Page 35 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #341
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
    This is completely unfounded. If not, please provide some kind of reasonable source for this opinion.

    OTOH, it doesnt even make sense. Gays will vote Democratic if they choose whether or not they are allowed to marry if that is their leaning. However if you mean that the obstruction of SSM makes the Republican party look less favorable, that would be somewhat reasonable.

    But married or not, they will still be gay and still live together and still view the parties in terms of how they *serve them* just like any other citizens in America.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #342
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Maybe not, but since this is a state's rights issue they might be able to avoid it for a while.

    Historically, states have honored the marriages from other states but it would be interesting to see how a non-gay marriage state would handle the legal union of a married gay couple that moved into their state. That would be the only route I could see for gay couples to force the SCOTUS to take up the gay marriage ban.
    The reason I originally brought up the comment was because not too long ago, here in Ontario Canada, we had gay couples from the US traveling here to get married and then going back home to their State. As it turned out, some gay couples wanted to divorce after a certain period of time and since their State didn't recognize SSM they couldn't get a divorce at home and so they traveled back to Ontario to get a divorce. Problem was, at the time, it was illegal for a Canadian court to grant a divorce for non-citizens and non-residents. So gay couples in this situation were in limbo. Canada ended up changing the law several years after but you can see that when you have multiple jurisdictions with multiple marriage laws you can really end up with a complicated mess.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #343
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Today's Decision Not to Decide | National Review Online

    I think this article is being to hyperbolic, comparing the ramifications of this decision to the infamous ruling of dread Scott seems a bit much.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  4. #344
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    The conditions you mention were already part of the cases that were rejected. In Virginia's Bostic v. Schaefer the couple was legally married in California and were part of the suit to have that marriage recognized.



    >>>>
    Wasn't aware of that. That's for the update.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The reason I originally brought up the comment was because not too long ago, here in Ontario Canada, we had gay couples from the US traveling here to get married and then going back home to their State. As it turned out, some gay couples wanted to divorce after a certain period of time and since their State didn't recognize SSM they couldn't get a divorce at home and so they traveled back to Ontario to get a divorce. Problem was, at the time, it was illegal for a Canadian court to grant a divorce for non-citizens and non-residents. So gay couples in this situation were in limbo. Canada ended up changing the law several years after but you can see that when you have multiple jurisdictions with multiple marriage laws you can really end up with a complicated mess.
    So very true.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #345
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,893
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post

    Circuit court judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, the same as supreme court justices. How exactly is the latter part of the federal government and not the former?


    So if EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the same race then the law is being applied equally. That was nonsense in 1967 and it's nonsense now.
    With DOMA struck down, the SSM issue only gets to the feds via court cases. Neither the Congress nor the Executive any longer has a role.

    In 1967 Virginia's anti-miscegenation law attempted to deny on the basis of race something was plainly legal. The debate about SSM has been about whether SSM per se is legal.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #346
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,893
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Well, they took themselves out of the segregation ruling for a long time, too. Eventually they realized they had to step up to the plate and meet their responsibilities. People - including SSM's - travel from state to state. They can't be married in one state and not married in another. Too many possible legal issues arise.
    Under the Constitution and federal law a marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in the others.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #347
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,893
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Good morning 2M

    That's an excellent point.
    Greetings, CJ. How's Canada today?
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 09:18 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,018

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    Today's Decision Not to Decide | National Review Online

    I think this article is being to hyperbolic, comparing the ramifications of this decision to the infamous ruling of dread Scott seems a bit much.
    You think!

    The irony is (or the possible irony is) that the conservative minority on this issue voted not to review because they didn't want this issue to be front page news coming into the election. It's a loser for the GOP at this point. Then Ginsburg or one of the other liberal justices went along because they like the way the lower courts are ruling -- why fix it if it isn't broke.

    We can never tell why the SC decides to review or not to review particular cases, but this is a scenario SCOTUS watchers have suggested.

  9. #349
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    Today's Decision Not to Decide | National Review Online

    I think this article is being to hyperbolic, comparing the ramifications of this decision to the infamous ruling of dread Scott seems a bit much.
    National Review hyperbolic? You don say....

    its just standard conservative tears tears about how their freedom to suppress the freedom of others has been denied.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #350
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    This is completely unfounded. If not, please provide some kind of reasonable source for this opinion.

    OTOH, it doesnt even make sense. Gays will vote Democratic if they choose whether or not they are allowed to marry if that is their leaning. However if you mean that the obstruction of SSM makes the Republican party look less favorable, that would be somewhat reasonable.

    But married or not, they will still be gay and still live together and still view the parties in terms of how they *serve them* just like any other citizens in America.
    Don't you know? When the left serves its constituency's interests, it's cynical pandering for votes. When the right does it, it's doing the right thing, because America. Actually, it seems to stem from the right's cynical belief that their constituents are "real" Americans and the rest of us are "other".
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 35 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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