Prop 8 Oral Arguments and Predictions

I Love America said:
So queers have always wanted to be married? My guess is no. I know plenty that don't and don't get the hubbub


Question is why do they want to do it so badly? Why do the queers want to be married?
Click to expand...

Of course, it's part of the marxist plot and so we can one day marry our cancer.
 
Jarod said:
They have already called marriage a fundamental right like 10,000 times... Why would doing it again be contraversal?
Click to expand...


And half the times they were not referring to same sex couples...lol

Isn't that what they are going to decide. ?
 
I Love America said:
Look it doesn't matter what the court decides everyone knows queers are abnormal

As I said before nobody and I mean nobody hopes thier child grows up to be a stinking AIDS infested queer

NOBODY
Click to expand...

I'm sure quite a few parents don't want their kids to be gay simply to avoid the harrassment of ignorant comments like the ones you repeatedly make. You would be hard pressed to prove it is the homosexuality and not the societal crap they would face that would make parents wish for their children to be anything but happy.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
It's not as if Jarod is just throwing out his opinion. Marriage is a fundamental right. The court could change course but that's not going to be easy.
Click to expand...


The courts already have restrictions and regulations and limits to this "fundamental right".....marriage has a fundamental definition too....
 
NOVA said:
And half the times they were not referring to same sex couples...lol

Isn't that what they are going to decide. ?
Click to expand...

Now see Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence. He's the decider. They'll either punt or the opponents of equality will lose.
 
WinterBorn said:
I'm sure quite a few parents don't want their kids to be gay simply to avoid the harrassment of ignorant comments like the ones you repeatedly make. You would be hard pressed to prove it is the homosexuality and not the societal crap they would face that would make parents wish for their children to be anything but happy.
Click to expand...


Thats like implying that parents won't mind if their kid was born without legs, as long as they were happy....
 
NOVA said:
Thats like implying that parents won't mind if their kid was born without legs, as long as they were happy....
Click to expand...

No, because there are reasons the child's life would be worse without legs. There is no real reason a child's life would be bad because they are gay, except for the societal crap.
 
NOVA said:
It was never changed before that I'm aware of , but it sure could be 'clarified' to inclue same sex, cows and horses and goats at this point lol
Click to expand...

It was changed to allow interracial marriages. It was changed from the father giving the daughter as property. It was changed from a man having numerous wives.
 
NOVA said:
It was never changed before that I'm aware of , but it sure could be 'clarified' to inclue same sex, cows and horses and goats at this point lol
Click to expand...

In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley the court has overturned and therefore changed the states legal requirements/restrictions or definition of marriage.
 
WinterBorn said:
It was changed to allow interracial marriages. It was changed from the father giving the daughter as property. It was changed from a man having numerous wives.
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fundamental definition of marriage....same sex unions does.....
And after reading the transcript, I'm gonna go out on a limb with Jarod and say that DOMA will not be ruled unconstitutional....
but then, I'm not a lawyer. lol
 
NOVA said:
That doesn't change the fundamental definition of marriage....same sex unions does.....
And after reading the transcript, I'm gonna go out on a limb with Jarod and say that DOMA will not be ruled unconstitutional....
but then, I'm not a lawyer. lol
Click to expand...

You got that from reading the transcript of Hollingsworth v Perry oral arguments?

No, you don't have a problem with reading comprehension, do you?
 
NOVA said:
That doesn't change the fundamental definition of marriage....same sex unions does.....
And after reading the transcript, I'm gonna go out on a limb with Jarod and say that DOMA will not be ruled unconstitutional....
but then, I'm not a lawyer. lol
Click to expand...

It did change the definition of marriage that matters, i.e., the legal one. If the law does not change the FUNDAMENTAL definition then there is no reason not to change the legal definition and legally recognizing same sex marriages will not change the FUNDAMENTAL definition of marriage either. Your argument is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...e-equality_n_2958088.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Um... wow...

I wonder if Jarod will come back and tell us how Obama is leading everyone on this issue again???

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry in states such as California, where civil unions are already legal, but it should remain an "open question" in other states.


"We are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country," Verrilli said of marriage equality. "We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don't have the situation California has."


The court was flummoxed by the reasoning.


"You're saying it's got to happen right now in California, but you don't even have a position about whether it's required in the rest of the country?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts.


So confused was he, Roberts repeated the question. "So it's got to happen right away in those states where same-sex couples have every legal right that married couples do," he said, "but you can wait in states where they have fewer legal rights."


"What I said is, it's an open question with respect to those states, and the court should wait and see what kind of a record a state could make," Verrilli responded.


"How would the record be different elsewhere?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered.


Justice Antonin Scalia tried to straighten it out. "So your -- your position is only if a state allows civil unions does it become unconstitutional to forbid same-sex marriage, right?"


Verrilli responded by saying that he would strike the word "only" from that sentence and agree with it.
Click to expand...

amazing... the Obama admin appears that it actually wants to vote 'present' on this issue.
 
My prediction is that the law will be upheld. Otherwise, they'll be forced to make a broad ruling, which they do not seem willing to do.

Not the result I want, but that's how the cookie will crumble.
 
If it were not for the Obama administration's legal efforts, DOMA would not currently be before the Court so u can critsize the President all you want and suggest he is trying to duck the issue... But your making yourself look the fool. It is exactly the position you are attacking that allows the case to be heard here and now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top