Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage

[WinePusher]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

[East of Eden]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level, not by judicial fiat as Roe v. Wade was wrongly done. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the SCOTUS went along with the farce known as gay marriage, they usually do what the elites want.

[nursebenjamin]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level,

So you believe that the lower court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act should stand?

As far as handling this issue on the state level, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"? Or should some couples benefit from full marriage while others are stuck with a "skim milk" version?

[nursebenjamin]

[Replying to post 20 by 99percentatheism]

99percentatheism, you seem to be confusing civil marriage (ie. a marriage certificate) with religious marriage. California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are not relevant to religious traditions of marriage. These laws deal with how state and federal governments recognize same-sex marriage.

Several states do not recognize same-sex marriage, while individual churches within those states do. A few states recognize same-sex marriages, while many churches within those states do not recognize such unions. When clergy or congregations marry couples, it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony. The government will recognize such a marriage if the couple was able to obtain a marriage certificate. It is just as easy to obtain a marriage license and get married without a single religious commemoration. Even if same-sex marriages are recognized by your state, your church could still refuse to perform/recognize such unions.

We are not debating marriage as recognized by the various churches, temples, synagogues, etc. We are debating marriage as recognized by state and the federal governments. Specifically, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"? Should some couples (heterosexuals) benefit from all the rights and privileges of a civil marriage while other couples (homosexuals) are stuck with a "skim milk" version of marriage?

[East of Eden]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level,

So you believe that the lower court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act should stand?

No, I think what the people decided in Prop. 8 should stand.

As far as handling this issue on the state level, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"?

Yes, as long as it is a man and woman marrying, and not two of each or three of each.

[nursebenjamin]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level,

So you believe that the lower court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act should stand?

No, I think what the people decided in Prop. 8 should stand.

As far as handling this issue on the state level, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"?

Yes, as long as it is a man and woman marrying, and not two of each or three of each.

??? So you disagree with the Constitution of the United States which guarantees that people have "equal protection under the laws"? What possibly could be your reasoning? Are you afraid that you will develop a homoerotic attraction if the gays are legally allowed to marry?

Please explain your views on Loving v. Virginia, which prevents state statutes from outlawing INTERRACIAL marriages. If interracial marriage warrants "equal protection under the laws", why not homosexual marriage?

[East of Eden]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level,

So you believe that the lower court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act should stand?

No, I think what the people decided in Prop. 8 should stand.

As far as handling this issue on the state level, should couples receive "equal protection under the laws"?

Yes, as long as it is a man and woman marrying, and not two of each or three of each.

??? So you disagree with the Constitution of the United States which guarantees that people have "equal protection under the laws"? What possibly could be your reasoning?

Ask Justice Scalia, I believe it was him who asked the other day where is the decision deciding only heterosexual marriage is unconsitutional. I don't disagree with the constitution, only your skewed interpretation of it. Its like asking if you approve of a square circle.

Please explain your views on Loving v. Virginia, which prevents state statutes from outlawing INTERRACIAL marriages. If interracial marriage warrants "equal protection under the laws", why not homosexual marriage?

Loving allowed marriage between a man and woman. Race is unchangable, same sex attraction is not. Are polygamists also 'equally protected'? As the late Wm. F. Buckley Jr. used to say, the classic liberal failure is the failure to discriminate, i.e. make right distinctions.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

Ask Justice Scalia, I believe it was him who asked the other day where is the decision deciding only heterosexual marriage is unconsitutional.

Bound to the Declaration of Indepence, where's it's held self evident that all men are created equal.

That said, I propose it matters not what the Constitution has to say, but whether homosexuals are deserving of the same rights we hold for ourselves.

I don't disagree with the constitution, only your skewed interpretation of it. Its like asking if you approve of a square circle.

I caution against declaring others have it all skewed, lest we expose ourselves to the observer thinking it's us that has it skewed.

Loving allowed marriage between a man and woman. Race is unchangable, same sex attraction is not.

I propose that whether one can change is beside the point. Where we offer marriage to them right there, we oughta offer marriage to those over yonder.

Are polygamists also 'equally protected'?

It is my firm conviction that folks should be allowed to married who they wish, and if that adds up to a heaping pile, so be it. (noting that such should be under the auspices of informed consent)

As the late Wm. F. Buckley Jr. used to say, the classic liberal failure is the failure to discriminate, i.e. make right distinctions.

Buckley's dead.

If we bind ourselves to the thoughts of the dead, we become dead one and all.

[LiamOS]

Race is unchangable, same sex attraction is not.

Please cite scientific sources to show that same sex attraction is a factor which can be changed, in a manner consistent to race being 'unchangeable'.

[micatala]

Race is unchangable, same sex attraction is not.

Please cite scientific sources to show that same sex attraction is a factor which can be changed, in a manner consistent to race being 'unchangeable'.

In my opinion, the "unchangability" issue is a red herring.

Would we discriminate against poor people since that is a changeable characteristic?
Hair color?
Educational attainment?
Political affiliation?
Marital status?

Sure, one could debate the extent to which being gay is a choice, and what the factors are that influence a person to be gay, genetic or otherwise. An objective weighing of the evidence I think would clearly show it is not a "choice," even if it is unclear the extent to which genes play a role.


But as far as the status of gay marriage or other rights as they pertain to gay people, I would say "so what?"



I have not read the entire transcript of the oral arguments on the Prop 8 case. However, I think it is very interesting to note what was, and what was NOT said.

For example, was the "unchangability" issue even brought up in court? If not, that would be an indication that, from a legal standpoint, it is a red herring.

What of the other common arguments against gay marriage that one hears, on the forum and elsewherre?

Was anything said about any of the following?

Alleged promiscuity.
HIV or other diseases.
Biblical quotations.
The "gay agenda."
The alleged role of homosexuality in the demise of Rome or other ancient civilizations.
The coming ( or past) judgment of God on the U.S. for its wicked ways.


If these and other similar arguments are entirely absent, it will provide ample proof that most of the arguments that are made in the political and public realm are, at least from a legal and constitutional standpoint, bogus.


It will be even more interesting to see what is written into any opinions provided by the justices, whatever the actual decision on the case. Those should be even more telling.



Now, we did hear about procreation, and we did hear about potential effects on children. Was their any indication the justices are likely to consider these factors relevant? Was any evidence actually provided that allowing gay marriage causes any harm with respect to either of these?

[Alchemy]

I believe that in 10 years time, we will be looking at this argument the same way we now look at the argument of segregation and interracial marriage. People who held public views against interracial marriage are now social outcasts, an embarrassment to their family and community.

For the most part, arguments against gay marriage are interchangeable with arguments against interracial marriage. Just change the words gay and black.

The idea that someone one is not allowed to marry the person they love because of what SOMEONE ELSE believes is one of the most abhorrent, vile and disgusting notions we have today.