Finally: Supreme Court agrees to settle gay marriage dispute

[NACBA]

Setting the stage for its most significant ruling ever on gay rights, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it would resolve the state-by-state battle over same-sex marriage.

The justices said they will decide cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where state officials are defending laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and will probably issue a decision by the end of June.

The case could lead to a landmark ruling on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry nationwide under constitutional protections for individual rights and equal treatment.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...116-story.html

[Ronin Truth]

Any predictions or bets?

[NACBA]

Any predictions or bets?

The Supreme Court will say but a 5-4 vote that the 14th amendment forces states to let gay people marry.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Any predictions or bets?

The Supreme Court is going to force the states to recognize gay marriages.

[PaulConventionWV]

Any predictions or bets?

I predict that this will temporarily distract everyone and further deepen the ruse of "individual rights" while individuality is slowly eroded and also adding to the delusion that the gay "rights" movement has anything to do with rights at all.

[Southron]

The Supreme Court is going to force the states to recognize gay marriages.

The Federal Courts have been pretty much doing that for some time.

[willwash]

Could a state abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether rather than recognize gay marriage?

[Southron]

Could a state abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether rather than recognize gay marriage?

Probably, but I suspect many in power in the states actually want legal recognition of homosexual marriage, but they are just too afraid to vote for it themselves. It is the people of the states themselves who don't want it.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The Federal Courts have been pretty much doing that for some time.

Yeah, ever since the Windsor decision I knew it was a matter of time.

[Keith and stuff]

Could a state abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether rather than recognize gay marriage?

Maybe. Legislators looked at doing that in NH. Then some legislators in OK also looked at the idea. The main problem other than the idea being fringe and is that it would cause massive problems as the federal government wouldn't recognize any marriages performed or registered in that state. There is no chance legislators would support the idea, even it became a popular idea, unless a solution the federal conflict was worked out.

[GunnyFreedom]

Could a state abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether rather than recognize gay marriage?

Yes. However if they wait until after the SCOTUS decision to do so it may get challenged in court.

[Anti Federalist]

I predict that this will temporarily distract everyone and further deepen the ruse of "individual rights" while individuality is slowly eroded and also adding to the delusion that the gay "rights" movement has anything to do with rights at all.

I'll bet that too.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. However if they wait until after the SCOTUS decision to do so it may get challenged in court.

Just kicking the can down the road anyways, the next legal hurdle is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

You'll see the first arrests for non compliance in the next couple of years.

[johnwk]

.

The only important question I have is, will the members of the Court decide the question based upon the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as expressed by its framers [the 39th Congress] and those who ratified the amendment? Or, will a majority of the Court engage in judicial tyranny and render an opinion based upon their personal sense of justice and fairness?

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[DFF]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

[69360]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

They do have offspring, surrogates and donors are used.

I predict the supremes will get fabulous. I guess I'm ok with that for now. Government out of marriage all together would be best.

[DFF]

They do have offspring, surrogates and donors are used.

How "natural" for a child to grow up around two gay men...this explains why children raised in "gay" families have higher instances of suicide, drug abuse, and mental problems.

I do agree though the state should keep it's nose out of things.

[parocks]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

Extinctionary. Bad public policy.

[jonhowe]

Just kicking the can down the road anyways, the next legal hurdle is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

You'll see the first arrests for non compliance in the next couple of years.

I live in NYC and work with the most liberal of the liberal. I don't know anyone who would be ok with that scenario. I think people are reading too deep into this gay marriage issue.

[William Tell]

Any predictions or bets?

We all know how it will end. Especially since they have lesbian on there.

[Christian Liberty]

Just kicking the can down the road anyways, the next legal hurdle is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

You'll see the first arrests for non compliance in the next couple of years.

This could easily be my father...

[Christian Liberty]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

I would agree up to the "there should be laws against it" part. The Christian way to deal with these issues is through PERSUASION, not force.

[TaftFan]

Civil unions for all, civil marriage for none.
Adoption qualifications should include a myriad of aspects, and sexual orientation should be included as a factor. But I am afraid the federal courts will rule that homosexuals can adopt children.

[DamianTV]

Any predictions or bets?

Sure. Who I love or do not love is not subject to the approval of the ANY authority. I love my dogs, but not in a sexual way. I love my parents, but again, not in a sexual way. I have love for my male friends, and I should not even need to explain that it does not need to be sexual.

Problem is Entitlements.

When to people get married, a Marriage License is required by the State. That means the State is just as much a part of the relationship as both of the concenting parties. It isnt Man and Wife, it is Man, Wife, and STATE. And that just $#@!s up everything, just like it does with everything else. So here is the problem, when the State gets involved, it tries to take as much as it can get away with. Two people care for each other, even non sexual and non marriage, they will go out of their way to help each other. You got hurt, I'll pay for your medical bills. Introduce Insurance, product of the State. One individual is no longer the one paying for the bills of another, the responsibility has been hijacked by Insurance, and Insurance is a business that surives by being profitable, which means not paying. The Insurance will come along and claim "we are not going to pay for that because" and then come up with some sort of logic that sounds legitimate. But really, it is Property Rights. You own yourself and that which you have. If you want, you could write a Will for when you die to pass everything you had in life to a $#@!ing Squirrel that lives in a Tree. You can do this because your Property Rights are not subject to the approval of anyone else, even if the benefactor is a Squirrel, a Friend, or even a Same Sex partner.

I dont think the outcome of the case matters. It will probably beat around the bush as much as can be done while maintaining the guise of being important and legitimate. Property Rights will still be ignored and responsibility will be deprived of people until both Rights and Self Authority are completely eliminated.

[RJB]

I live in NYC and work with the most liberal of the liberal. I don't know anyone who would be ok with that scenario. I think people are reading too deep into this gay marriage issue.

Less than a decade ago most high ranking democrats were against gay marriage, including Obama. When FOX or MSNBC tell their viewers to believe something, they will believe it.

[RJB]

BTW gay people do have a right to marry. What they want is the priviledge to get an expensive divorce. Heterosexuals should be fighting for what gays have.

(Written with somewhat of a sense of humor)

[surf]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

LOOK - a squirrel!

personally I hope there is no more outlawing of marriage. I'd rather not be on the hook, though, for any (more) government workers "spousal" benefits.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Remember that the Supreme Court has already settled that SSM is not like interracial marriage.

[Anti Federalist]

I live in NYC and work with the most liberal of the liberal. I don't know anyone who would be ok with that scenario. I think people are reading too deep into this gay marriage issue.

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

[Anti Federalist]

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-sex-weddings/

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”

- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.