Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[sportage]

I "would" be concerned about Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, but "if" they are true to their word that a justice should not use personal feelings when making decisions and applying law, then all three would have to vote in favor of same sex marriage. The thing is with these guys, is that they too often do insert personal belief, then scramble for some nonsense reason to support their flawed ruling, to make it look just.

But in Iowa for example, the justices on the state sup court, many of whom are very hard nosed conservative republicans, voted unanimous that same sex partners should have equal rights. When it comes to law and courts and all that legal interpretation, same sex marriage wins. It is only when the issue is placed on some ballot that the perversion takes over via outside money and anti groups running tv spots twisting the truth.
Like one huge lie they love to put out there is that allowing same sex marriage would mean the mandatory teaching of homosexuality in public schools to first graders.
After same sex marriage was allowed in Iowa, and its been allowed for some time now, not ONE kid has been forced to such nonsense by teachers in schools.
This just shows you the lies and deception these anti groups put forward with tv ads and using their money. All of it total nonsense. But the public believes what they see on tv, and read in some spam emailing, so there you go.

So if this current case does make it to the US Sup Court, regardless of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, I believe they will have to vote in support of equal marriage rights. If, and that’s a big "if" they are true to their word to follow the law, and only the law as was done in Iowa by the justices.

What I want to know is, if the US supreme court rules in favor, would that not grant same sex marriage rights, protected, across the country in all states regardless of any ban that state may have imposed in the past?

 

[sportage]

when gay marriage can't make headway in liberal strongholds like California, New Jersey, or New York, it seems pretty obvious to me that there are plenty of liberals who aren't on the gay marriage train. I know some of them myself.

Well... its not that. its the money and television that anti groups spread lies with and make nosense connections to other issues, like I mentioned above, the teaching of homosexuality to young school kids.
Nonsense connections and false fears that concerns the voting public. They hear this stuff from the anti groups in tv spots, and think "well maybe that is possible". So they vote against. Its a dirty little trick, and those anti same sex marriage groups know that. They know they found the publics Achilles' heel.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
Like one huge lie they love to put out there is that allowing same sex marriage would mean the mandatory teaching of homosexuality in public schools to first graders.
After same sex marriage was allowed in Iowa, and its been allowed for some time now, not ONE kid has been forced to such nonsense by teachers in schools.
This just shows you the lies and deception these anti groups put forward with tv ads and using their money. All of it total nonsense. But the public believes what they see on tv, and read in some spam emailing, so there you go.

SNIP

What I want to know is, if the US supreme court rules in favor, would that not grant same sex marriage rights, protected, across the country in all states regardless of any ban that state may have imposed in the past?

To be fair, teaching aids such as Heather has two mommies have been pretty standard educational fair for a decade or more. It would be difficult and almost certainly illegal to teach homosexuality, but teaching acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate choice or lifestyle is now almost mandatory. And yes, I would assume that if SCOTUS shoots down the California ban, that would end it for all states simultaneously. I'm sure there will then be a push for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage in that case, but the debate would effectively be over.

 

[Munky]

The people voted wrong, and it time the courts fixed it. This is big because since this is a federal court it affects not only the state ban but the federal one too.

here we go again, another nutjob undermining the fundamental principle of democracy. A vote is a vote, it doesn't matter two shits if you don't like it, the people as a majority have spoken, and you want to override it because it's "wrong" based on your beliefs.

 

[Craig234]

I "would" be concerned about Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, but "if" they are true to their word that a justice should not use personal feelings when making decisions and applying law

That horse has left the barn, galloped to the end of land, gotten a boat to sail the ocean, and been put itno a spaceship and launched.

, then all three would have to vote in favor of same sex marriage.

Three? I'd ask if you didn't count one as human, but which one? They all qualify.

The thing is with these guys, is that they too often do insert personal belief, then scramble for some nonsense reason to support their flawed ruling, to make it look just.

Ding, ding, ding - I'd just clraify two things. It's a radical judicial phisolophy as much as personal opinion - the two go toghether - and you left out complaining that it's LIBERALS who do this.

But in Iowa for example, the justices on the state sup court, many of whom are very hard nosed conservative republicans, voted unanimous that same sex partners should have equal rights. When it comes to law and courts and all that legal interpretation, same sex marriage wins. It is only when the issue is placed on some ballot that the perversion takes over via outside money and anti groups running tv spots twisting the truth.
Like one huge lie they love to put out there is that allowing same sex marriage would mean the mandatory teaching of homosexuality in public schools to first graders.
After same sex marriage was allowed in Iowa, and its been allowed for some time now, not ONE kid has been forced to such nonsense by teachers in schools.
This just shows you the lies and deception these anti groups put forward with tv ads and using their money. All of it total nonsense. But the public believes what they see on tv, and read in some spam emailing, so there you go.

So if this current case does make it to the US Sup Court, regardless of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, I believe they will have to vote in support of equal marriage rights. If, and that?s a big "if" they are true to their word to follow the law, and only the law as was done in Iowa by the justices.

What I want to know is, if the US supreme court rules in favor, would that not grant same sex marriage rights, protected, across the country in all states regardless of any ban that state may have imposed in the past?

Those four have betrayed your trust in pretty much every ruling - almost all important cases get 5-4 ruling rulngs for a long time, usually depending which way Kennedy gfoes.

To answer your question, yes, just as with Loving v. Virginia and the ruling against criminal laws on sodomy, the ruling would in effect stike down all state laws discriminating against gays on equal marriage rights.

 

[Craig234]

here we go again, another nutjob undermining the fundamental principle of democracy. A vote is a vote, it doesn't matter two shits if you don't like it, the people as a majority have spoken, and you want to override it because it's "wrong" based on your beliefs.

Actually Ignoramus and anti-American, your beefs arewith the founding fathers who did that in the 'fundamental principle' of our democracy, the individual right guaranteed against such majority vote.

The majority can't vote to take away your right to say you love Sarah Palin, your right to form a religion around her, your right to a jury trial for stalking her. Our democracy is LIMITED.

Now, the super-majority can ultimately change the constitution to take those rights away fro you - which is a very good idea - but that's a big hassle and a simple majority can't.

Nor can the majority take away a gay person's equal right to marry - if the courts recognize it as they do the others above. And sinc your only argument for it is bigotry, hopefully the courts say that.

 

[Craig234]

To be fair, teaching aids such as Heather has two mommies have been pretty standard educational fair for a decade or more. It would be difficult and almost certainly illegal to teach homosexuality, but teaching acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate choice or lifestyle is now almost mandatory. And yes, I would assume that if SCOTUS shoots down the California ban, that would end it for all states simultaneously. I'm sure there will then be a push for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage in that case, but the debate would effectively be over.

As long as there are many idiot voters who value their hate for gays above their economic interests, there are politicians, mostly Republican, who will encourage them to do so. Gay hate can be milked for years.

We're not done milking black hate yet. It's way down, but it wasn't that long ago Reagan and Bush 41 were sending coded messages to 'the base' on race. "Racists, we're with you but it's our secret."

Most politicians love little better than a free issue on which they can grandstand for votes that voters will vote on while ignoring the big money issues they want to quietly sell out on.

Remember what I've quoted many times, "politicians have to look to voters, and do good for donors". Bigots are very easy to 'look good' to while doing good for donors.

 

[BoberFett]

it wasn't that long ago Reagan and Bush 41 were sending coded messages to 'the base' on race.

 

[EagleKeeper]

it wasn't that long ago Reagan and Bush 41 were sending coded messages to 'the base' on race.

He can always find some obscure statement to back up his bias.
There are and were plenty of Democrats that fit the same mold - he just wont accept that.

 

[Craig234]

He can always find some obscure statement to back up his bias.
There are and were plenty of Democrats that fit the same mold - he just wont accept that.

Darn people making points you don't agree with and acking them up, leaving you with no better response than to throw around words like "obscure" you can't back up.

Why don't more people say wrong things you agree without evidence, so you can just say how you agree and keep it easy?

Here you go, Happy Birthday. Every bad thing you can say about the Republican party is equally or more bad about the Democratic party. They don't have anything worse about them in any way!

Happy to hear your BS? Now you can just post how you agree.

My complicated approach to actually say accurate things about the parties, which includes plenty of bad about the Democratic party not for balance but because it's accurate - forget about that.

You post blather and are not a credit to the side you claim, sadly.

Go research Lee Atwater for a bit for a start and then comment.

 

[woolfe9999]

I "would" be concerned about Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, but "if" they are true to their word that a justice should not use personal feelings when making decisions and applying law, then all three would have to vote in favor of same sex marriage. The thing is with these guys, is that they too often do insert personal belief, then scramble for some nonsense reason to support their flawed ruling, to make it look just.

Dunno about Roberts or Alito, but there is next to zero chance of Scalia or Thomas voting to strike down Prop 8. For one thing, it would be inconsistent with their prior judicial commentary, especially Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans which, though not involving gay marriage, did involve issues quite analogous, and the same Constitutional theories (equal protection and due process):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

- wolf

 

[Munky]

Actually Ignoramus and anti-American, your beefs arewith the founding fathers who did that in the 'fundamental principle' of our democracy, the individual right guaranteed against such majority vote.

The majority can't vote to take away your right to say you love Sarah Palin, your right to form a religion around her, your right to a jury trial for stalking her. Our democracy is LIMITED.

Now, the super-majority can ultimately change the constitution to take those rights away fro you - which is a very good idea - but that's a big hassle and a simple majority can't.

Nor can the majority take away a gay person's equal right to marry - if the courts recognize it as they do the others above. And sinc your only argument for it is bigotry, hopefully the courts say that.

No, dipshit, my beef is with the fact that if you're gonna have a vote on an issue, and then say "oh well, I didn't like how the results turned out, so I'll just ignore it anyways," then you're undermining the legal power of voting. If the legal process calls for a vote, you don't arbitrarily decide whether or not to honor the results of such a vote.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, dipshit, my beef is with the fact that if you're gonna have a vote on an issue, and then say "oh well, I didn't like how the results turned out, so I'll just ignore it anyways," then you're undermining the legal power of voting. If the legal process calls for a vote, you don't arbitrarily decide whether or not to honor the results of such a vote.

You cannot overrule a vote "arbitrarily." However, the rights guarenteed by the Constitution do override any vote inconsistent with those rights. That the SCOTUS can review any laws, whether passed by a legislative body or popular vote, to determine whether they pass Constitutional muster, has been the law of the land since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Craig is correct.

- wolf

 

[Munky]

You cannot overrule a vote "arbitrarily." However, the rights guarenteed by the Constitution do override any vote inconsistent with those rights. That the SCOTUS can review any laws, whether passed by a legislative body or popular vote, to determine whether they pass Constitutional muster, has been the law of the land since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Craig is correct.

- wolf

Yes, the court can say if a law is unconstitutional, but until they do so, it is by all measures legal and constitutional.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, the court can say if a law is unconstitutional, but until they do so, it is by all measures legal and constitutional.

That is absolutely true, yet I don't think Craig was saying anything different unless I read his post wrong.

- wolf

PS: I am not endorsing him calling you an ignoramus. Just pointing out that he is correct about the law in this case.

 

[woolfe9999]

Moving on to the interesting question of what could happen if this case reaches the SCOTUS, I had initially thought that Prop 8 would be upheld, but looking at the voting records of the current SCOTUS, I am not so sure.

Basically, you have a conservative wing:

Scalia (far right)
Thomas (far right)
Alito (mod right)
Roberts (mod right)

And a left wing:

Bryer
Sotomayor
Ginsburg

And two swing voting centrists:

Kennedy
Stevens

Stevens has a down the middle voting record that arguably leans to neither side, while Kennedy has leaned very slightly rightward. However, both have voted with the liberal wing on gay rights, I believe consistently.

Looks like it's 5-4 slanted toward pro gay rights.

Interesting.

- wolf

 

[JulesMaximus]

when gay marriage can't make headway in liberal strongholds like California, New Jersey, or New York, it seems pretty obvious to me that there are plenty of liberals who aren't on the gay marriage train. I know some of them myself.

Oh but it is making headway. Prop 8 barely passed and only because the church threw millions of dollars of hate money into ad campaigns to help brainwash the masses. 8 years earlier Prop 22 passed with more than 60% of the vote. This one was much much closer and only passed with 52% of the vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if 8 years from now gay marriage is legal again in California.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh but it is making headway. Prop 8 barely passed and only because the church threw millions of dollars of hate money into ad campaigns to help brainwash the masses. 8 years earlier Prop 22 passed with more than 60% of the vote. This one was much much closer and only passed with 52% of the vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if 8 years from now gay marriage is legal again in California.

Agreed. There was a complete failure of the no on 8 crowd to properly reach out to minority voters, especially African-Americans, who were largely responsible for its passage. Had the Loving v. Virginia analogy been strongly made to that voting bloc, it is unlikely it would have passed. I don't think that same mistake will be made if it ever comes on the ballot again.

- wolf

 

[MotF Bane]

Oh but it is making headway. Prop 8 barely passed and only because the church threw millions of dollars of hate money into ad campaigns to help brainwash the masses. 8 years earlier Prop 22 passed with more than 60% of the vote. This one was much much closer and only passed with 52% of the vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if 8 years from now gay marriage is legal again in California.

I doubt it will even take eight years.

 

[Craig234]

Agreed. There was a complete failure of the no on 8 crowd to properly reach out to minority voters, especially African-Americans, who were largely responsible for its passage. Had the Loving v. Virginia analogy been strongly made to that voting bloc, it is unlikely it would have passed. I don't think that same mistake will be made if it ever comes on the ballot again.

- wolf

I'm not sure how much the no on 8 people missed them, it seems more that the yes on 8 people concentrated on them. Unfortunately there was a high bigotry rate and it worked.

I haven't looked at the numbers for less religious blacks - church going blacks were the main group who had the high bigotry rate and were targetted. I'm not sure how well marketing persuades them.

When confronted with something like Loving v. Virginia, they seem to respond simply that the involuntary and unimportant matter of race is not like the behavioral wrong choice of gays.

 

[Craig234]

Moving on to the interesting question of what could happen if this case reaches the SCOTUS, I had initially thought that Prop 8 would be upheld, but looking at the voting records of the current SCOTUS, I am not so sure.

Basically, you have a conservative wing:

Scalia (far right)
Thomas (far right)
Alito (mod right)
Roberts (mod right)

And a left wing:

Bryer
Sotomayor
Ginsburg

And two swing voting centrists:

Kennedy
Stevens

Stevens has a down the middle voting record that arguably leans to neither side, while Kennedy has leaned very slightly rightward. However, both have voted with the liberal wing on gay rights, I believe consistently.

Looks like it's 5-4 slanted toward pro gay rights.

Interesting.

- wolf

I'd swap Sotameyer ('centrist') with Stevens (more reasonable/left), but otherwise it has a chance, but a 5-4 margin is obnoxiously slim and I don't trust Kennedy. We likely have a new appointment coming.

 

[werepossum]

Agreed. There was a complete failure of the no on 8 crowd to properly reach out to minority voters, especially African-Americans, who were largely responsible for its passage. Had the Loving v. Virginia analogy been strongly made to that voting bloc, it is unlikely it would have passed. I don't think that same mistake will be made if it ever comes on the ballot again.

- wolf

Loving v. Virginia as an analogy for gay rights has been pushed on blacks for years; it's one of the things that really pisses them off. Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom, no other group has that history in America, or lasting until almost the end of the 19th century. (Native Americans obviously had it worse, but not any other group.) Drawing any particular analogies between a particular struggle in black civil rights and gay civil rights just alienates them. You'd be better off appealing to their innate human sense of fairness and compassion than equating their own struggle to that of gays, in my opinion.

 

[Craig234]

No, dipshit, my beef is with the fact that if you're gonna have a vote on an issue, and then say "oh well, I didn't like how the results turned out, so I'll just ignore it anyways," then you're undermining the legal power of voting. If the legal process calls for a vote, you don't arbitrarily decide whether or not to honor the results of such a vote.

No, I stand by ignoramus. You are trying to change what you said.

There was a post saying that the court should overturn this as a violation of individual rights, as they have past laws of discrmination.

You responded 'here we go again', that the court overturning a popular law is a 'fundamental violation of democracy'.

You implicitly argued AGAINST the entire concept of individual rights protected by the court against the majority.

I pointed out your error, and given your strident attack on people as 'violating democracy', I correctly said that was the attack of an ignoramus.

Now, you aqre trying to say you never said anything about the court - you are only talking about everyone IGNORING laws without any court ruling.

That's not what was said, and it's dishonest to say otherwise.

I may yet get Wolfe endorsing my ignoramus statement, but I'm not sure if it's in his constitution to do so however justified.

 

[Craig234]

Loving v. Virginia as an analogy for gay rights has been pushed on blacks for years; it's one of the things that really pisses them off. Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom, no other group has that history in America, or lasting until almost the end of the 19th century. (Native Americans obviously had it worse, but not any other group.) Drawing any particular analogies between a particular struggle in black civil rights and gay civil rights just alienates them. You'd be better off appealing to their innate human sense of fairness and compassion than equating their own struggle to that of gays, in my opinion.

Blacks are disproprtionately bigoted against gays, unfortunately. But you are posting a lot of falsehood to deny the unique history of blacks, indeed it's offensive.

Having the century after the civil where your family advanced with full rights while blacks is the relevant issue, not if your ancestor 200 years ago raped a black slave. It's not about the 'blood'. That's pretty ignorant.

As for blacks not liking the Loving v. Virginia analogy, too, frickin, bad. The only reason not to like it is bigotry, and they need to get that fixed like everyone else.

 

[woolfe9999]

Loving v. Virginia as an analogy for gay rights has been pushed on blacks for years; it's one of the things that really pisses them off. Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom, no other group has that history in America, or lasting until almost the end of the 19th century. (Native Americans obviously had it worse, but not any other group.) Drawing any particular analogies between a particular struggle in black civil rights and gay civil rights just alienates them. You'd be better off appealing to their innate human sense of fairness and compassion than equating their own struggle to that of gays, in my opinion.

Well that is one opinion. However, after the prop 8 vote was over, there was a developed consesus that the analogy was not pushed very hard in this particular case and that this ommission cost several points in the black vote. The trouble with that segment is that it is more homophobic on the whole than caucasions, and also more religious. Hence, the only real in is to artfully frame this sort of analogy without seeming to take anything away from the historical significance of the black civil rights movement. You start off by reminding them of their own momentus struggle, then comes the appeal to decency - how can we deny another group something we fought so hard to achieve for ourselves?

- wolf