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

Audio from today's arguments will be available from SCOTUS by 1:00 PM. Check back for a link and further discussion.

I apologize for the choppiness of the article. I wanted to get an update to you before the audio is available.

1 posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 03/26/2013 10:06:27 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: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks, looking forward for more updates.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 10:08:37 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Is that 1:00 California time?


4 posted on 03/26/2013 10:09:25 AM PDT by edcoil (If the man was accused of leadership, there would not be enough evidence to convict him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“Oral arguments.” Perhaps a poor choice of words.


5 posted on 03/26/2013 10:10:21 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I have no doubt Prop. 8 will be overturned for good. We have a gay-friendly SCOTUS, with at LEAST one sitting gay/bi-sexual Justice. The will of the people will be once again nullified. Never mind marriage is a 'club' of sorts and has nothing to do with equality.

The will of the people only counts when it goes the way liberals want it to go.

7 posted on 03/26/2013 10:11:56 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

We all know how this will end.


11 posted on 03/26/2013 10:14:21 AM PDT by Epsdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.


14 posted on 03/26/2013 10:21:35 AM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan
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."

This is the stupidest argument for gay marriage, and it doesn't surprise me it comes from Breyer, since Souter is no longer there to be the village idiot.

Why don't we allow brothers and sisters to marry, or close relations? Precisely because of the harm if they should have children. But, according to Breyer, many marriages don't have children, so clearly there is no rational basis to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry.

And since the concept of traditional marriage is that you get married, and THEN have children,and not the other way around, under the "Breyer" standard marriage makes no sense, because NOBODY WHO GETS MARRIED has children at the time they get married.

In reality, the point of marriage WAS to have children. There were few people getting married simply to guarantee themselves a partner. That some people can't have kids is of no consequence -- most can. That some people choose not to is of no consequence -- most do. And that marriage doesn't always work out the way government had intended, doesn't mean marriage has to be modified in a way that guarantees that it won't work the way government intends.

Since there is no way to guarantee that a particular couple WILL HAVE CHILDREN before you grant the license, in the history of the world up until now, marriage has been defined precisely in the way that was most likely to lead to the outcome. So, we don't let brothers and sisters marry. We don't let same-sex couples marry.

Frankly, there is no particular reason for the state to recognize the marriage of two people who are past childbearing age. But marriage has always been allowed between unrelated men and women.

Even in our darker history, the rules are based on children -- we didn't allow mixed-race marriages NOT because we were concerned about a white guy having sex with a black woman, but because of irrational fear of mixed-race children.

The bad part of the rest of this summary of the oral arguments is that most of them have nothing to do with what the court is SUPPOSED to be deciding -- NOT whether it makes sense to ban gay marriage or allow it, but whether the constitution REQUIRES that two people of the same sex be allowed to get government sanction for "marriage".

16 posted on 03/26/2013 10:22:33 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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: 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: 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: BuckeyeTexan

BIG Question:

Kennedy has suggested NOT ruling at all at this time.

Normally, if there is no majority opinion from SCOTUS AFTER VOTING, the PREVIOUS 9th Circuit ruling applies, in which case, Prop 8 would be overturned and gay marriage would be legal [for CA only].

My question is whether the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stay in place [overturning Prop 8] OR because SCOTUS failed to rule, would the 9th Circuit’s ruling be vacated and the CA Supreme Court’s ruling apply?

In this scenario, SCOTUS DOES NOT rule either FOR or AGAINST - and in fact, DOES NOT RULE AT ALL, so, in THIS case, does the 9th Circuit’s ruling stand? Can a lower court’s constitutional ruling stand even IF SCOTUS has decided NOT TO RULE AT ALL after it has heard the case?

FYI: The CA Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 constitutional, but allowed previous gay marriages to remain in place ...


43 posted on 03/26/2013 11:30:48 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 1 | 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

http://fox8.com/2013/03/26/red-symbol-for-marriage-equality-goes-viral/

sick bunch.


104 posted on 03/26/2013 7:29:57 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: BuckeyeTexan
people are watching this like a big soap opera....
113 posted on 03/27/2013 6:31:24 AM PDT by Drawn7979
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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