Emboldened gay-marriage supporters now want more

[SalisburySage]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS

On Nov. 30, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss whether to take up a lawsuit challenging whether California’s voter-passed Proposition 8 was properly struck down by federal courts. Prop. 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, has been in effect — and in court — since it was passed by voters in a fiercely contested 2008 initiative drive.

If the Supreme Court declines to take up the case — which could happen Dec. 3 — the initiative would be thrown out and gay marriage would quickly resume in California.

Let's hope that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case so that Gay Marriage can resume in California.

[Baltimatt]

I see the Washington Times no longer puts the word ” marriage" in quotes when talking about same-sex marriage.

[Baltimatt]

As far as that bizarre headline, yes. We would like the same thing opposite-sex couples take for granted: to get married in the state of our choice, to know that our marriages travel with us, to not have have to draw up and carry extra paperwork to protect our spouses and children.

[flyboy56]

Next people will want "group marriage." Where should it end?

[SalisburySage]

Next people will want "group marriage." Where should it end?

That's called polygamy and it is illegal. Those who want polygamy can start their own political movement. They need to stay out of ours.

[SalisburySage]

As far as that bizarre headline, yes. We would like the same thing opposite-sex couples take for granted: to get married in the state of our choice, to know that our marriages travel with us, to not have have to draw up and carry extra paperwork to protect our spouses and children.

Right. BUt the fact that this is even discussed seriously I see as a positive step.

[Baltimatt]

Next people will want "group marriage." Where should it end?

How do you know this? Are you one of the people wanting group marriage? How do you propose these marriages will be organized?

Same-sex marriage fits in with the existing two-person marriage model. Multiple-party marriage will require several new laws.

[Baltimatt]

Right. BUt the fact that this is even discussed seriously I see as a positive step.

It doesn't help when this article makes a serious factual error:

Before this year’s votes, gay-marriage opponents had defeated more than 30 straight statewide proposals to ease restrictions on same-sex marriage.

The referenda weren't to ease restrictions on SSM (except for Maine three years ago), but to harden anti-gay provisions by writing them into state constitutions.

[SalisburySage]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-marriage-doma

Activists are hoping that shifting public opinion on the issue, most recently demonstrated by election-day victories in all four states where same sex-marriage measures were on the ballot, will convince the judges to take on the issue.

Up for decision is a set of cases relating to the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma), a 1996 law which states that every time any federal law refers to marriage, it means only that between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples who are legally married in one of nine states or Washington DC are thus denied the benefits or opportunities afforded by marriage to opposite-sex couples

Should be an interesting decision if they decide to take up the issue.

More controversial was the question of whether the justices decide to take on Proposition 8. It is exclusive to California, so it is less likely the justices will take it up. Both a federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. However, the Ninth Circuit found that it was the unique circumstances of California that made adopting Proposition 8 a violation of the US constitution.

Well if that's true there should be wild celebration in California because my understanding is that Gay marriage automatically becomes law in California if the Supreme Court refuses to hear that case.

[Baltimatt]

DOMA is an absolute disgrace and needs to go. Shame on Bill Clinton for signing that law.

[SalisburySage]

It doesn't help when this article makes a serious factual error:

The referenda weren't to ease restrictions on SSM (except for Maine three years ago), but to harden anti-gay provisions by writing them into state constitutions.

Yes. True but not surprising. Compare it to all the lies of the last election, it sees minor.

[SalisburySage]

I find it curious that the usual anti gay marriage suspects are so silent. Now that Obama won and he is known to support gay marriage suddenly its ok? I am glad of it to be sure but its a curiosity nonetheless.

[Baltimatt]

Sage--

Yes, it's strange and awfully quiet. Flyboy56 came and went, but he's been posting on other threads while not coming back here. However, the whole board seems surprisingly quiet for a holiday weekend. Maybe everyone's shopping or putting up Christmas decorations.

Back when I joined the board, you could always count on one of the three G's (gays, God, and guns) to lead to a robust discussion.

[flyboy56]

How do I know that eventually someone will petition the court for the right for "group marriage?" Because it says in the Declaration of Independence that everyone has "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness being the key phrase.

[Baltimatt]

Flyboy--

So, do you have a problem with pursuing happiness? I guess I'm not getting where you stand.

[flyboy56]

Flyboy--

So, do you have a problem with pursuing happiness? I guess I'm not getting where you stand.

You were the one who asked me how I knew the next thing would be group marriage! What, are you just looking for a fight?

[Baltimatt]

No, I don't want a fight, but your initial response sounded like the same old slippery slope argument. Indeed, that appears to be what the Times is trying to sell with its lame headline.

Also, I don't see supporters of same-sex marriage as generally being behind a push for group marriage.

[Lawman 27]

I'm sorry, but this thought just popped in my head and I couldn't resist...

(All the haters (from both sides of the aisle) are asked to accept that this is HUMOR*).

Instead of outlawing gay marriage, we could solve the whole issue of male/male or female/female marriage this way:

WE COULD MAKE A LAW OUTLAWING DIVORCE!!!

(Once gays/lesbians realized that 'til death do us part was real, they would never even think of getting married).

(Personally, I would love to see the hollywood celebrity types forced to stay with the same
spouse, but let us not go there right now).


*Okay, STUPID HUMOR, but humor!!!

[flyboy56]

No, I don't want a fight, but your initial response sounded like the same old slippery slope argument. Indeed, that appears to be what the Times is trying to sell with its lame headline.

Also, I don't see supporters of same-sex marriage as generally being behind a push for group marriage.

The thing about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is that leaves open any possibilities. The Constitution is believed by many as a living document so it can change with the times and attitudes of the people. Just look at how US history has unfolded and you can see how true that is.

[Baltimatt]

Ok, times have changed and the Constitution with them, but we seem to be getting away from the original thesis of this thread.