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
No. That is exactly what I want. This is a states’ right issue. If they punt on standing, that allows both sides another bite at the apple - of the culture war - in the rest of the 50 states. That was the purpose of the 10th Amendment.
Hopefully, they will rule that the petitioners do not have standing in any federal court and that the CA Supreme Court has the right to grant standing in its own jurisdiction. (I think. IANAL.)
Yes. It would vacate the 9th Circuit decision and the federal district court's ruling, and would leave the California Supreme Court's ruling (which upheld Prop. 8, albeit only prospectively) in place.
ScotusBlog basically says looks like this will not be ruled on at all most likely.
They said if they decide there is no standing, the 9th Circuit ruling would be vacated.
LL says SCOTUS can deny standing to the petitioners two ways: only before SCOTUS or before any federal court.
The former would leave in place the 9th Circuit ruling overtuning Prop. 8 and allowing gay marriage in CA.
The latter would overturn all federal court rulings (including the 9th Curcuit and the federal distric court) and leave in place the CA Supreme Court ruling that upheld Prop. 8 as constitutional.
See my post at 54.
We’re doomed to lose this because the judges are legislating from the bench. We should have passed a marriage amendment years back.
I originally believed they would rule in favor of gay marriage. Today’s discussion at SCOTUS on the question of standing gives me pause. I think, in this particular case, the court is looking for a way to leave this issue for The People to hash out themselves.
Justice Ginsburg, in particular, has questioned the handling of Roe v. Wade by the Court. Many experts believe that abortion laws were already changing in the states and that SCOTUS shortcut the democratic process by which laws should be passed.
Were doomed to lose this because the judges are legislating from the bench. We should have passed a marriage amendment years back.
Disagree. We’re doomed to lose this because few are pushing back to all the homo pop culture propaganda. The fags don’t even need activist judges anymore with the beltway GOP lying down for them. They will just put their own initiative on the ballot or get their own law written.
Thank you for your modifications.
I believe Prop 8 defined marriage as a man and a women, then the 9th circus court threw it out. Prop 8 was voted on by the citizens of California.
Kagen banned ROTC o we know here she stands.
Roberts has his fmaily right in front of him knwing his decision can help his own family
If those two reason alone are not grounds to recuse themselves then we ight as well as get rid of hte SCOTUS too, lets not forget we got here because a judge in CA said prop 8 was not constitutional and therefore the case went further on and then he later said he’s a queer and he wants to marry in CA
This has been a farce since the get go with activist judges making decisions which benefits themselves or their family
I just started listening on C-Span. Does anyone here have a feeling how this is going?
Gay marriage will be the law in CA the only question is will they write it for the country? Prop will not be upheld. There are not 5 votes for that. In the end the court has strongly signaled gay marriage is just a matter of time
if they re-define marriage then it;s anything goes and our side had better point that out plus point out how eevry argument can be used for any marriage
No, that’s not the reason they think Roberts should recuse himself.
It is because he has a gay relative (cousin or sister, I think...female definitely) sitting in the court watching the proceedings, and it is seen by some as a conflict of interest.
If it fits the rules of recusal, then he should recuse himself. If it doesn’t, then he shouldn’t.
If gay marriage becomes a “constitutional right” then we WILL have legalized pedophile relations within 5 years. Count on it
Thanks for the update. I could just puke.
Exactly! Why aren’t the prop 8 attorneys showing what a slippery slope this is and give examples of-why have age discrimination for marriage-why can’t one year old children get married to 85 year old men?
Seems more like cjc drew his on conclusions about it and predicted final outcomes. That’s okay, except those are subjective opinions, not updates on what actually was said.
I have heard many talk radio types weigh in. Have yet to hear Levin but will listen to him. And the “update” you got doesn’t quite square with what other observers, that I heard, are saying.
IMHO, Cooper’s argument blew up when he failed to successfully answer Justice Sotomayor’s question on whether or not there is any other rational basis for a government to deny something to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. She specfifically mentioned a job.
Cooper had his thumb up his @ss and said no.
There are still several states where it is legal for an employer to deny a job to or refuse to hire an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation. While that isn’t the government doing the denying, it is the government saying yes - denying on the basis of sexual orientation is fine.
This is where this is going. When a Chrisitan church denies performing a homosexual marriage, lawsuits will abound- and Christianity will NOT win.
Nevermind about Islam. Christians ARE the enemy.
that is a very interesting analysis
Roberts went right for the standing issue. If standing falls by the wayside what is the effect on the lower courts rulings?
If your state won’t defend the results of a public vote who can?
That makes your head spin.
