Skip to comments.SCOTUS: Oral Arguments on Same-sex marriage today [Live Thread] (Audio available by 2:00 ET)
Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
click here to read article
Yes. The last “friend” to change his profile pic to the “Equality” logo being dear son who’s about to be disowned. J/K Only about 5 and only 1 of those over 30 y/o jumped on board the equality solidarity gig so far.
I haven’t, but I also don’t go near FB. I created an account for the sole purpose of joining the Free Republic FB group so I could get JimRob’s updates. I like Twitter just fine. I really don’t like FB.
No, conservatives make fun of Roberts and ridicule him not because he’s a fudgepacker but he sided with libtards with his Obamacare decision. Plus he has a dyke cousin..
He deserves every insult he can get and curse him as well..
And let’s not get too comfortable with today’s arguments before the court. The same thing was said after opening day arguments on ObamaCare and we all know the outcome. And all I’ve heard today from the “experts” is how tomorrow they will say DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and throw marriage back to the states, leaving Prop 8 alone, which means the queer judge that overruled the will of the people has won, sodomite marriage is legal in Cal and to hell with what the people wanted.
Conservatives have over the years since World War II lost on nearly every national issue, except state right to work laws and the failure to ratify ERA. Now marriage and gun ownership is at risk, thanks in large measure to inept Republican primary bvoters and Republican appointees to high office.
When one curses Roberts, does he also curse GWB by implication? And what about Jebbie and George P. waiting in the wings. Republican primary voters get more stupid with each election cycle.
What are you talking about? His lesbian cousin?
I heard it and thought thats what it was about. The justices aren’t talking to the attorneys or the public. They’re talking to each other.
I agree. It’s logically consistent with federalism. It’s a state issue, let the states decide.
Oh Lord. No wonder we have people coming out of the closet. You are opening the door for them. Shut up about who you think are or aren’t. I don’t want to know. I don’t remember you expressing your opinion on this when Roberts was picked by President Bush as a Supreme Court Nominee. Roberts seems like a great family man who is Catholic by the way. I can’t see how you could say such a nasty thing about someone and call yourself Christian or Conservative.
Do conservatives curse Reagan for Sandy O’Connor and BTW, Anthony Kennedy? As much as appreciate RWR, it’s a hard fact that he only got 1 right out of 3. That would be Antonin Scalia.
When conservatives curse GHWB for Souter, do they praise him for Clarence Thomas?
If conservatives curse GWB for Roberts, do they praise him for Alito?
Jebbie and George P need to go away. But if they are waiting in the wings as you say, “stupid” Republican primary voters haven’t caused that. Their names haven’t been on any primary ballots yet, unless it would’ve been back when Jebbie ran and was elected governor of FL and re-elected.
Certainly not on any presidential election ballot.
You rock. That was fast.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Also, BTW, this is not a Constitutional issue but a States' issue. Let the people of the states decide, like CA did with Proposition 8.
It's one thing to say it's no one's business what two consenting adults do in private. It's completely another thing to say that what we must sanction and support this perversion. It is like a very aggressive disease. It doesn't just stop at "leaving them be." It is virulent. It wants to take over. Maybe for that reason, it should be outlawed completely
I hear you.
What do you think the tea leaf reading (Allahpundit) and SCOTUSblog opinion that 80% chance SC will strike down DOMA?
They WILL strike it down and throw all marriage issues back to the states. Hopefully they will also say that the fag judge had no right overruling the people and reinstate Prop 8.
That would be the only right thing to do.
While theyre at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that dont apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or its unconstitutional.
They want to destroy marrige then fine, let’s get the government out of favoring either way!!!
I agree with you.
Yeah, I’m with you.
Hopefully that will be the way SC rulings go.
I suppose even FR basically agrees that gay marriage just isn't a very compelling topic outside of a certain minority percentage of religious evangelists.
Says to me that either FR is going back to its original 'Get your filthy government hands out of our lives' roots or that everyone's posting somewhere else.
We are in the heated battle of a culture war. No time to preach to the choir.
“We are in the heated battle of a culture war”
You’re right. It’s called The People versus Sodom and Gomorrah.
Justices should ask each side to describe how their marriage is consummated.
Transcript & audio for today’s arguments are available at
I haven’t posted on this today because it is a waste of breath. I figure the court will cancel the DOMA. That will legalize gay marriage in Kalifornia.
They will punt the whole issue back to the states and leave it to the voters on whether they want gay marriage.
In otherwards, the case they heard yesterday they will punt it back to the states.
The case they heard today, they will cancel the Defense of marriage Act.
This will give the court a away out. At the same time it will also push forward the gay marriage agenda.
I guess they will leave it to voters. With the left running things, it will only be a matter of time until gay marriage is okay everywhere. However, since there would not be a precedent set by the court in a federal way, it will differ from Roe V Wade in the respect that if the public ever wanted to end gay marriage, they could do it at the ballot box.
