US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

[Baltimatt]

Sage--

Who would make up whose mind?

[Baltimatt]

Sage--

I just saw this:

Außenminister Guido Westerwelle (FDP) hat der CDU wegen ihrer Entscheidung gegen die Gleichstellung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Lebenspartnerschaften einen Bruch des Koalitionsvertrags vorgeworfen. Er sei "persönlich enttäuscht" über den Beschluss des CDU-Parteitags, ihnen die steuerliche Gleichbehandlung zu verweigern, sagte Westerwelle dem Tagesspiegel.

Die Beschlüsse der CDU "widersprechen unserer Koalitionsvereinbarung", sagte Westerwelle. "Menschen, die in einer Lebensgemeinschaft auf Dauer Verantwortung füreinander übernehmen, verdienen Respekt und Unterstützung, nicht Diskriminierung und Zurückweisung."

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (FDP) has accused the CDU of a breach of the colalition agreement beause of its decision against equalizing same-sex life partnerships. He is "personally disappointed" by the decision of the CDU party congress to deny taxation equality, Westerwell told the Tagesspiegel.

The decisions of the CDU "contradict our coalition agreement," Westerwelle said. "People in a long-term relationship who take responsibility for one another deserve respect and support, not discrimination and being turned away."

Westerwelle, who is gay, is a member of the Free Democratic Party, which is in coalition with the ruling Christian Democratic Union. The Union voted down a resolution to support Ehegattensplitting, or married spouse income division, for couples in "Life Partnerships", which are available to same-sex couples. The splitting divides income equally between the two spouses when determining income tax liability.

[songfourone]

Yet some that can't read or write and have been convicted of felonies are allowed to vote for the POTUS. Yeah, we can stand to fix a few things here and there.

You might want to be on the winning side and get your person elected first, it does help when you want to "fix a few things here and there". LOL SMH freakin RWNJ'S.

[jtowne-swim]

I am sorry to hear that he Supreme Court took up the California case. Had they not same sex marriage would have automatically been the law of California.

Fear not because they asked both cases to address standing first. If they find the Prop 8 proponents have no standing the decision will be law!

[jtowne-swim]

I think using the 14th amendment is a strech. As I have said in the past, every consenting adult can marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have asked for additional options. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court should just go ahead and allow it once and for all. I see very little grounds to oppose except that Marty O'Malley talks incessantly about it. I am still waiting for the official announcement about him and Jim McGreavy. Recall, I made that prediction back when Marty opposed gay marriage for political convenience.

The conservative would ask where the federal government is given the power to define marriage in the US Constitution!

[jtowne-swim]

Wasn't Prop 8 passed by a 52-48 vote by the citizens of California? If so, if the People voted for it, shouldn't it have been accepted?

No, because as the California Court ruled you can not take away a right that has been given via popular vote. Furthermore it was ruled that the lawsuit challenging that decision lacked standing since they could not demonstrate any damages from gay marriage!

[Baltimatt]

jtown--

Just to make it clear, a federal court in California ruled that a right granted cannot be taken away from a select population. The California Supreme Court ruled, upon request of the federal court, that other groups had standing to continue the case, since the named defendants refused to defend the suit.

[SoSad]

This link has a timeline of prop 8 and the actual rulings by the court

What does it mean now that the Supreme Court has taken up the appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision?
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case means California’s same-sex marriage ban will remain law until the justices decide next year whether the lower courts erred in overturning Prop. 8.
What would it have meant had the Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision?
Had the court chosen not to hear the appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would have been final and that, in turn, would have made same-sex marriage legal once again in California.

[bud]

Can you imagine the meltdown if John Roberts decides to approve same-sex marriage?

[bud]

This link has a timeline of prop 8 and the actual rulings by the court

It's great to see that you're posting regularly again. Though I don't comment much anymore, I do lurk around.

[SalisburySage]

Correction: ON Prop 8 Had the court chosen not to hear the appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would have been final and that, in turn, would have made same-sex marriage legal once again in California.

Just to be clear.

[bud]

Correction: ON Prop 8 Had the court chosen not to hear the appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would have been final and that, in turn, would have made same-sex marriage legal once again in California.

Just to be clear.

In the long run, it's better to have cases decided outside the 9th circus. Those clowns would give Obama dictator power if such a case ever came before them.

[SalisburySage]

November 2008: California voters pass Proposition 8 by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin. It amends the California constitution to limit marriage within the state to heterosexual couples. California becomes the 29th state to ban same-sex marriage.

Interesting that the 53 - 47 percent margin is the same as Obama's Margin in the election.

[veritas]

The conservative would ask where the federal government is given the power to define marriage in the US Constitution!

Precisely. They have no such power. Therefore, the question must reside in the states. However, much like abortion on demand and Obamacare, I feel certain that gay marriage will be imposed on the states from above.

[skeemer]

It is truly a joyous day for the Westboro Baptist Church and their millions of anti-gay marriage followers!

[bmore_ken]

The Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 could be very narrow, addressing only this case, or broader, on a right of same-sex couples to marry. We'll see.

Got to start somewhere matt

[SoSad]

It's great to see that you're posting regularly again. Though I don't comment much anymore, I do lurk around.

bud!!!!

Where have you been? It's so great to post with you again. I've missed you!

Prop 8 has been talked about ever since passing in California. There are people that will not shop in stores whose owners donated money to the passing of prop 8.

[SalisburySage]

Hard to read the tea leaves on what the Supreme Court will decide.

If the decision is a political one, as in the case of Obama Care, I think one could safely predict that the Supreme Court will find in favor of Gay Marriage.
In terms of the California Case I don't see that the Supreme Court would have any grounds to up hold Prop 8 and over turn the Federal District Court's decision.

Now that Barry has been re-elected what does he really want in this regard. He doesn't have to worry about votes. He seems to have a great influence on the Chief Justice after all.

One could argue that Obama would be going against the people who elected him, since most blacks and hispanics are against gay marriage. BUT...I don't think Barry gives a rats behind about anything that doesn't fit in with his progressive, socialist agenda and I believe that he believes that Gay marriage fits into the type of society he wishes to create.

Therefore I predict that the Supreme Court will makes decisions that benefit the cause of gay rights and gay marriage, however narrowly.

[workerbee]

Should gay members of the court recuse themselves? Should straight members of the court recuse themselves?

[jtowne-swim]

jtown--

Just to make it clear, a federal court in California ruled that a right granted cannot be taken away from a select population. The California Supreme Court ruled, upon request of the federal court, that other groups had standing to continue the case, since the named defendants refused to defend the suit.

But the US Supreme Court has asked them to brief standing. If they rule they did not have the right to continue the case than the federal court ruling would stand!