Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court will take up gay marriage cases (In Late March)
Fox News ^ | 12/07/2012 | Shannon Bream and AP

Posted on 12/07/2012 12:34:14 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan

Edited on 01/07/2013 10:04:55 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 next last
To: GlockThe Vote
Tell me about it! I just found out today that Liberace was gay!

51 posted on 12/07/2012 2:00:52 PM PST by TSgt (...voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Thank you! And Merry Christmas to you and yours!


52 posted on 12/07/2012 2:01:32 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I think what they will point out...is that only states can legislate this kind of stuff...Congress and the Senate can’t. And everyone will stand there in some agreement.


53 posted on 12/07/2012 2:02:01 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

;-)


54 posted on 12/07/2012 2:02:36 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
By the way, I wonder if Kagan and Roberts will recuse themselves.

On what basis are they recused?

55 posted on 12/07/2012 2:02:53 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter
If gay marriage is found constitutional that how can any pastor of any church refuse to marry gays or hold gay marriages in their churches?

Divorce and remarriage is permitted by law but the Catholic Church is not obligated to perform marriage ceremonies for divorced people.

Protestants are permitted to get married but the Catholic Church is not required to perform weddings for Protestants.

Just because same sex couples are permitted to marry does not mean that the Catholic Church (or any other church) will be required to perform gay marriages.
56 posted on 12/07/2012 2:03:29 PM PST by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The Stool Pushers Union are all in for this one.


57 posted on 12/07/2012 2:09:05 PM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I still thought the Sidecar Mod fell off a ship somewhere.


58 posted on 12/07/2012 2:14:03 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
On what basis are they recused?

The same basis a fox judge should not be in charge of a court that rules on whether foxes should be legally able to eat chickens.

59 posted on 12/07/2012 2:18:30 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Look at the military...They just had their first gay wedding....disgusting....


60 posted on 12/07/2012 2:21:30 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

They won’t recuse...everyone has a right to an attorney...and Komer wasn’t about marriage


61 posted on 12/07/2012 2:23:09 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that those who claim they were born that way, probably were, but are suffering from a neurological condition like seizures, etc. for which science should find a cure/treatment. That is not to say that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it absolutely is. One makes a conscious choice to engage in homosexual acts just like one chooses to engage in heterosexual acts.

I also believe that an individual has an inherent right to decide:

- whom they want to make medical decisions for them
- to whom they want to leave their earthly belongings

and that the courts should enforce such decisions provided a legal instrument exists documenting said decisions. Parents and siblings should not be able to interfere.

However, I do not believe homosexuals should be able to adopt children or that private business should be required to insure a gay employee’s designated “life partner.” Let capitalism work as intended - homosexual “couples” should be able to purchase health/life insurance if an insurance company is willing to insure them.


62 posted on 12/07/2012 2:23:37 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

It will be compared to racism, it is already being compared to that.


63 posted on 12/07/2012 2:25:22 PM PST by CityCenter (Compromise is the welcome mat to deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

DOMA is a goner

John Roberts should be tarred and feathered


64 posted on 12/07/2012 2:26:49 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
If you are implying that they are gay, what is your basis for making that claim? Roberts is married and has two children.

Is Scalia recused? He has publicly said that it is a "no brainer" to say that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage. So he has publicly pre-judged this case.

I expect no there will in fact be no recusals in this case.

65 posted on 12/07/2012 2:34:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I understand what you’re saying. You think that homosexuals should be able to sign legal contracts among themselves. I agree. They have had this for years.

But that is not what they want.

As the leftists/feminists are now forcing Catholic hospitals and universities to provide contraceptives, abortions, and, soon, euthanasia, the homosexuals will force the churches to marry them. If the church refuses, they will be sued for discrimination. The State will also remove their tax-exempt status as they will classify the refusal as a political statement.

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is all about a gangland attack on God and those who preach His message.


66 posted on 12/07/2012 2:35:34 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
If this passes, polygamists will have a case. So will males who want to marry male cousins and brothers, and females who want to female cousins and sisters.

Then I'm gonna sue to marry my cat and claim him as a dependent as he can't find a job and help support us. Also will demand disability payments because he doesn't have a normal IQ.