I am not for gay marriage. I am saddened by how far the US has fallen.
I was going to create a second thread for today’s arguments, but when I looked at the number of posts, I simply asked the mods to change the title for me. Two threads would have been overkill.
IMHO if they toss out DOMA then they effectively disenfranchise voters represented at the federal level BECAUSE DOMA imposes nothing upon the states. As well. as such IMHO setting aside DOMA requires something more than the false premise of protecting states rights. That dog won't hunt...
I’d say they’re correct. I don’t see DOMA being upheld. IMO, the only uncertainty left is whether they will overturn all federal rulings on Prop. 8 or not. I can’t even speculate on that one.
Isn’t DOMA permitted under Congress’ Art 4 s.1 power to make rules governing Full Faith and Credit?
Actually, let me speculate further. If SCOTUS believes that same-sex couples meet the legal definition of a “suspect” class, to which Cooper referred yesterday, then I expect them to grant standing in both cases and overturn DOMA and Prop 8. If they believe that this issue is too hot right now and should be left to the states, I expect them to grant standing in DOMA and overturn it and deny standing to Prop. 8 in the entire federal system.
Percent chances? I have no idea.
IMHO it could be argued that to effectively assure Full faith and credit is given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state THAT the definition of a public act e.g. marriage must be uniformly defined and understood.
I know the arguments. All I am saying is what I think the court will do. If they make gay marriage the law of the land as they did with Roe, they will cause a continual roil of the population.
They will punt the 1st case back to Kalifornia, at which the 9th circuit decision will stand, but they will kill DOMA, opening a door for a vote on the issue in states.
Remember when Obozocare was going to SCOTUS? The left kept prattling about the integrity of the Court. They are going to kick this sucker back to the states and leave us to duke it out.
This whole thing is going to become another mess when a gay couple try to divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage.
What a mess, but the left will then say we need a consistent law because it ain’t those poor gay couple’s fault they live somewhere else than they did when they got married.
This whole thing is going to be nothing other than SCOTUS saving face.
Kennedy and Roberts = big question mark
If they do punt back to the states, it makes no sense to me to leave the federal rulings in place on Prop. 8. They almost have to overturn those and leave the CA State Supreme Court ruling in place. It’s illogical to say that this issue should be decided by the states and then leave in place any federal ruling that overturned a state’s (CA) supreme court on the matter.
But IANAL ... and didn’t think it was logical to consider the individual mandate as a tax. So, what do I know?
since this jug-earred jerk face has been in office, the Constitution has been shredded...from immigration policy, to defending DOMA, to Obozocare, to gun running,to voting rights,... you name it.
Why oh why would the Obambot SCOTUS be inclined to uphold the Constitution at this juncture?
You post simply said nobody had any faith any more.
Not even at the integrity of the supposedly independent SCOTUS.
A sorry state we have.
When, in the course of human events...
The definition of when life begins has been imposed upon the states by the federal government? The definition that was enshrined and locked into stone by SCOTUS... YA that one...
That is one reason that i think the court will not turn gay marriage into a Roe v Wade thing.
Anyone with a brain knows life begins at conception. Roe should be overturned. I do not think that the court will give another bogus Roe decision. They are going to punt it.
If they punt back to the states they should overrule the judge that overruled the will of the people in California. It would be a terrible injustice to let that fag bastard judge win and the will of the people ignored because he wanted to “marry” his boyfriend. The people of California said no to the queers and that’s how it should remain.
Not following your comment on if DOMA is struck down that opens it up to states voting on SSM.
Haven’t they already been voting on it, whether or not it should be legal in their states? Even while DOMA is in place?
I wasn’t confused about that before, because I understood DOMA to define marriage for federal purposes only, and not to weigh in one way or the other on what states do.
...because pedophiles are keeping relatively quiet for the time being. Give them time and this percent of the population will whine just as loud as the homosexuals. They are waiting on the ‘gay rights’ movement to reach full charge.
Then we will have legalized child rape...and the US will be an officially nukable craphole.
But is it really? When new York can decide to marry 2 gays and Texas is forced to accept it by the full faith and credit clause.
Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage. We recently refused to divorce such a couple. So we’re not forced to accept same-sex NY marriage.
A couple of years ago, Louisiana refused and was forced by the courts to alter their vital records (birth) to put the names of a same-sex couple on the birth certificate of a child adopted by that couple in the State of New York. LA should have appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. (I don’t know what the status is now of that lawsuit.) Such a case would have standing and would clearly delineate a state’s right not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. If NY wants to allow same-sex marriage and adoption by such couples, then NY should have to issue a new birth certificate for that child.
But how does Texas get by with it in view of the full faith and credit clause? Is it simply DOMA that protects them?
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.