Started By
Message
Supreme Court listening arguments today
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:46 pm
Eyes are on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing votes....Without those two, the count is 4-3 in favor of gay marriage being nationally legalized.
Should be interesting.
Should be interesting.
8
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:47 pm to 5thTiger
It really shocks me with all the trouble this country has, that this is even a topic. Such bullshite. Two people love each other and want to formalize it. Why is that such a big deal.
If its a problem for God, then let God judge.
If its a problem for God, then let God judge.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:48 pm to 5thTiger
I honestly LOL at people who gaf if gay people can get married. Mind your own business and shut the frick up.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:50 pm to Gradual_Stroke
As long as the government isn't paying for it, I don't give a frick what people do.
Granted I feel that way about a lot of things that are already legal and we're currently paying for.
Granted I feel that way about a lot of things that are already legal and we're currently paying for.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:53 pm to DynastyDawg
Yea but the government doesn't belong in marriage for either orientation.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:54 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
Yea but the government doesn't belong in marriage for either orientation
By way of taxes they do...
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:56 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Eyes are on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing votes....Without those two, the count is 4-3 in favor of gay marriage being nationally legalized.
Should be interesting.
Kennedy will be in favor. Roberts is really the only unknown... and that doesn't matter.
I'll never understand why people are so concerned with who strangers marry.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:57 pm to CatFan81
Roberts will go with the majority.
Hell I think he'll write the opinion.
Hell I think he'll write the opinion.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 1:59 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Kennedy will be in favor. Roberts is really the only unknown... and that doesn't matter.
The question is whether Kennedy will stick to a ruling previously commented on, about how it is a states right. But has usually been a SSM supporter. Should be interesting to see.
Roberts is a true wildcard. No one knows where he is going.
I'm interested in the case because it is monumental, either way. Especially for states rights versus national laws.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:01 pm to Duke
quote:
Roberts will go with the majority.
Hell I think he'll write the opinion.
Could be. The far right loon reaction will be glorious though. I can't wait.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:04 pm to 5thTiger
They wouldn't have taken the case if they weren't going rule in favor of SSM. As nearly always, they wait until the country has basically decided the issue and now are acting to implement it nationally. Roberts has a legacy to protect and being the court to rule against gay marriage won't look good 20 or 30 years down the road. Moreover, Roberts going with the majority will give the ruling a little more impact (6-3 vs 5-4). I don't think it's a question of if, but by what count it's approved.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:05 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
If its a problem for God, then let God judge.
Yep, and there is precedent. God supposedly destroyed Soddom for immoral behavior, including sexual deviance. If God detests it so, then let him punish us as a nation for allowing it. Strike us down.
Of course, we all know that wont happen. It will be legalized, no divine punishment will come and the religious will be left to rationalize as they always have. Nothing new under the sun.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:07 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
By way of taxes they do...
I'm saying they shouldn't be.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:09 pm to Duke
quote:
As nearly always, they wait until the country has basically decided the issue and now are acting to implement it nationally.
Soon.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:11 pm to 5thTiger
I can't imagine that this won't be legalized. It's the preference of the majority of citizens. IMO, this isn't something government should even be involved in.
Government opened the door when the started offering tax breaks to married people.
I sort of like the European model. They have both civil marriage and religious marriage. Religious couples get married twice - once in a civil service, and again in a religious service. As I understand it, they really don't intertwine. The civil service covers the marriage for the laws of the country, and benefits associated with same. The religious marriage is just that - in the eyes of the church. This would solve some problems.
Government opened the door when the started offering tax breaks to married people.
I sort of like the European model. They have both civil marriage and religious marriage. Religious couples get married twice - once in a civil service, and again in a religious service. As I understand it, they really don't intertwine. The civil service covers the marriage for the laws of the country, and benefits associated with same. The religious marriage is just that - in the eyes of the church. This would solve some problems.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:15 pm to Pavoloco83
I DGAF about gay marriage per se but I do think there is a strong argument that it is a state issue. I don't see how marriage is a function of the Federal Government according to the Constitution. If it is what the people want then let the people vote for it or vote for representatives that will make it so. Legislating from the bench just isn't a good idea.
As to the argument that it is a right that really seems weak to me when you consider the country is 240 years old and it hasn't been considered a right up until now. That to me means it is a shift in people's thoughts and behavior and thus the law should be changed by those people. I'll vote for it, but the Rule of Law should mean something.
As to the argument that it is a right that really seems weak to me when you consider the country is 240 years old and it hasn't been considered a right up until now. That to me means it is a shift in people's thoughts and behavior and thus the law should be changed by those people. I'll vote for it, but the Rule of Law should mean something.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:16 pm to semotruman
The problem is the religious wont concede the word marriage, even in a civil sense. They just will not have homosexuals calling themselves married and having it recognized by federal and state governments. Many are fine with civil unions, but they will not have the distinction between hetero and homo unions blurred by including that one word.
Thus here we are, dragging them kicking and screaming across the threshold of progress. It could have been so much easier.
Thus here we are, dragging them kicking and screaming across the threshold of progress. It could have been so much easier.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:22 pm to aggressor
quote:
I DGAF about gay marriage per se but I do think there is a strong argument that it is a state issue.
I agree, but Republicans won't make that argument. They just appeal to the Bible which is why they are dying as a party. They pander completely to the religious right, and focus heavily on social issues. That is not the way forward, and that turns off the majority of people in my generation.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:28 pm to aggressor
quote:The only part of this that should be a state issue is whether or not married people get a tax break. Gay marriage absolutely should not be a state issue unless the state decides to just get out of the marriage license business.
I DGAF about gay marriage per se but I do think there is a strong argument that it is a state issue
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:29 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
The only part of this that should be a state issue is whether or not married people get a tax break. Gay marriage absolutely should not be a state issue.
Completely agree
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News