144.ra

Link to Windows Media audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/12-144.wma

Link to MP3 audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/12-144.mp3


29 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:38 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr

Felatious arguments?


30 posted on 03/26/2013 10:40:38 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; Lurking Libertarian

Yes, but the 9th Circuit granted standing and so did a lower court. One of those rulings will prevail as I understand legal experts. (I am assuming that each court grants or denies standing for itself.) But ... IANAL! :)

Maybe LL will share what he thinks, legally speaking.


31 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:11 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

??? Too much twisted reasoning for my taste.

“Regular folks” would not have come to the same conclusion.


32 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:59 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If the PEOPLE of a state have the right to amend their constitution, which they clearly do in California, then the PEOPLE of the state should directly have standing to defend their constitutional amendment against claims that it violates the federal constitution.

The CA State AG really is the source of the standing issue.

After Prop 8 was passed and became part of the CA Constitution, the 9th Circuit [actually just 1 judge] overturned it. BTW: The judge who overturned it is gay ...

The CA AG then declined to appeal it - something he is SUPPOSED to do for the people. Prop 8 proponents then went to the CA Supreme Court and it found that they did have standing when the CA AG declines.

Prop 8 proponents then went to the 9th Circuit and asked for an en banc hearing. It declined and pooch-punted it directly to SCOTUS.

If the CA AG had stood up for the people and appealed, like he is supposed to do, standing would not be an issue at SCOTUS today.

33 posted on 03/26/2013 10:43:07 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
I'm sure some of these will be posted as separate articles in the days ahead. For now, here's a snapshot of the MSM articles on today's oral arguments.

Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court wary of broad ruling endorsing gay marriage
LA Times: Supreme Court appears split on Prop. 8, broad gay marriage ruling
Washington Post: Supreme Court justices conflicted on gay marriage case
Fox News: Justices indicate interest in narrow ruling on gay marriage
USA Today: Supreme Court justices question gay marriage bans
ABC News: Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Federal Right to Gay Marriage

34 posted on 03/26/2013 10:57:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Epsdude
We all know how this will end.

I fear for this country. We are indeed as Judge Bork pointed out, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". We have become a nation not of laws but of "judges in black robes". What the people think is only preliminary. Our votes mean nothing until some "court" says so.

35 posted on 03/26/2013 11:07:50 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

From the Fox News article:

Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” by including same-sex couples.

Interesting. Didn’t see that coming from Roberts.


36 posted on 03/26/2013 11:13:21 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thank God for Scalia.


37 posted on 03/26/2013 11:17:01 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

And Thomas. The two of them are a triumph for conservatives. Brilliant legal minds and conservative.


38 posted on 03/26/2013 11:18:53 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Absolutely.


39 posted on 03/26/2013 11:20:27 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

That came to mind. :0)


40 posted on 03/26/2013 11:20:49 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson