|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: SCOTUS and Gay Marriage|
SCOTUS and Gay Marriage
Posted - 3/27/2013 2:19:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
This has been fascinating to watch/listen to (besides being very important).
Yesterday it sounded like the Justices didn't want to go near Prop 8 with tongs and oven mitts. Today it sounds like they're going to strike down DOMA. Some more mixed opinions in other words.
Politically, I'm not surpised that GOP Leadership is being awfully quiet on all of this. Wingnut wise, I'm not surprised some like Rushbo and others think all of this will lead to Revelations and guys marrying their daughter or or cocker spaniel. Oh well.
But watch for Hell freezing over when you see exchanges like this one: "O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Agree: Gays Have ‘More Compelling’ Argument, Opponents Just ‘Thump The Bible’
"O’Reilly responded that he agreed with her 100 percent. “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” he said. “That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side.”
Will wonders never cease. I also was struck how O'Reilly said several times "“And the other side hasn’t been able to anything but thump the Bible,” he concluded."
I distinctly remember Obama catchin bloody hell for his "clinging to their Bibles' remark. That was insulting and bigoted doncaknow. But, apparently, while 'clinging' is evil, 'thumping' your Bible is okay. Who knew.
Posted - 3/27/2013 2:37:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
Gay marriage is putting the GOP in a corner...
If Republicans oppose marriage equality -- they alienate the majority of voters (58% now support marriage equality -- and that number is rising quickly). So they have trouble in the general election.
But, if Republicans back it, evangelicals and the fringe right bolt from the party. And a candidate can't win the GOP Primary.
Gov. Mike Huckabee, who carries a lot of weight with the Christian right promises to lead a revolt if the GOP as a Party accepts it. That could split the party.
So, the GOP is trapped between alienating the majority of voters, or splitting into two parties, neither of which is large enough to win a majority of votes in Congress -- or for President.
Posted - 3/28/2013 8:53:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
i'm sure bill o' will appreciate mpdodgson equating him to the president
mpdodgson watching for hell freezing proves he doesn't watch bill o' or kelly. instead he chooses media matters or other hate fox news sites to tell him what to think.
seems to me that scotus is leaning towards marriage being a states rights issue. so if they toss doma, will marriage be left up to states?
i will leave obama's and the left's hypocrisy on states rights for another day.
Posted - 3/28/2013 9:33:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
Once again dogson
takes snippets from several different topics...with different contexts...and manufactures a dishonest whole.
And I'd bet he doesn't even realize that's what he's done...even though he acknowledges that he exaggerates, distorts and lies.
Posted - 3/28/2013 10:03:31 AM | show profile | flag this post
con? You're confused again.
I did not "equate" O'Reilly with the president. I was merely pointing out that his 'clinging to their guns' comment was widely criticized from both the Right, and even Hillary during the first campaign. I found it interesting that Fox thinks "clinging" is bad, but "thumping is okay.
And I didn't cite Media Matters either. I often watch Billo, I think he's entertaining. (Especially him v Stewart) I think his 'evolution' on the topic is interesting--Just last year he was arguing that legal gay marriage would lead to polygamy, not to mention you could legally marry an animal then. Quite a turnaroud.
And you're also confused about the two seperate SCOTUS arguments. The Prop 8 case is about States Rights. The DOMA case was about denying married couples certain rights. Different cases.
and cruise? If everything I said is about the Court and Gay Mariage--how is that "several different topics"?? And please show me where I acknowledged that I "lie"???
Posted - 3/28/2013 11:17:10 AM | show profile | flag this post
"denying married couples"
But therein lies the rub: Tens of thousands of years of precedent...and many laws...no not recognize homosexual unions as marriage. It is only left wingers who want to give 2-3 percent of the population a special right and call it marriage.
Posted - 3/28/2013 11:26:13 AM | show profile | flag this post
"show me where I acknowledged that I 'lie'"
You've previously admitted that you exaggerate and distort. Since you did not contradict my assertion above that you do so, that is tantamount to admitting it. And exaggeration and distortion amount to untruths...i.e., lies.
Posted - 3/28/2013 11:31:00 AM | show profile | flag this post
MARRIAGE EQUALITY is about EQUAL RIGHTS
wow... marriage equality is not about special rights; it is
about granting equal rights as stated in the Constitution.
Also, polls indicate a majority of Americans support marriage equality, aka gay marriage. Over 50 % support this and
and it is much higher among the younger generation.
Posted - 3/28/2013 11:51:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
DOMA is done...
that's pretty clear from the way the justices talked about it. Kennedy will opt for a states rights approach to appeal it, the four liberal justices will join him and likely agree that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Prop 8, may not even warrant a decision.
The justices can't quite figure out how either of these cases have standing, but especially the Prop 8 case.
It's possible the Justices, in the opinion process, may meld issues from both cases in reaching their decisions.
It may not be a sweeping case, but a repeal of DOMA could force the federal government to recognize gay marriages if a state recognizes them.
Posted - 3/28/2013 12:29:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
give 2-3 percent of the population a special right
This is brave.
Calling the right to marry a "special right" when applied to 2-3 percent of the population changes everything. As opposed to saying give them the "same" rights as everyone else.
With a twist of phrase, this hero changes rights into some sort of special privilege that can and SHOULD be denied merely based on ancient prejudice.
A patriot. To the right people.
Posted - 3/28/2013 1:00:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
"marriage equality is not about special rights; it is
about granting equal rights as stated in the Constitution."
what about the equal rights of polygamist?
what about those who want to marry their family members?
what if i want two wives? what about my equal rights?
when the left talks "marriage equality", they still mean marriage for some- not for others. marriage equality won't happen until everyone who wants to get married can.