This whole process is a joke. This may be held to be a newfound right, yet the words “shall not be infringed” are not understood by 100% of these robed people.
if they want a way out then this is easy, send it back to congress and let them try to get a federal constitutional amendment of which we know woudl never work.
The left understands that they would never get tat either even as they try and tell us polls say otherwise
If they deny standing, they can deny it for only SCOTUS or for all federal courts. The former means that the 9th Circuit ruling stands (gay marriage allowed.) The latter means that the CA Supreme Court ruling stands (gay marriage banned.)
we have a first amendment, freedom of religion and if this is imposed then all the lawsuits will go ahead and open the door for anykind of lawsuit to a church, adoption agency, Priests etc and lets not forget that this is about trying to make homosexuality normal and that the out and out attack on religious freedom has started.
Also this would pave the way for polygamy and if the liberal female judge wants to know how does this have a negative effect n kids etc then all she has to do is look at the poor kids today who have been taken into homosexual homes, suicides, depression etc
Wow, so the fight against standing has massive repercussions. Thanks.
It’s a win-win IMO if they deny standing to the petitioners in the federal system. LGBT gets to continue their movement and so do we.
In California, when the attorney general will not enforce a law, the proponents who brought the initiative to the ballot can legally defend it in court, which is why the CA courts rightly granted standing.
Read the portion of the transcript where Justice Breyer addresses public actions. It's close to the beginning of oral arguments - like 3-4 pages in. The link is in a previous ping I sent you today.
Roberts’ questioning shows how he will rule. Get ready for queer “marriage” in the US. It’s coming, courtesy of fag
John Roberts. Thanks George for another liberal appointment to the Supreme Court, another homosexual liberal appointment.
Roberts’ boyfriend has a ringside seat.
Stalling now by taking the “out” on standing would only kick the can down the road. Another case will be heard by SCOTUS in four or five years, after Obama has been able to make another couple of appointments.
You really think that’s a win?
What they should rule is no judge has the right to overrule the will of the people. Especially a faggot judge. What a joke.
Why didn’t the lawyer for REAL MARRIAGE demand that queer friendly Roberts recuse himself, pointing straight at Roberts’ bull-dyke cousin.
Yeah! A discriminating, anti-equality club, and it should be outlawed!
And one couple has ten children, another none -- that's unfair! Put them in state nursery, from birth!
Ridiculous now, but so was gay marriage 20 years ago. :(
For Christians and Muslims, marriage is indeed a religious institution. But if we take away the religious aspect for the sake of argument, we’ll find that secular cultures have recognized and promoted marriage for centuries. They never did so for same-sex couples. Why not? Because procreation, virginity, fornication, adultery, dowries, and consumation of a marriage contract were irrelevant for same-sex couples.
Sorry, lj. I didn’t mean to copy you on that.
You really think thats a win?
I do think it's a win right now. It gives us time to put ballot initiatives up in the other states.
With respect to Obama appointing more justices to the SCOTUS, the impact of that will be a result of whom he is replacing. If Scalia, Alito, Thomas or even Kennedy resigns, we're screwed, but I'd still rather postpone it.
Those words can never be in the same sentence. :)
I’m glad you did. It’s a good comment.
Marriage is Natural Law. Even many animals mate for life - many birds, for instance.
It’s Mother Nature. They want to overturn the laws of nature and whenever that is attempted, the results are never pretty.
Well, all right then. I’m not sorry. :)
Oh my sweet geebus. I cannot believe I typed those words. I repent.
And in the rare case where animals procreate without a separate male and female, the animal has the ability to procreate on its own. As far as I know, God (or Nature if some prefer) has not granted that physical ability to humans.
Don’t expect much from justices that think it is Constitutional to stick sissors into the brains of babies and to tear their limbs off.
“If SCOTUS decides that the appellants lack standing, it can either dismiss the appeal (which will leave the 9th Circuit’s decision in place in California, but without any precedential impact on other states), or it can decide that there never was standing even in the lower courts (which will wipe out the lower court decisions ... and would leave the California Supreme Court’s ruling (which upheld Prop. 8, albeit only prospectively) in place. “
Thanks, now the questioning makes sense!
Tomorrow is the big one. Future libertarians (if the future welfare dispensers allow any libertarian expression) will be discussing the “tragedy of the common[s] rights” if SCOTUS forces the feds to recognize ANY state definition of marriage.
So I expect them to do just that.
My brother told me his FB page is covered with red and pink squares from liberal “friends” changing their Facebook picture to show their support for “marriage equality” and gay marriage. Luckily, I don’t have any or I would need to defriend them immediately. Has anyone else seen this?