Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 61 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-26-2013, 11:59 AM   #901
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:55 PM
sounds like Kennedy wants to punt this down the road. which is fine, and small "c" conservative, and perhaps prudent. the citizens of CA will have their rights restored, and we'll continue to fight and make arguments and come out and change hearts and minds and the change we'll create will be real and enduring.

but then everyone thought the ACA was doomed. so who knows?

DOMA tomorrow.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 12:21 PM   #902
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:55 PM
seems reasonable:

Quote:
The Proposition 8 oral argument

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The Justices seem divided on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on ideological lines, four to four – i.e., all the members other than Justice Kennedy. For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one. The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further. But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/th...t/#more-161733
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 12:32 PM   #903
Refugee
 
PennyLanePHINS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 1,062
Local Time: 12:55 PM
I think people who don't support it should pay more taxes, and gays should pay less until they're treated equally.

Politcians against same-sex marriage probably have no issue with gays paying taxes though, aka paying their salary.
__________________
PennyLanePHINS is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 12:52 PM   #904
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLanePHINS View Post
I think people who don't support it should pay more taxes, and gays should pay less until they're treated equally.

Politcians against same-sex marriage probably have no issue with gays paying taxes though, aka paying their salary.
Mmmm, I don't think that will be necessary. I think seeing their world turn upside down and being defeated is enough. Of course, that won't make them change their minds and you really can't force anyone to change their minds.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 02:31 PM   #905
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.

GFY, Scalia. seriously.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:24 PM   #906
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,592
Local Time: 05:55 PM
He's a dick. I can't think of anyone I disagree with, or even dislike more on the bench than him.
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 03:28 PM   #907
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:55 AM
I am listening to an audio of the hearing today on my local public station, the host does a decent job of narrating, without disrupting.
Later, I will post a link to a podcast of it.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 04:58 PM   #908
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Supreme Court weighs gay marriage cases | Reuters.com
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:36 PM   #909
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Why aren't the same arguments being used against single parents then? Where are the protests against single parents?
They have been actually for decades. But you could start with Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown 20 years ago and the hundreds of books on the unintended consequences of the Great Society poverty programs and no-fault divorce.

Quote:
And though I've asked many people many times no one yet has been able to answer why children need a mother and father and anything else is an abomination.
Who says they are abominations? What we argue for is a conjugal concept of marriage that recognizes the ideal of a mother and father raising a biological child in a stable union.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:54 PM   #910
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I'm sure I read the same article as you did. Where did it say that everyone is against SSM?
I didn't even read that article and I certainly never said "everyone is against SSM." What's the point of a protest if everyone is in agreement?

There are other news reports out there and in fact there was another protest just like this in Paris several months ago during my FYM hiatus or I would have commented on that protest back then. My main observation from several articles then and now is that this protest is led by a much more diverse representation of French society then the stereotypical opponents of SSM in America. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:02 PM   #911
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Interesting use of the word fact...
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:06 PM   #912
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I didn't even read that article and I certainly never said "everyone is against SSM." What's the point of a protest if everyone is in agreement?
You said this on posting #890:

Interesting in that gay and straight, religious and secular, conservative and leftist, can all join together against same-sex marriage in Paris because France has rejected the ad hominem attack of "homophobe" as a way of silencing and intimidating all opposition to the legal and moral recognition of same-sex marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
There are other news reports out there and in fact there was another protest just like this in Paris several months ago during my FYM hiatus or I would have commented on that protest back then. My main observation from several articles then and now is that this protest is led by a much more diverse representation of French society then the stereotypical opponents of SSM in America. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.
It wouldn't hurt to post those articles, no matter how old they are.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:08 PM   #913
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Who says they are abominations? What we argue for is a conjugal concept of marriage that recognizes the ideal of a mother and father raising a biological child in a stable union.


And some of us have a less reductivist view if humanity think that it's about the quality of the individuals in the relationship and not the mere presence of one penis and one vagina.

After all, 45 years ago, it would have been "one father and one mother of the same race in a stable union" because think of those poor confused biracial children.

The anti-adoption ethos that come out of the anti-gay side is breathtaking, and as Kennedy pointed out today, what about the 40,000 children in California alone who have SS parents? Are they to be punished because their parents don't fit your ideal?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:23 PM   #914
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Guys, get off Indy's back. He just thinks his ideals are more important than another person's life. Is that so bad?

He believes he's more American than you are. Deal with it. That's your problem
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:49 PM   #915
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:55 AM
you can listen for yourself

if you go to this page, there is a link to a recording of the oral arguments

Supreme Court oral arguments and analysis of CA's Prop 8 hearing | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com