"Also, polls indicate a majority of Americans support marriage equality"
which is why democrats are no longer lying about their support for gay marriage. how could anyone belong to a party (democrat party) in which its leaders look at polls before deciding if/when to come out for something they have long supported?
Posted - 3/28/2013 1:26:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
Gays perhaps don't realize it but
they are just another in a long list of minorities that "need" the political protection of the Democrat party. (Whom did you think made up their constituencies?)
All gays have to do in return is vote for their "protectors" in perpetuity. If it should ever happen that gays become Log Cabin Republicans the Dems would throw them under the bus without a second thought. They don't care about "marriage equality"...they care about votes. And that is true regardless of how long and how loudly (and how disingenuously) they wail.
Posted - 3/28/2013 2:09:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
yawn... con rattles off a list of tired discredited arguments
(he forgot the one about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve)
and cruiser insults all of us smart LGBT people.
Posted - 3/28/2013 2:18:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
so village gal is for marriage equality for some-not all.
Posted - 3/28/2013 2:31:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, yeah, cruzo?
How are the Log Cabin Republicans treated by the rest of their party?
They're expected to vote for the GOP -- and are routinely thrown under the bus.
And yes, gays tend to vote for Democrats. Why would ANYONE vote for the party that wants to marginalize you, limit your rights and make you a second class citizen?
Do you really understand how voting works?
Posted - 3/28/2013 3:14:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
con and cruiser Stand Up To The Gays
Good points heroes.
And while con/puzo's points about polygamy and incest bring up situations that are specifically prohibited by law as opposed to the culturally accepted norm of "two consenting adults" and cruiser just doesn't like gay people based on thousands of years of prejudice and practice, their points are...
Well,... ok. The point is not EVERYONE deserves the same rights everyone else already has if that everyone isn't the same as everyone else in the first place. Especially when it comes to naked stuff and naughty parts that are the same.
Perhaps the gays can have a form of marriage-like bonds that are separate from those granted to heterosexual couples.
Equal, yes. But separate.
That wouldn't seem wrong, would it?
Posted - 3/28/2013 4:50:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
I still contend the only function of government
With regards to marriage is to ensure the legality of the contract. Period. Marriage is a legally binding contract between two people and the role of government is to ensure that both parties are capable of entering such an agreement. Which means that marrying farm animals would not qualify and marrying more than one partner would not qualify. And in like manner each religious institution should decide their own guidelines regarding the couples they will recognize as candidates for marriage in their institution not the government.
To me Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage did more damage to the institution of marriage than two women who have been together for 20 years finally being allowed to make it legal.
Posted - 3/29/2013 10:03:14 AM | show profile | flag this post
Hear, hear, blackedtape...
Posted - 3/29/2013 12:12:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
blackedtape; I totally agree
with your Kardashian crack. Gays would ruin the holiness of marriage?? Cut me a break. What's even more maddening is having the likes of Newt or Rushbo lecturing anyone on the 'sanctity' of the institution...
The arguement that the whole purpose of marriage is procreation is ridiculous too. Senior citizens can't marry? I can't marry an in-fertile person? (and yes that was brought up before the Court)
The States Rights argument doesn't hold water. (DOMA can be unconstitutional because it’s in conflict with Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1, which reads: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”) If gays get married in Vermont, doesn't PA have to recognize that"
And possibly the WORST arguement (esoused by cruise among others) "It is only left wingers who want to give 2-3 percent of the population a special right" Since when is an equal right a special right?? Inter-racial marriage was once illegal too in many states...things and morals change you know. And what does the percentage part have to do with anything?? The Jewish population in America is only 2.1% Why do we allow them the same rights as other people??
And lastly, cruise? Don't you dare lecture anyone about "distortions". This from the guy who said Obama is just like Mao, Hitler, and Stalin...and he caused the Great Recession while in the Senate, Disabled Vets are "gaming the system"...Military bullets are designed to "wound not kill"..and even in this thread; Dems don't care about Gays--"They don't care about "marriage equality"...they care about votes. And that is true.." REALLY?? That is true?? Says who??
On one level one could say this is a complicated debate. But I don't think it is.
Posted - 3/29/2013 12:38:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
as usual, blacked makes perfect sense..
Posted - 3/29/2013 3:19:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
"On one level one could say this is a complicated debate"
It's not complicated at all. Democrats are trying to manufacture another "disadvantaged, protected minority" to add to their coalition of fringe groups.
Posted - 3/29/2013 3:26:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
just showed us what's wrong with the Republican Party today.
While Democrats see ALL Americans as being equal -- he, and his party, see gays, blacks, Hispanics, women and other Americans as "fringe groups." And as "fringe groups" the GOP has been ignoring the issues important to well over half of all Americans.
If the GOP would quit attacking these Americans and listen to their needs and desires for freedom, liberty and equality -- maybe the GOP wouldn't be in such bad shape.
Posted - 3/29/2013 3:49:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
Aw give it up.
"Democrats are trying to manufacture another "disadvantaged, protected minority" to add to their coalition of fringe groups"
So...now Dems "manufactured" Gays?? How'd we do that?
And they're a "fringe group"??? Like Jews? (at 2.1%)?? People born with birth defects?? Bitter old coots that live in the basement?? Jeez.
Posted - 3/29/2013 4:04:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
"So...now Dems 'manufactured' Gays??"
Just another example of this idiot's unwillingness or inability to HONESTLY discuss anything.
Posted - 3/29/2013 4:06:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
And to think
he claims he doesn't distort or lie.