Posted on 03/26/2013 10:38:49 AM PDT by South40
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is suggesting it could find a way out of the case over California's ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a major national ruling on whether gays have a right to marry, an issue one justice said was newer than cellphones and the Internet.
Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts Tuesday that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.
Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I would like to know how many gays really want to get married - considering they can already become hooked up in civil unions.. and that doesn’t please them.
This entire thing is about overriding States rights. They do not like that we can have a represenative government- because they all want to be sumissive little girls and have a big strong government ruler whisk them away into slavery where they can play with their wang doodles all day in SandM heaven.
I mean serioulsy they are such freaks.
I am seriously so sick of these people.
What weasels. The case IS properly before them because they took it.
Legalese be damned.
Does the federal government have the right to overrule the legal vote of the people or not?
The 9th circus says that they do. The people say no, you do not: we ammended our constitution to say what we want it to say.Butt out.
Thats the question before the court: strike down the ruling that ruled the ammendment unconstitutional.
After that you and go back to skeet shooting with each other.
Refusing to hear implies the 9th had no jurisdiction. Thus you both are right.
The question: Are we a government of, by and for the people, or a dictatorship in which any branch of the government can thwart the will of the people?
It’s simply NOT a civil or constitutional right. When civil rights are denied, it is generally a case of denying rights based on immutable characteristics, such as in the case of discrimination against blacks or women. In the case of “gay marriage”, that represents a behavioral choice. Society is not required to accept or sanction every behavioral choice or form of behavior.
No,the state of CA appealed prop 8 to the 9th circus.
A attorney for prop 8 supporters appealed to the USSC.
Hasn't been a question for a long time, we are the latter.
Yes, how’s that ‘it’s a state issue’ working out for us so far?
No, no, it’s not. It’s a federal issue.
“even if it means CA gets gay marriage. They can have it.”
They advance, we retreat.
CA rejected Gay marriage. They should rule on this, if the SCOTUS sanctions judicial activism - the gay marriage folks will simple do this to strike down EVERY gay marriage ban in the united states through the judiciary and the people will have no say.
Yes, CA would get queer marriage but it wouldn’t effect normal states.
The thing is if they rule on this Roberts will side with the liberals and we will have mandated acceptance of gay marriage in every state and at every federal level. I am not 100 percent happy with this outcome but as I said it may be the best we can hope for right now...
SCOTUS will not rule in favor of prop 8...mark my words. It does not mean I don’t wish it was so, it just is not going to happen.
Yes it most definitely would effect “normal” states. They are following a strategy mapped out in the early 1990’s. It’s a game of chess not checkers and they are making long term strategic moves with great success.
No, the state of California did not file a lawsuits in federal court; the two homosexual parties did.
And it matters not which parties appealed at the next stage of the appellate process. If the SCOTUS dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction, it will mandate that the entire federal case be dismissed.
IOW, Prop 8 will stand as passed by the people of California.
They should simply invalidate the interference of all federal courts on the issue, as its a state matter. Prop 8 is part of the Constitution of the State of California, and neither 9th circuit nor the Supreme Court nor any other federal court or agency has any business ruling on it.
SCROTUS strikes again.
Oh, that’s right, they don’t have any, so they’ll duck ‘n run like they always do. Unless there’s money to be made by the blood-sucking government. Like killing babies and forcing crappy healthcare onto people who don’t need it.
The state of CA don't want prop 8, so they are happy as a clam with the 9th circus ruling.
What standing do prop 8 supporters have to appeal to the USSC?
Once the state refused to defend what CA voters had passed they were screwed when it went to the 9th circus. They can't show how they are harmed.
“Yes, CA would get queer marriage but it wouldn’t effect normal states.”
But what about the rest of the 9th Circuit? Wouldn’t that ruling also affect Alaska and Idaho, among others?
The gays want us to think it's about 'lub'
Parties that support Prop 8 were allowed to intervene to represent the interests of the voters.
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.