67 posted on 12/07/2012 2:39:32 PM PST by 3catsanadog (No more blaming Bush, Obama-now you inherited the mess you made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I expect no there will in fact be no recusals in this case.

Of course there won't be. Why should gay judges recuse themselves from cases that arise through lawsuits by the militant faggot lobby? After all, that flaming faggot judge from San Fransicko who admitted he made up law when he ruled to overturn the overwhelming will of the California electorate didn't recuse himself.

By the way, I enjoy your wry sense of humor.

FRegards,
LH

68 posted on 12/07/2012 2:42:33 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The Supreme Court of the Universe will have the ultimate and final decision on the matter. Take comfort and solace in that fellow FReeps no matter what black robed clown tyrants and reprobates may rule down here on the terra ‘infirma’.


69 posted on 12/07/2012 2:42:33 PM PST by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
But that is not what they want.

No, what the militant faggot lobby wants - - what they always want - - is to stick a thumb in the eye of "breeders", mainly Christian "breeders".

70 posted on 12/07/2012 2:45:15 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Souter retired in 2009 (he waited until there was a Democrat President although he had been appointed by a Republican).

Obama will quietly remind Roberts that the feds can deport his adopted children...

71 posted on 12/07/2012 2:51:31 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I knew it would come someday, but I’m very sad. I’m a Christian but years ago I had some same-sex relationships and thought that was my identity. It saddens me that so many people are led to believe that.


72 posted on 12/07/2012 3:05:02 PM PST by Faith Presses On
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
My prediction: (1) Proposition 8 will be upheld, 5-4, with both Roberts and Kennedy in the majority (i.e., no constitutional right to gay marriage), but (2) DOMA will be held unconstitutional, also by a 5-4 vote (Kennedy in the majority, Roberts dissenting) on the ground that the federal government must recognize as legally married any couple who are legally married under the laws of their home state. Kennedy will justify his switch by saying the DOMA case presents a states-rights issue.

Your predictions are wrong. Prop 8 was overturned based upon a leftist judge ruling that the law was put in place by voters with no rational basis -the judged ruled that religion was not allowed as a basis for a citizen to vote.

The Supremes will throw out this leftist nonsense. DOMA has nothing to do with this.

73 posted on 12/07/2012 3:06:12 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I don't practice family law, and I haven't researched this, but I am sure there is caselaw from back in the day when interracial marriages were illegal in some states and legal in others. I do remember learning in law school a legal maxim, "A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere."

A marriage valid celebrated? LOL two self destructive sick perverts engaging in disordered sexual activities with a leftist seal of approval does not a marriage make. Keep dreaming and lurking.

74 posted on 12/07/2012 3:11:10 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Your predictions are wrong. Prop 8 was overturned based upon a leftist judge ruling that the law was put in place by voters with no rational basis -the judged ruled that religion was not allowed as a basis for a citizen to vote. The Supremes will throw out this leftist nonsense. DOMA has nothing to do with this.

You misread my comment. I said Prop. 8 will be upheld-- i.e., the 9th Circuit case overturning Prop. 8 will be reversed.

75 posted on 12/07/2012 3:12:14 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It’ll probably be 6-3 against us, with only Thomas, Alito, and Scalia reliable now.


76 posted on 12/07/2012 3:12:20 PM PST by Theodore R. ("Hey, the American people must all be crazy out there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I don’t think we should be concerned about obama’s picks for the SC. The vote would only change from 5-4 liberal to 6-3 liberal to 7-2 liberal.


77 posted on 12/07/2012 3:14:14 PM PST by Terry Mross (I haven't watched the news since the election. Someone ping me if anything big happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Great...another opportunity for the Supreme Court to advance the cause of evil.


78 posted on 12/07/2012 3:15:24 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

We will lose.

Next course of action? Ideas?


79 posted on 12/07/2012 3:17:23 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

4-4 with Roberts both dropping AND picking up the soap...


80 posted on 12/07/2012 3:34:43 PM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Yes, it most certainly is a gang-land style attack on Christianity.

I’ve caught some flack in the past for my stated position that some homosexuals may actually be “born that way.” So, I’ll publish the Scripture that leads me to believe this.

