PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court May Not Rule on Issue of Gay Marriage



Conley
02-08-2012, 02:53 PM
In the months leading up to Tuesday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, most legal observers were certain it would not be the last word on the contentious issue of same sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court would make the final decision.

But several legal scholars said Tuesday that’s not a certainty. And if it does end up before the high court, the justices might not overturn the appeals court ruling.

That is largely because the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the 9th Circuit’s leading liberal voice, was tightly drawn and rested on the most narrow legal grounds.

Rather than making a sweeping statement that there is a fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice under the U.S. Constitution, the ruling focuses on the specifics of Proposition 8 and the unique circumstances of the same sex marriage issue in California, said Julie Greenberg, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

The court reasoned that because the measure eliminated a right that same sex couples had in California, and there was no legitimate or rational reason to do so, it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

“This is totally to the unique situation of Prop. 8, and of California granting a marriage right, then taking it away,” said Greenberg, who has followed the marriage issue. “We are the only state where that has happened.”

As a result, the high court may be less inclined to step in, said David B. Cruz, a law professor at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California.

“It’s undeniably narrow, though it could have been incredibly sweeping,” he said of the ruling. “And I think that makes it less likely the Supreme Court would grant review.”

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/07/experts-high-court-might-not-rule-on-prop-8/

Keeping the ruling so narrow and considering the focus on only the state of California could be major factors in this. I wonder what kind of timeline we're looking at. It's very interesting to me from a legal perspective but I don't really care who wins in this case.

roadmaster
02-08-2012, 11:58 PM
What they do is their business. As long as they don't drag the Churches into this. The biggest reason was a clause. If a Church holds say a reception after a marriage for it's members inside the Church and the reception area is open to people that don't attend then the clause says they have a right to be married in those Churches even if it's against their beliefs because this would fall under discrimination laws.
that's why so many came out against this.
I don't care if they want to marry but why can't they leave us alone?

Conley
02-09-2012, 12:09 AM
I think a big reason gays want it is for health benefits too.

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 12:24 AM
I think a big reason gays want it is for health benefits too. I say if two consenting adults that want to be married should get health benefits. Why not if that is the way they chose to live? Just as long as they don't expect us to marry them or hold their receptions that think this lifestyle is immoral.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 12:33 AM
it is very very easy to start a church, all the gays have to do is start their won brand of religion and start performing their own wedding services in it. leave the Traditional Christ centered church out of there demands ...

now lets have a contest and see if we can come up with a name for thier religion

Church of the Phallus

next?

Conley
02-09-2012, 12:35 AM
I say if two consenting adults that want to be married should get health benefits. Why not if that is the way they chose to live? Just as long as they don't expect us to marry them or hold their receptions that think this lifestyle is immoral.

I'm of the opinion that churches should be able to do whatever they want. The Supreme Court seems to agree.

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 12:43 AM
I'm of the opinion that churches should be able to do whatever they want. The Supreme Court seems to agree.

I am with Wing, they should start their own Churches or attend the ones who will.

Conley
02-09-2012, 12:48 AM
I am with Wing, they should start their own Churches or attend the ones who will.

I was agreeing with you. As for what Wing's saying, it is not that hard to start a church informally but I would think getting government approval (to be tax exempt for example) is much harder.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 12:52 AM
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

http://www.start-your-own-church.com/tax_exempt_church.html


here ya go

wingrider
02-09-2012, 01:05 AM
how about some names here people?

what you expect me to do all the work?

I know one

the holy church of the united vagina

MMC
02-09-2012, 02:15 AM
Next up.....the right to be considered Genderless and that Genderless people have the right to be married in a Sterile Environment.

Course when they create Androids.....the Activists will want rights for the Androids and so they to can be married. As they will say they are made out of flesh and blood to and made in the Image of their own Creators.

Wait we been here before. :laugh: :tongue:

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 02:27 AM
I was agreeing with you. As for what Wing's saying, it is not that hard to start a church informally but I would think getting government approval (to be tax exempt for example) is much harder.

I understand but when we do things sometimes and then get burned it makes us cautious. We don’t hate them like they say. For instance: A gay guy attends a Christian School, they accept him regardless but he knows and is told beforehand their beliefs and knows full well he can’t go to prom with a male. He shows up with a male they ask him to leave and then sues the school and won. This is just one example, I could go on and on, including in the Churches. In 2009 gay activist tried to make churches pay civil damages for ministers who refuse to rent facilities for gay marriage ceremonies, they lost but gay rights activists will not rest until gay marriage is treated entirely equal with traditional marriage.
That means no religious exemptions and the courts will have every right to enforce what they call hate speech to silence our pastors. Then enforce them if they don’t then no more tax-exemption.
Their argument will be, you cannot discriminate against my color and they will compare themselves to African Americans and we must accept gay people as equal human beings therefore no religious institution will be able to turn them down.
In the UK they have already won as far as reception areas or open to the public so to speak. Because of this they have threatened to close down the soup kitchens and many things because The Church rights are being violated and now they are being labeled as bigots. This group goes after ones that believes different not the ones that have no problems marrying them. They are doing these people no justice and only objective is to destroy the Churches. If not they would have had their insurance and civil marriages long ago.