Willing to admit I was wrong....USSC delays ruling on new ban overturns-

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court passed up its first opportunity to re-enter the national debate on same-sex marriage Thursday, delaying a decision on whether to hear any new cases on the issue.

The justices are considering state bans on same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin that have been overturned in lower courts. They must decide whether to hear any of those cases or let the latest court rulings stand, which would legalize gay marriage in 11 additional states.

If the court ultimately agrees to hear one or more cases, oral arguments would be held early in 2015 and a ruling rendered before the court adjourns in June. It is unlikely that the justices will decide before their next conference on Oct. 10.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/02/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16547165/


Yes, I posted earlier I thought they WOULD take the case this fall session.

Seems likely they didn't want to render a decision that could impact the November mid-term elections.

Which bodes the question....what decision did they likely see coming?

To uphold the bans, would energize pro-gay rights forces in the election?

To overturn the bans, would de-moralize the remaining homophobes but would also put the GOP in a position of having to vocally oppose the Court (to satisfy its Social Con Base)....but also putting it against public opinion.

 

Windsor & Prop 8 were relisted multiple times before the court actually took action. It's not that uncommon for cases like this to be relisted a few times before actions is taken. If you check out www.scotusblog.com they have compiled statistics of this sort as well as some pretty in-depth analysis of what's going on in the SCOTUS. Another good website for marriage equality news and discussion is www.equalityontrial.com

 

If they want to delay the decision for the sake of politics, that means it will be a very unpopular opinion.

One in which will enrage liberals and homosexuals to no end.

I could be wrong though.

But usually, a delay until after elections is an indication of the unpopularity of how theya re going to decide.

It also means that they have already made their decisions.

And it also shows that they are more concerned about politics than doing right by the constitution.

 

Tram? The recent polls show MAJORITY SUPPORT for gay marriage rights. 52-55%.

 

I think they just didn't want it to become a major political firestorm leading up to November's midterms.

Even if Tram was right and it would be to uphold the state bans?....which I don't think he is....the conservatives on the Court wouldn't see it as helping Republicans, given the polls and the obvious shift in the winds.

The Social Cons would celebrate...but soon move on to other issues. (Whatever "bright shiny object" Fox News threw at them). Social Liberals would be energized to save the Senate and work hard to defeat a Republican for the Presidency in 2016.

Ironically, the BEST (politically) thing for Republicans....would be the USSC making a "Final Ruling" that gay marriage was Constitutional nation-wide. That way the GOP could drop the issue and say "Can't we just move on?"

 

Yes but in man y cases the majority opinions don't matter, especially if it is a liberal judge who hates conservatives.

Such as but not limited to:

1. Proposition 187 in California (1994) - ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services. It was approved by the work of over a million petition signatures, and shot down by ONE judge picked by the open-borders crowd.

2. Oklahoma State Question 755 (the Save Our State amendment) - Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City, knocked down this anti-Sharia law, which had been approved by a 70% landslide of Oklahoma voters. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations), one of America's premier Muslim Brotherhood front groups, filed the court action, with confidence that Miles-la Grange was their girl.

3. Proposition 8 in California (2010) - anti same-sex marriage law was voted into law by the people of California in 2008, it was derailed by a federal judge ( Chief Judge Vaughn Walker)

 

You were kind of confusing. Would the USSC decision be "unpopular"....i.e. going against gay marriage rights...and that's why "liberals and homosexuals would be enraged"?

But if that decision would be "unpopular"....you're admitting that a majority of Americans support gay marriage rights.

 

Never realised the USA had become a mob rule country. I find it incredible that their are still people in the USA who think that they can over rule the constitution based on a popular vote.

Number 1 was found to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration. It was also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration.

Number 2 not only violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the federal Constitution, but also the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Contracts Clause of Article I and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Number 3 The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Scalia. Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito, and Thomas were in the minority. The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute." Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Ciruit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine or rule whether or not in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.

 

I believe in morality, and if the courts find the popular vote of the people justifiable for banning gay marriage, then I support it, regardless of what constitutional arguements you and other liberals make.

 

And if they don't find it justifiable, what then?

 

No, that's putting words in my mouth.

Homosexual rights is only popular among liberals because of their hatred and intolerance of conservatives.

And, since the media is dominated by liberals, homosexuals have a powerful ally there.

If it weren't for that liberals would drop them like a hot rock and there wouldn't be this crap.

 

now, THIS is the kind of posts I like. This was information I was looking for, and you didn't have to go on your holier than thou must correct them so they can use logic crap.

That information was useful to me. Thank you.

 

You have me mistaken for someone else I fear, all I ever do is post information that is readily available for those who choose to look for it.

No problem, always willing to try and help.

 

So 55% of Americans are "liberals"?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

 

You never argue against SSM itself. You just sit there and bash the people that support it. You call them fascists or evil or oppressors and you never bother to actually argue against the policy itself. And I'm not willing to argue as to why that's completely wrong because I get the feeling that it would only reinforce your misplaced feelings of persecution. So could you kindly start arguing against the policy itself instead of the borderline demagoguery you're doing right now?

 

I'm not against SSM and i don't support discrimination.

