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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to Review Prop 8
Associated Press ^ | 12/7/2012 | AP

Posted on 12/07/2012 12:37:02 PM PST by Alter Kaker

Edited on 12/07/2012 12:46:28 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.kqed.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; marriage; sodomhusseinobama
By taking up the challenges to DOMA and particularly Prop 8, the Court could rule that gay "marriage" is a Constitutional Right.
1 posted on 12/07/2012 12:37:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
2 posted on 12/07/2012 12:41:16 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

This is pitting the 10th amendment against the 14th amendment, it seems to me.

The court, if it rules for the 10th amendment, will say that states can make their own rules.

If the court rules for the 14th, it will say “equal protection” means that, in their opinion, the practice of sodomy has nothing to do with what constitutes a marriage and if two practictioners of sodomy want to call their relationship a “marriage”, the state is obligated to grant their wishes, since the state also grants that wish to heterosexuals.


3 posted on 12/07/2012 12:43:44 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

No, they can’t make it a right. Marriage isn’t a government right to begin with, just one they make you pay a fee for and get a permit. The prop 8 ruling should be reversed as the judge who overturned it had no business ruling on it in the first place. Federal courts should not be a place for intrastate matters. Regarding DOMA, it should be allowed to stand as all it does is protect states from being forced to recognized homosexual marriages. Then again, the SCOTUS was supposed to overturn Obamacare and we saw what happened there.


4 posted on 12/07/2012 12:47:26 PM PST by whtabtbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.


5 posted on 12/07/2012 12:47:45 PM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Well it’s more than that. States argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is an intrusion into an area normally controlled by state law — I can very easily see the Court striking down most or all of DOMA. I don’t see them buying this claptrap about the equal protection clause and the removal of “rights” w/Prop 8. But I’ve been wrong before.


6 posted on 12/07/2012 12:48:29 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I think Kennedy would be more likely on this issue. Roberts is a statist, so will generally side with the government (which would mean Prop 8 and DOMA upheld), while Kennedy has more of a libertarian bent (which meant he voted to overturn ObamaCare).


7 posted on 12/07/2012 12:50:59 PM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

We lose again, by now we should be Teachers on how to lose.


8 posted on 12/07/2012 12:51:29 PM PST by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

“Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.”

I think this is very likely. He did pro bono work on the Roemer case—big homosexual rights case. I think we’re looking at a federal right to homosexual marriage, imposed by a supreme court headed by a Republican appointed justice.


9 posted on 12/07/2012 12:51:54 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Perhaps its an income tax.


10 posted on 12/07/2012 12:55:10 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and God. I didn’t read about ‘Adam and Steve’ in the Bible! ‘Marriage’ is a club. If there are no limits, ‘marriage’ is meaningless.


11 posted on 12/07/2012 12:55:10 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

Kennedy has always voted for equal protection. Gay marriage will be the law of the land by end of June. 5-4 or 6-3. No way of stopping it.


12 posted on 12/07/2012 12:56:30 PM PST by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

My GAYDAR goes off when I see pictures of Roberts. He’s a closet gay just like 0bama.


13 posted on 12/07/2012 12:57:50 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Just around the corner.....laws forcing pastors to marry same sex couples. Assuming the Court rules in favor of gays.


14 posted on 12/07/2012 1:02:34 PM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

(gulp)
I really hate to see anything of importance going to the Supreme Court these days now that the court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.


15 posted on 12/07/2012 1:04:51 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Absolutely.

This is a big case with a huge risk.

If the Court rules against Prop 8 they could strike down all Pro Family-Anti Gay Marriage laws in the nation.

We would have been better off with the Justices refusing to hear the Prop 8 case and let the lower court ruling stand.


16 posted on 12/07/2012 1:05:05 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: easternsky

Excuse me, but how is this a “lose” at this point? The USSC MUST hear this case or the current position concocted by the 9th Circus, striking it down, prevails.

We really have no choice.


17 posted on 12/07/2012 1:06:57 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr
That would violate the First Amendment free exercise clause. If the Court rules that pastors must recognize “gay marriages”, our country is truly finished.
18 posted on 12/07/2012 1:10:25 PM PST by Deo volente (God willing, America shall survive this Obamanation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

“Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.”

Bingo! He’s probably making reservations for a long stay in his impregnable fortress as we speak.


19 posted on 12/07/2012 1:10:51 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I can remember a time when people who wanted to marry close cousins of the opposite sex were called white trash—we called them sick and made fun of them. Now, a lower class of white trash wants to marry other same-sex perverts, and we call them gay and are expected to honor them. Ask yourself, which is the sicker, trashier, and lower. I am reminded of the homosexual hillbillys in the movie Deliverance. The two homos would have had less than a full set of teeth between them. The marketing of deviance by homowood is most responsible.


20 posted on 12/07/2012 1:15:26 PM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
...a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Incorrect. They have always had the seme right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry any member of the oppisite sex they choose, just like heteros.

21 posted on 12/07/2012 1:22:33 PM PST by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Two huge problems that worry me big time:

1. Kennedy. If he doesn’t rule for gay marriage I will be stunned.

2. These two cases ruled on VERY narrow issues. Quite frankly I expect the Court to uphold them on those very narrow issues and not reach the bigger question(s).


22 posted on 12/07/2012 1:31:42 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

True, but the 9th Cir case would only apply to the 9th Cir states.


23 posted on 12/07/2012 1:32:56 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Apparently the STATES have NO rights anymore. None. Zip. Nada! Obama and his people have effectively scrapped the Constitution.


24 posted on 12/07/2012 1:40:24 PM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whtabtbill

Even if they make marriage a right, where do they get the right to redefine what marriage is?

I can’t believe it’s come to this. We really are doomed.


25 posted on 12/07/2012 1:44:34 PM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Yep. It’s a fee, or a tax the government charges us when we get married, so it’s up to us to vote in people who won’t screw us over. Doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. That’s all there is to it. /sarcasm


26 posted on 12/07/2012 1:47:09 PM PST by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
True, but the 9th Cir case would only apply to the 9th Cir states.

And are you just going to deem the conservatives living in those states chopped liver?

But even that won't contain the infection.

It's a fight worth fighting - for everyone.

27 posted on 12/07/2012 3:17:12 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

They will rule in favor of gay marriage on 14th amendment grounds so that battle is lost. What we must now turn to is making sure that Christians are not forced to violate their religious liberties and accommodate gays.


28 posted on 12/07/2012 3:22:28 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our black robed masters don’t declare it unconstitutional, the homosexualists will simply try to repeal it with another popular vote. I doubt it would pass in Ca now.

Freegards


29 posted on 12/07/2012 3:30:40 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Reynolds v. United States, 1878...

It defined marriage as one man and one woman.


30 posted on 12/07/2012 4:13:51 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

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


31 posted on 12/07/2012 4:15:29 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Nothing biased about that statement is there. Queers already have the same constitutional right to marry as Heterosexuals do, they can marry any person of the opposite sex that will have them. Actually there is nothing in the constitution about marriage either way, it is just accepted as common sense that a normal person wouldn't want a person of the same sex as a mate.

32 posted on 12/07/2012 4:22:56 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Like that will stop them. Sorry I am just not optimistic about this at all.


33 posted on 12/07/2012 4:43:48 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Marriage is thousands of years old. governments got into the business of documenting marriages for tax and inheritance purposes more recently.

I believe the government should change the name of the services and legal relationship they record to a civil union. that's what it is really.

Now churches could perform marriages in the traditional sense.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
That is not necessarily going to solve the issue but it would help to use correct definitions going forward.

34 posted on 12/07/2012 4:50:28 PM PST by oldbrowser (Put Obama in check, now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals

I didn't realize that any right to marriage was in the Constitution.

35 posted on 12/08/2012 3:39:45 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

I am not optimistic because my conservative friends can only argue about their Biblical principles and NOT the case law...

I have been saying this for years about Reynolds v. United States.


36 posted on 12/08/2012 9:02:41 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

I would have to look at that case. I don’t think marriage should only be argued on Biblical principle. I often argue as to why the State should give special status to the union of one man to one woman which is supposed to be for life and for the rearing of children. That this status came after the natural inclination to form such unions. That marriage is a natural right not a civil right and the place of government is to not create unions that define marriage but to protect marriage as it has been known throughout history and most cultures.


37 posted on 12/08/2012 2:23:17 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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