Romans 9:19-23 NIV

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—


81 posted on 12/07/2012 3:36:00 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sodom and Gomorrah. I am no longer praying for America, except to ask the people return to the beliefs of the founding. The Government we elected is utterly corrupt and the devil is so busy I don’t know how he gets all this work done.


82 posted on 12/07/2012 3:39:05 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Amen and Amen!


83 posted on 12/07/2012 3:39:29 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Worse, I believe this is the truth.
84 posted on 12/07/2012 3:42:38 PM PST by Vision (Obama is king of the "Takers." Don't be a "Taker.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

“I see nothing in the previous jurisprudence that shows this will be anything other than a 5-4 vote overturning the lower courts and upholding the laws. Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Kennedy/Alito will stick together on this one. The four others will too but will be in the minority — for now.”

How bout Roemer and Lawrence?


85 posted on 12/07/2012 3:57:13 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I know of no state which bans a gay person from marrying. I know a whole bunch of states who are confused as to what the word marriage means. In California, it was simply clarified in the state constitution, repeating the definition in Black's Dictionary, the cornerstone for most American judicial decisions.

The question is if the meaning of a word can be wholesale re-written AND the people have no say in the matter.

Unfortunately, the Prop 8 case won't be decided in that fashion. It will simply be a standing denial. With a confusing ruling that doesn't support marriage.

86 posted on 12/07/2012 4:00:39 PM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I’ve caught some flack in the past for my stated position that some homosexuals may actually be “born that way.”

MAYBE... Cause unknown there are as well people that are more inclined to do any manner of things -some which are intrinsically disordered. These people may just have a heavier cross to bear than others not so inclined...

The only flack you would get from me is if you are implying or suggesting that what actions God has declared sin or actions self destructive, or actions society regards as destructive are somehow okay if one is more inclined toward such actions. OR even worse, that these inclined people have no choice but to for instance engage in these disordered actions....

87 posted on 12/07/2012 4:06:16 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Keep dreaming

I wasn't dreaming. It took me two minutes of research to turn these up:

“It may be said, therefore, to be a rule of universal recognition in all civilized countries that in general a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere.” Pennegar v. State, 87 Tenn. 204 (Supreme Court of Tennesee, 1889).

"Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state . . . which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state." South Dakota Codified Law § 25-1-38.

If I had another 10 minutes I could have found a lot more. I am not saying that SCOTUS will necessarily apply this to gay marriages; my point is only that there is certainly precedent pointing that way.

88 posted on 12/07/2012 4:09:30 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Faith Presses On

Remember that God is fully aware of all the ways the evil one deceives us and tempts us. Yes, God has given us free will and we all choose poorly at times and sin (all of us do that in some ways).

But God’s love remains steadfast as does His willingness to forgive the truly repentant heart. And we can truly rejoice in that! It is incumbent on us to tell people the Good News of Christ so that all can hear and have the opportunity of complete forgiveness and salvation.

God loves you. You are precious to Him.
Merry Christmas!


89 posted on 12/07/2012 4:13:17 PM PST by prairiebreeze (Don't be afraid to see what you see. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

Reynolds v. United States, 1878...

It defined marriage as one man and one woman.


90 posted on 12/07/2012 4:21:25 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Reynolds v. United States, 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.


91 posted on 12/07/2012 4:36:57 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I’ve caught some flack in the past for my stated position that some homosexuals may actually be “born that way.”

I read your entire post, so I understood the larger point you're considering.

Still, I wonder if I can prevail on you to defend your supposition from the standpoint of parallel citations. What I mean is this: if you're right and the attraction to people of the same sex is genetic, then it seems unlikely to be the only such inborn preference. I'm not referring here to some people's affection for one flavor or aroma but for something more fundamental. So, can you cite any other inborn preference, or is homosexuality unique? In other words, if there is such a class as inborn preferences, of which homosexuality is but one, it would tend to strengthen your case, but if not....

92 posted on 12/07/2012 4:37:11 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

“I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional ...”

I assume you mean SCOTUS rather than POTUS?


93 posted on 12/07/2012 4:42:49 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I resist saying they are born that way because if we accept that, then they will be protected under the ADA.

