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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.)


51 posted on 03/26/2013 11:51:43 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
So if the court ruled that the petioners do not have standing in any federal court, that would overturn the 9th Circuit and uphold the CA Supreme Court, correct?

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.

52 posted on 03/26/2013 11:54:44 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All

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.


53 posted on 03/26/2013 11:57:25 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; Lmo56; Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


54 posted on 03/26/2013 12:01:26 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

See my post at 54.


55 posted on 03/26/2013 12:03:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

We’re doomed to lose this because the judges are legislating from the bench. We should have passed a marriage amendment years back.


56 posted on 03/26/2013 12:03:49 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

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.


57 posted on 03/26/2013 12:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

We’re 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.


58 posted on 03/26/2013 12:28:49 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thank you for your modifications.


59 posted on 03/26/2013 12:36:04 PM 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: Sir Napsalot

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.


60 posted on 03/26/2013 12:43:13 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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


61 posted on 03/26/2013 12:47:42 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I just started listening on C-Span. Does anyone here have a feeling how this is going?


62 posted on 03/26/2013 12:49:58 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (When will the rest of America's citizens wake up to the Obamanation?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady

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


63 posted on 03/26/2013 1:00:11 PM PDT by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

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


64 posted on 03/26/2013 1:00:27 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; Salvation

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.


65 posted on 03/26/2013 1:03:29 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

If gay marriage becomes a “constitutional right” then we WILL have legalized pedophile relations within 5 years. Count on it

:(


66 posted on 03/26/2013 1:04:31 PM PDT by Wanderer99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chopperjc

Thanks for the update. I could just puke.


67 posted on 03/26/2013 1:06:45 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (When will the rest of America's citizens wake up to the Obamanation?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wanderer99

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?


68 posted on 03/26/2013 1:08:52 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (When will the rest of America's citizens wake up to the Obamanation?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady; chopperjc

Update?

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.


69 posted on 03/26/2013 1:28:18 PM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear..."(Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
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.

As was I.

Listening to the oral arguments, I was struck by the fact that Cooper's argument seemed to boil down to "let us lose the fight in every state one by one".

He wasn't a passionate advocate for Prop 8 on its own merits, only that SCOTUS should "go slow" in the march to gay marriage nationwide.
70 posted on 03/26/2013 1:53:37 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: highball

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.


71 posted on 03/26/2013 2:19:10 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
What you hear is the liberal agenda saying 'marriage equality'. What they're really saying is 'religion equality', which really means legislating that no religion shall condemn homosexuality- which REALLY means, all you Christian bigots, too damn bad what you believe, we can do whatever the hell we want in your church and you can't do a damn thing about it.

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.

72 posted on 03/26/2013 2:30:49 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

that is a very interesting analysis


73 posted on 03/26/2013 2:34:00 PM PDT by dervish (either the vote was corrupt or the electorate is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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?


74 posted on 03/26/2013 3:19:16 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

That makes your head spin.


75 posted on 03/26/2013 3:19:28 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


76 posted on 03/26/2013 3:42:03 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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


77 posted on 03/26/2013 3:42:23 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

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.)


78 posted on 03/26/2013 3:45:10 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: rintense

exactly
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


79 posted on 03/26/2013 3:46:50 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Wow, so the fight against standing has massive repercussions. Thanks.


80 posted on 03/26/2013 3:52:48 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

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.


81 posted on 03/26/2013 4:14:22 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
If your state won’t defend the results of a public vote who can?

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.

82 posted on 03/26/2013 4:20:12 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Epsdude

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.


83 posted on 03/26/2013 4:21:19 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Roberts’ boyfriend has a ringside seat.


84 posted on 03/26/2013 4:25:09 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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?


85 posted on 03/26/2013 4:29:15 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

What they should rule is no judge has the right to overrule the will of the people. Especially a faggot judge. What a joke.


86 posted on 03/26/2013 4:31:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Why didn’t the lawyer for REAL MARRIAGE demand that queer friendly Roberts recuse himself, pointing straight at Roberts’ bull-dyke cousin.


87 posted on 03/26/2013 4:34:45 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Never mind marriage is a 'club' of sorts and has nothing to do with equality.

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. :(

88 posted on 03/26/2013 4:36:07 PM PDT by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rintense; little jeremiah

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.


89 posted on 03/26/2013 4:36:26 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Sorry, lj. I didn’t mean to copy you on that.


90 posted on 03/26/2013 4:39:25 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: highball
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?

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.

91 posted on 03/26/2013 4:46:27 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
With respect to Obama

***********************

Those words can never be in the same sentence. :)

92 posted on 03/26/2013 4:48:13 PM 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 91 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’m glad you did. It’s a good comment.


93 posted on 03/26/2013 4:55:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; rintense

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.


94 posted on 03/26/2013 4:57:14 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Well, all right then. I’m not sorry. :)


95 posted on 03/26/2013 4:59:21 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Oh my sweet geebus. I cannot believe I typed those words. I repent.


96 posted on 03/26/2013 5:02:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


97 posted on 03/26/2013 5:09:52 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

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.


98 posted on 03/26/2013 5:41:10 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; BuckeyeTexan

“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.


99 posted on 03/26/2013 5:42:30 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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?


100 posted on 03/26/2013 6:18:44 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (When will the rest of America's citizens wake up to the Obamanation?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-158 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