Posted on 03/26/2013 11:38:24 AM PDT by Biggirl
In a historic argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might be hesitant to strike down such laws. Following the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com ...
Rush gave an interesting discussion on polyamory a short while ago related to this case.
I got out of the business of trying to predict how the SCOTUS will rule on anything after the Obamacare decision came down.
Pretty much the same here. I do this with extreme caution.
Pete Williams reporting on homosexual issues - now THERE’S an unbiased correspondent...
From what I heard they didn’t “hint” they won’t issue sweeping rule on same-sex marriage. They asked several questions regarding whether it was appropriate for SCOTUS to rule. As I understand it, that is a very common line of questioning in cases before the court.
Sotomayor, on the other hand, was practically trying to make the case for SSM from the bench. Surprise, surprise.
They want the frog to boil a little longer.
Years ago when my mother was alive she said she could tell how I was doing financially, emotionally and physically just by me saying the one word “hello” when I answered her telephone calls.
I never realized she possessed the talents of a MSM commentator.
The idea that kids of mommy and mommy will benefit from marriage is ridiculous. Mommy and mommy can’t have kids in the first place...it’s about PARTS.
(upcoming headline from mainstream media if the court won't strike down DOMA and Prop. 8 like they demand)
FYI:
“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”
snip http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids
What’s especially interesting, is that the gentleman who did this study set out to show that children of same-sex couples are not more likely to be gay.
If plaintiffs don't have standing, then 9th circus court ruling is mute and Prop 8 stands as voted by the people.
I’m not sure about that.
But anyway, it will probably be a 6-3 sweeping decision that imposes gay marriage on the entire nation with Kennedy and Roberts joining the liberals.
Rush sounded foolish today on the subject. Why does he keep saying that when put to a vote the people always vote gay marriage down? Simply not true and it makes him sound dumb.
I think the issue could be simplified for the SCOTUS as the following:
The people of the United States do not desire marriage to be other than between a man and a woman. The political leaders and many in the judiciary do, however, and seek to force what they want on an unwilling public.
So the issue is simply one of government vs. democracy. Once representatives and officials are elected or selected, do they have carte blanche to do what they want against the wishes of the public, especially those judges who feel safe in lifetime appointment to power?
Why should any candidate for the federal judiciary ever be honest about what they want?
Sort of. There are some who argue that if the group defending Prop 8 do not have standing, it voids the 9th Circus ruling, but leave the District Court ruling striking down Prop 8 intact. That's because the district court judge, Walker, decided the initiative proponents had standing to defend the law at trial, but did not have standing to appeal his ruling.
There was a specific method to his madness. You see, since the state refused to defend the law, there was no adversarial case that the court could hear unless the initiative proponents had standing. If the proponents could not defend the law, he could not hear the case, and the law would remain in effect by default. So he gave them standing at trial in order to insure that he could hear the case and make the ruling he wanted to make.
Having made that ruling, however, he did not want it undone, so he ruled that they initiative proponents did not have standing on appeal. The 9th Circus asked the CA Supremes for their opinion, and they unanimously said that initiative proponents have standing to defend an initiative if the state refuses to do so - otherwise the state could easily abrogate any citizen-approved initiative by merely refusing to defend it in court.
If SCOTUS decides that the initiative proponents do not have standing under state law, despite the opinion to the contrary of the court tasked with interpreting that law, then what they SHOULD do is vacate the original district court ruling as well, as the proponents would not have had standing to defend the law at the district court either, and hence, the case should have been thrown out at that point.
Okay, not always, but in the vast majority of cases where SSM has been put to the voters, it has failed.
I did not know that. I thought that every time it has been put on the ballot it was rejected.
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.