That's why I don't argue against it.

I do feel they should go to the government to get married and leave the church alone.

What I don't support is harassing people to get your way. People have their rights to their beliefs or opinions too, and they have the right to disagree with and to support homosexuality belief and action and morality, and they have the right to express them as they see fit, even if they ar eunfortunate or uneduacted in some way shape or form.

Homosexuals claim they want to be treated equally, so being equal means they are not super special people that you have to agree with or support ir then you're a bigot.

Anby sort of disagreement with them in any way shape or form will come across to them as being bigoted, and that is the only response you will get from them because they believe that theya re super special people that you can't disagree with or oppose.

Sorry, but that is a form of bigotry and is especially snobby elitism.

And that I will not support, especially, if you claim to want to be equal and tolerated just like everybody else.

 

Minor correction:

the right to disagree with and to support homosexuality belief

Should read:

the right to disagree with and to not support homosexualit belief

 

Do you seriously think that not tolerating intolerance is itself a form of bigotry? Nobody should have to go through life treated as a second class citizen, and it's far from an atrocity if a few people need to be polite despite their bigotry.

And you generalizing gay people as monstrous fascists is itself bigoted.

 

Absolutely not tolerating bigotry is a form of bigotry in and of itself.

Because it is really not about not tolerating bigotry, that is a smokescreen.

What it is really about is snobby intellectual elitism.

 

I do not think the midterms coming up in November had anything to do with the SCOTUS deciding not to hear the case/s. Besides the way the courts are overturning the bans what would be the use unless they, the SCOTUS might decide differently?

But I will say this, I gave up predicting on how the SCOTUS will rule in any case long ago. I always had it wrong. I suppose that is because I do not speak or understand lawyerese. The way I look at it, this is a win for SSM's, the courts will continue to overturn bans on the remaining states in due time.

 

Why do you say that? You seem to have this thing about intellectuals. You seem to have something against them. Are you implying that homophobia is anti-intellectual? Because I agree with that.

I feel like if this was race however, you wouldn't feel the same way. You wouldn't champion for the rights of white supremacists.

Do you want to know my end goal here though, Tram? What I want is for not a single person to ever have to grow up living in fear that their sexual orientation will be discovered again. Everything else is just a means to that end or a side effect.

 

The world I want to live in is a Star Trek like world where we as a people, and I mean all humanity on this planet, have over come our petty differences and learn to live with each other instead id if about being different than each other and imposing their beliefs on to each other and forcing us to conform to one set of beliefs. That is what I hope for. that is a world I want to live in, not this bastard bigoted hateful spiteful soulless mindless American society. I absolutely hate this American society to no end because all people want to do is yell scream at each and force people to conform to their way of life. I really don't understand this expectation of conformity.

I respect knowledge. What I hate is snobbery and elitism. Many people who know a lot think they're better than everybody else and that everybody else has to obey and bow down to them. it's not being smart and knowledgeable that i have a problem with.

in short what these people all have in common is that they think it's okay to impose their beliefs and opinions on to others. And I will fight and oppose anybody who believes this way, regardless of what group they belong to. Because I believe that it is wrong to impose your beliefs and morality on to other people.

You see, when you study history, you come to find that there is one commonality to all atrocities committed. From ancient Rome, to the ancient Jews and Canaan, to modern day Hitler and Stalin, both liberals and conservatives.

They all want to impose their beliefs and morality on to people.

I don't believe there is such a thing as homophobia because of how liberals misuse it against people in order to shut down open and honest debate.

But that's just me. I seem to be a complete radical in that regard.

 

For centuries people like me have been murdered with the approval of the world's holy men in the name of supposedly all loving gods. And today only the first world has lightened up. A country professing freedom above all else tells us that we are dirty things and below them. And you have the nerve to say that homophobia doesn't exist?

I want that world too, but I know how ignorant people work. You need to force them into simply leaving people be. That world is never going to exist if we just let others subjugate others. They want to make us miserable and for as long as they exist they will, and that's why your vision of utopia won't exist until discrimination based on sexual orientation is just as taboo and illegal as discrimination based on race.

 

What if some churches are willing to marry them? Many are.

I agree, harassing people to get your way is an abuse of the system, and it should be addressed.

I agree, there can't be any special status for people that are homosexual. I support repealing all hate crime laws, and any protected status.

Disagreement begets disagreement. I don't really have an issue with people thinking how I live is wrong. It's only when they try and stop me from having equal treatment under the law thatit becomes bigotry. Such as not allowing gay affirming churches to preform marriages, however, I do understand that you were referring to churches that don't affirm same sex marriage.

I don't think so. Bigotry is being obstinate in your own opinion and intolerant of opinions of others. You can believe what you wish, I can disagree, disagreement isn't intolerance.

Our law forces us to be tolerant, intolerance to meis trying to remove or subjugate that which you disagree with.

 

You're not alone and you're not unique in that regard.

i am a Cherokee Indian. I have ancestors on the trail of tears and most of my people are still on the reservation.

And polydectes, (*)(*)(*)(*) off. I have you on ignore because you're an incredibly dishonest piece of crap that only wants to call people who disagree with you a bigot.