Also, regardless of whether they are born that way, it is a behavior.

If we accept that they act the way they do because they were born that way, then we almost accept the adulterer, the thief, the murderer, and those who commit every other sin and crime against God. In short, if we accept this premise, then we have to accept the conclusion and defense that they will ultimately offer: “I’m not responsible. Don’t blame me. It’s His fault. I’m just the victim.”

God made each of us with the ability to sin and the ability to resist sin. Some are stronger than others. God can forgive each of us if we accept the sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for our sin. The best way we can demonstrate to God and to others that we have done so is to make the best effort we can not to continue to sin.

What kind of gratitude does it show if we sin, allegedly admit to our sin, allegedly see forgiveness, then turn around and amp up that same behavior?

Homosexuality is abnormal. The left and the homosexual lobby can try to spin it as much as they want. But it is unnatural and abnormal. Homosexuals live a lifestyle and constantly see the “norm” cast in their face every day. They are also exposed to God’s stance on their behavior (it is an abomination to God, and that term is not used lightly in the Bible). In short, they are constantly reminded of their abnormal and unnatural behavior.

Not only do they not want to cease the behavior, and not only do they want us to stop making them feel abnormal and relaying God’s abhorrence to their behavior, and not only do they want us to accept and embrace their behavior, what they really want to do is force us to alter the message of God to be one of full acceptance of their behavior.

As a Christian, I am to love the sinner and hate the sin. Loving the sinner does not entail embracing and excusing and condoning and enabling that very behavior that is to be hated. It is contradictory.

We can’t force them to stop their behavior and can’t force them to seek forgiveness, but we sure as heck don’t have to sit back and allow them to force us to embrace their sin and ingratitude as normal and as the new status quo of salvation.

As unpopular as it is and as certainly as it will eventually be ruled a “hate crime” (as surely as the sun sets on every great nation eventually), we must love the person but tell them what they are doing is wrong, abnormal, a damage to society, an affront to God and we do not accept it.

It is not marriage. At best, it is a legal contract, like leasing a bungalow at the shore for a week, and, at best, means no more than that to God and, at worst, will result in His wrath.


94 posted on 12/07/2012 5:18:32 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

The government forcing universities and hospitals affiliated with the Catholic church to pay for contraceptives, abortion, and eventually euthanasia, is setting the precedent that no institution can “opt out” of this type of legislation issued by the totalitarian state.

Religion has long been an obstacle to the State implementing their religion of atheistic human secularism. They have been gunning for Christianity for decades. This and healthcare will help to reduce Christian institutions to nothing more than fraternal organizations.


95 posted on 12/07/2012 5:22:00 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our bosses in black robes uphold it, I bet they will simply attempt to repeal it with another popular vote. I have my doubts if prop. 8 would pass today in Ca.

Freegards


96 posted on 12/07/2012 5:31:03 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

Oh, no I didn’t suggest that homosexual attraction is genetic. You must have missed my first post at #62 wherein I said:

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that those who claim they were born that way, probably were, but are suffering from a neurological condition like seizures, etc. for which science should find a cure/treatment. That is not to say that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it absolutely is. One makes a conscious choice to engage in homosexual acts just like one chooses to engage in heterosexual acts.


97 posted on 12/07/2012 5:45:10 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Agreed. But more than that, we’ve lost the battle to convince them that they suffer from a neurological disorder and should be begging science to find a cure/treatment for their disorder. We have to stop allowing them to equate homosexuality with civil rights.


98 posted on 12/07/2012 5:57:15 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6
Hebrews 11:6 said: "... if you're right and the attraction to people of the same sex is genetic, ..."

I think "genetic" would mean that a condition could be inherited; that is, passed from one generation to another.

Not every condition which is "congenital" has to be "genetic".

99 posted on 12/07/2012 5:59:02 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Thanks for your clarification--I did miss #62. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I've just never heard anyone who contends that same-sex preference is inborn actually describe the process of how a preference could occur that way. It would be different if they could point to such inborn preferences generally and contend that homosexuality is but another example, but they never do. That failure is not fatal to such an argument, but it is tremendously suggestive.

100 posted on 12/07/2012 6:26:38 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson