Uncategorized

SUPREME COURT HEARS HISTORIC SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES

Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in what could be the consolidated cases that lead to the recognition of a right to same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I will be interviewed on the case on CNN around 9 am on Tuesday morning.

It was only two years ago that the Supreme Court struck down the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples in United States v. Windsor. However, as in past cases, the Court struggled mightily to avoid recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

It was only in 1986 in Bowers v Hardwick that Justice Lewis Powell told his clerk “I don’t believe I ever met a homosexual.” The clerk was Carter Cabell Chinnis, Jr., who was gay but Powell did not know it. In that disgraceful decision (which Powell added his vote as the fifth vote for the majority in upholding laws criminalizing homosexual relations), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote “Condemnation of [homosexual] practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards.”

225px-Anthony_Kennedy_OfficialJustice Anthony Kennedy may now be ready to cast the fifth vote to finally establish a constitutional right for same-sex marriage. The Court will hear two questions in Obergefell vs. Hodges (as well as three related cases from Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Oral argument will last 90 minutes on the first question and 60 minutes on the second question.

A decision is expected in June.

116 thoughts on “SUPREME COURT HEARS HISTORIC SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES”

  3. It was either here, or somewhere else, but anyway, I keep hearing about how us homophobics are denying gays their “dignity” by trying to reserve marriage for opposite sexes. I even read that argument in the SCOTUS transcript above. But really “Dignity”??? Oh, no gays didn’t go there did they. . .:

    http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gayweiners29.jpg

    Just look at photos from all the various silly, freakish gay pride parades, and ask yourself where’s there any sign of “dignity”??? You can start here:

    http://streetcarnage.com/blog/gay-pride-pictures/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. The 14th amendment mandates that shall be treated equality under the law. How is this amendment’s “spirit” being followed when SSM is outlawed? For those claiming that a SCOTUS decision permitting SSM is a “slippery slope” to other “alternative” types of marriage, please remember that the LGBT community is only asking for what the straight community already enjoys-marriage. Using the potential for polygamy as an argument against SSK, is stonewalling.

    As for the baker, the tailor or the photographer: if you have a business license, you can not refuse service as doing so is a direct violation of the 14th amendment.

  7. @NickS

    True, but don’t you love the Air Raid siren thingie??? I mean, warning everybody about the approach of The Mad Link Bomber. . . I am not being vain, but I think that was inspired! Thank you, God, for making me think of that.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. Squeeky, When a person has much baggage and issues[expressed openly], both positive and negative attention become muddled. They simply see both as the same. They are much better @ seeking and getting negative attention, so that is their default position. I coached baseball for over 3 decades. You can’t coach or play that sport successfully, w/o being positive. That is my default position. I have tried positive w/ a few commenters here. It was unsuccessful. So, I simply ignore. Just sayn’. Keep up your great work.

  10. And in some cultures, “traditional marriage” means arranged marriages…
    … Ah, Annie, weren’t those the days?

  11. randy,
    My father and I didn’t talk for 20 years because he used the same reasoning you just did. He actually went further, because of him being the “authoritarian” personality (aka type A) to demand behaviors from his children. He said, “I won’t accept you until you get married to a woman.” At about year 12 I said to him, “If I do get married to a woman, you’ll be the first to know.” I was subtly implying that should his wish/demand be meet, he wasn’t welcome to attend… he’d find out after I was married. As vindictive as that may appear, it would have been the reality and, as proved out by the non-communication between us, defined our relationship.

  12. Question:
    Has there ever been a State that has taken up a people’s vote/referendum on the rights of straight marriages?

  13. Randyjet says:
    I merely observed that with no gay marriage, many gays will opt to start a family and marry a person of the opposite sex.
    ————————————–
    Randy, that was the wrongest (if there was such a word) perspective of the whole situation.
    Though for the longest time gay people have married persons of the opposite sex just to fit in, that cat is now out of the bag.
    The thing with modernity and personal rights, whether moral or legal, once gained, they cannot ever be relinquished.
    There just is no reason, personal or societal, why a gay person would do that, especially since now one can adopt a child without being married, or even conceive through surrogacy without being married.

  14. randy,
    You’re being foolish.

    Again, you assert it is preferably ethical to marry someone of the opposite sex, even if you have to lie to do it… Not to mention the morality of raising children in that fraud marriage. Want to to start linking to couples who break up because one spouse comes out LGBT? What about their children… ? Randy?

    Now, again, you dodged the divorce and fertility questions I proposed that you fight for so as to “strengthen” heterosexual marriages.

    I mean, imagine that happy faces of the children of families who wish to separate, but can not… Or are broken homes OK when it’s a broken heterosexual marriage?

    And to keep arguing about children needing a mom and dad is ridiculous without a push from you or likewise to outlaw divorce of heterosexual couples based on, “preserving the institution of straight marriage”. Without that push, your arguments aren’t filling your sails, buddy. you know, walk that walk…

Comments are closed.