Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 101

Thread: SCOTUS and gay marriage

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,340

    SCOTUS and gay marriage

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...nts-89318.html

    Any predictions?

    Anyone else find the abundant use of the phrase "oral arguments" pretty funny?

    After I spent some time thinking about it, if you believe homosexuality is genetic, you really can't be against same-sex marriage.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,092
    Hopefully SCOTUS does the right thing. Time for equality.

  3. #3
    I hope they would do the right thing and issue a sweeping opinion in favor of marriage equality in all 50 states, but from the line if questioning it looks like it will probably be a narrow ruling that only invalidates Prop 8. Good for Californians, but there's still more work to do on this issue.

    DOMA is the biggie tomorrow.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,487
    Hopefully SCOTUS will stop this quiescent queering up of marriage with lib quackery, and quickly

    there's no compelling interest of the court to allow redefinition

    With the lesbian plus the unwise Latina and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg all for it I expect the worst

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Hopefully SCOTUS will stop this quiescent queering up of marriage with lib quackery, and quickly

    there's no compelling interest of the court to allow redefinition

    With the lesbian plus the unwise Latina and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg all for it I expect the worst
    Ah, yes. Resort to name calling when you have no rational argument against marriage equality. The conservative way!

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Hopefully SCOTUS will stop this quiescent queering up of marriage with lib quackery, and quickly

    there's no compelling interest of the court to allow redefinition

    With the lesbian plus the unwise Latina and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg all for it I expect the worst
    Glad to see you take the high road here

    Seriously, how will gay marriage affect your life? How will it inconvenience you?

    I usually find myself in the middle on social issues, but I seriously can't fathom any sort of possible reason to be against equality in terms of marriage.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby2 View Post
    but I seriously can't fathom any sort of possible reason to be against equality in terms of marriage.
    Homophobia... 100 years from now it'll be like us looking back and shaking our heads that women couldn't vote...

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    as older bigoted ignormamusses die off this will be a non issue soon.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,839
    All for marriage, no rights though.

  10. #10
    DOMA should be struck down and States rights should be upheld.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,739
    Quote Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite View Post
    Homophobia... 100 years from now it'll be like us looking back and shaking our heads that women couldn't vote...
    One of the biggest mistakes ever made.


  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    The Supreme Court decides questions of law.

    I see no reason why a man & a man or a woman & a woman cannot enter into the same contract that a man & a woman can enter into. It seems like no brainer to me. Ruling against gay marriage would be a joke.

    IMHO

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Hopefully SCOTUS will stop this quiescent queering up of marriage with lib quackery, and quickly

    there's no compelling interest of the court to allow redefinition

    With the lesbian plus the unwise Latina and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg all for it I expect the worst
    Our founding fathers left many inequalities in the nations laws in the beginning that society has corrected over the years, this is just another one being corrected.

    When the country was founded, people were allowed to own slaves, and only white men could vote. As we evolved as a society, many inequalities were corrected. This is one that should be corrected.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    DOMA should be struck down and States rights should be upheld.
    States should still be allowed to be to discriminate?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    States should still be allowed to be to discriminate?
    States should be allowed to regulate legally recognized living arraignments that they feel are in the best interest of their community until data over time is available to prove those regulations are without merit and discriminatory. That data simply isn’t available yet to prove recognizing marriage between a man and a women is discriminatory.

    Gay men and women marry members of the opposite sex all the time and have nuclear traditional families all the time just like heterosexuals couples.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,340
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post

    After I spent some time thinking about it, if you believe homosexuality is genetic, you really can't be against same-sex marriage.
    So no one wants to discuss this statement? I'm a bit surprised.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    So no one wants to discuss this statement? I'm a bit surprised.
    I don't think that being gay is "genetic" in the sense that there's some sort of DNA "gay test" that can be performed. However, I'm certain that it is not a choice. Despite how you get there, I agree with your sentiment that you cannot be against marriage equality if you conclude that it is not a choice that the person makes, genetic or otherwise.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    I don't think that being gay is "genetic" in the sense that there's some sort of DNA "gay test" that can be performed. However, I'm certain that it is not a choice. Despite how you get there, I agree with your sentiment that you cannot be against marriage equality if you conclude that it is not a choice that the person makes, genetic or otherwise.
    When I married my wife it was not based on sexual attraction. I wanted to build a family and life together. Sex and sexual attraction are not the building blocks of a healthy marriage, family and society. It's one factor.

    The fact that I want to have sex with women, lots of them all the time and choice not to because I'm married isn't descriminatory.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    When I married my wife it was not based on sexual attraction. I wanted to build a family and life together. Sex and sexual attraction are not the building blocks of a healthy marriage, family and society. It's one factor.

    The fact that I want to have sex with women, lots of them all the time and choice not to because I'm married isn't descriminatory.
    Take sex out of it then. Two men love each other and want spend their lives with one another and raise a family. What's the harm? Being gay is more than sexual attraction to men, just as being straight is more than me wanting to go out and bang a bunch of women. Sex or not, I could never emotionally fall in love with another man. Sex or not, my best friend could never emotionally fall in love with a woman.

    The procreation argument against gay marriage is dead in the water. If this were the case we would have already outlawed the marrying of infertile couples, elderly couples, divorce, single parents, etc.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,487
    Buncha ladyboys in this thread It's a heterosexual thing...of course you freaks wouldn't understand. The Feds have no business forcing this issue.

    Marry a goat, a kid (goat), a kid (human), 5 eunuchs like you...your same "logic" applies...why not?

    FF etc.: STFU you POS with your bigot BS. That's the 1st thing you cry like a whiny ***** when you don't like what I say. Tell me instead exactly why my marriage should be polluted down to your skeevy standards or GTFO.

    CR: Yes states can "discriminate". The SCOTUS decided long ago if a state has a law banning something they dont have to accomodate others who don't. CT and MA dont set policy for FL and TX and vice versa. That goes for guns, for example. Now run along and do what you do best - catch and release criminals

    Busboy: Who said anything about contracts - gays may contract whatever they wish (and they do). Call the similacrum of phony marriage something else - just don't call it marriage

    Seattle Fan aka Fieri Jr: A "correction" for you, When the federal constitution was ratified in 1789, free blacks held the same legal right to vote as whites in every state except Virginia and Georgia. As of 1792, free blacks could vote in twelve of fifteen states, and not until 1803 did a northern state (RI) restrict the franchise to whites.

    By 1840, free blacks could vote on equal terms with whites in only four of twenty-six states. Despite a movement in favor of black suffrage in the 1840s and 1850s, blacks effectively held the franchise in only five of thirty-six states by the time the Civil War had ended.

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jih/sum...1.1.renda.html

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I dont expect ill-educated, uninformed liberals and crypto-liberals to understand some things should be unique and sacred. The people of our bluest, gayest state voted against institutionalizing this idiocy, a biased gay jurist struck the will of the people down, and now its a federal legal case to force the issue on all Americans most of whom don't want redefinition -they never vote for it whenever it comes to a vote

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us