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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 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