Supreme Court to Hear Two Gay Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases : Photo Gallery

Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Business - Boston. Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Business - Boston. The U.S. Supreme Court decided	Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - The Monitor: Us ... Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - The Monitor: Us ... Supreme Court will hear	U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases | WBUR U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases | WBUR WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court	Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Timesonline.com ... Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Timesonline.com ... Supreme Court will hear
Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - The Sun ... Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - The Sun ... Supreme Court Gay Marriage. In this file photo from Aug.	Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Politics news Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Politics news The U.S. Supreme Court decided	Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO. Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO. The Supreme Court and	Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Carroll County ... Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases - Carroll County ... Supreme Court will hear
Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases - KTVN Channel 2 - Reno ... Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases - KTVN Channel 2 - Reno ... Supreme Court Will Hear Gay	Supreme Court Will Hear California's Gay Marriage Ban - Los ... Supreme Court Will Hear California's Gay Marriage Ban - Los ... Supreme Court Will Hear	High court delays action on same-sex marriage cases - Yahoo! News High court delays action on same-sex marriage cases - Yahoo! News High court delays action on	BREAKING: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases DOMA, Prop 8 - UPI. BREAKING: Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases DOMA, Prop 8 - UPI. The Supreme Court has decided
KOKH FOX 25 :: Top Stories - Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex ... KOKH FOX 25 :: Top Stories - Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex ... Supreme Court Will Hear	Supreme Court To Take Up Same-Sex Marriage Cases « FOX News Radio Supreme Court To Take Up Same-Sex Marriage Cases « FOX News Radio That will be earliest the	U.S. Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases | court, marriage ... U.S. Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases | court, marriage ... The court also will decide	Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Suits | The Gateway Pundit Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Suits | The Gateway Pundit The Supreme Court just
Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936 Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936 Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936	OBAMAS MARXIST ADMINISTRATION ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE OBAMAS MARXIST ADMINISTRATION ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE OBAMAS MARXIST ADMINISTRATION ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE	"Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo	"Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo
"Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo "Fidelity": Dont Divorce... on Vimeo	Gary Ashcraft Gary Ashcraft Gary Ashcraft	THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR 2 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR 2 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES In it, the Supreme Court is likely to revisit the question of when, if ever, it makes sense for society to discriminate against gay couples or individuals. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in effect decided that the answer is virtually never ...	Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases In the area of racial discrimination, the justices already have agreed to decide cases on affirmative action in admission to college and a key part of the Voting Rights Act. The gay marriage cases probably will be argued in March and decisions in all ...
Supreme Court to Hear Two Gay Marriage Cases Supreme Court to Hear Two Gay Marriage Cases It's no shocker that the Supreme Court of the United States decided this afternoon to hear United States v. ... Anti-gay marriage proponents should think twice before asking the US Supreme Court to take this case. ... The question in Hollingsworth ...	BREAKING: Supreme Court To Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases BREAKING: Supreme Court To Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases The court will hear the case brought by Edie Windsor (left) following the death of her spouse Thea Spyer (right). On Friday, the United State Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments ... The Supreme Court is not just going to decide whether the Defense ...	Same-sex marriage cases get Supreme Court review Same-sex marriage cases get Supreme Court review The Supreme Court is taking a potentially historic look at same-sex marriage by agreeing to hear two cases that challenge governments' different treatment of gay Americans. The focus in one case is California's constitutional amendment that forbids ...	Court may decide today whether to review Prop 8 Court may decide today whether to review Prop 8 WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to review Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, as well as a related case concerning the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In the Proposition 8 case, the high court's grant of a hearing ...
Proposition 8: US Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal on Gay Marriage Proposition 8: US Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal on Gay Marriage Original story 12:29 p.m.: The U.S. Supreme Court just announced that it will review the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act. That means same-sex couples in ...	Supreme Court to Hear Historic Same-Sex Marriage Cases Supreme Court to Hear Historic Same-Sex Marriage Cases ... Same-Sex Marriage Cases. Opening the door to a potentially historic step in the nation's gay rights movement, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide two constitutional challenges involving same-sex marriage. The justices will hear ...	US Supreme Court To Hear Prop. 8 Same-Sex Marriage Case US Supreme Court To Hear Prop. 8 Same-Sex Marriage Case WASHINGTON D.C. (CBS/AP) – The Supreme Court plunged into the contentious issue of gay marriage Friday when it agreed to take up California's ban on same-sex unions and a separate dispute about federal benefits for legally married gay couples. ... the ...	Supreme Court will review gay marriage cases Supreme Court will review gay marriage cases 7, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. PST — Updated: Dec. 7, 2012 at ... By contrast, the Defense of Marriage Act cases that the Supreme Court will hear involved appellate courts striking down a federal law, which is something the high court usually wants to review ...
US supreme court takes up gay marriage cases – as it happened US supreme court takes up gay marriage cases – as it happened ... the Guardian's news story: The US supreme court will take up the issue of same-sex marriage for the first time, agreeing to hear two cases that could decide whether gay and lesbian Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.	US Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage cases US Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage cases It was most recently rejected by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled 2 to 1 on October that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. President Barack Obama, who backed gay marriage in May, also took the unusual ...	Supreme Court Takes Up Landmark Gay Marriage Case Supreme Court Takes Up Landmark Gay Marriage Case The Supreme Court declared Friday that it will take up same sex marriage next year in what's sure to be a blockbuster case with sweeping implications. The Court accepted a challenge to the ... The Court agreed to hear the Windsor v. United States case ...	Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage-Related Prop 8, DOMA Cases Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage-Related Prop 8, DOMA Cases The Supreme Court on Friday announced it will hear two cases related to gay marriage. At its weekly conference, the court agreed to ... The 2-1 ruling was also the first to apply heightened scrutiny to the unions of gay couples. According to court ...
Supreme Court to hear gay marriage arguments Supreme Court to hear gay marriage arguments The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved constitutional amendment enacted in 2008 that bars same-sex marriages in that state. The court announced its decision to hear the case Dec. 7, shortly after 3 ...	Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases That Will Determine Destiny of Same-Sex ... Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases That Will Determine Destiny of Same-Sex ... The United States Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has agreed to hear two cases that will determine the destiny of same-sex marriage across America. After a week of waiting on a decision from the court, the nine justices on the bench ...

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases : Videos

FOX NEWS: SCOTUS to announce plan for same sex marriage cases FOX NEWS: SCOTUS to announce plan for same sex marriage cases *SCOTUS to announce plan for same-sex marriage cases - Video on ... video.msnbc.msn.com/.../500391... - Estados Unidos - Traduzir esta página 3 ... Rated: -1     Duration: 185 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:57:57 PST	SCOTUS to Punt on Same Sex Marriage Cases Court Delays Decision to Hear Cases [11-30-2012] SCOTUS to Punt on Same Sex Marriage Cases Court Delays Decision to Hear Cases [11-30-2012] Click MeTee.com and buy a Tee-Shirt using the link above for a 2% discount. MeTee: Tee-Shirt Design in Seconds. - Marriage (also called matrimony ... Rated: -1     Duration: 117 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:30:48 PST	Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2010-2011), Part 1 of 2 Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2010-2011), Part 1 of 2 The review of this term's US Supreme Court decisions most likely to affect the work of federal judges will look at opinions deciding First ... Rated: 5     Duration: 3358 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:32:27 PDT	Valentines Day Rallies: 2/7/11 This Week in Prop 8 Valentines Day Rallies: 2/7/11 This Week in Prop 8 Find out who's planning to get arrested in your town on Valentine's Day, plus the Supreme Court hints at an impending decision on Prop 8 ... Rated: 5     Duration: 248 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 04:45:29 PST
Logo Founder to Open Gay Themed YouTube Channel - Model Found Guilty of Murdering Boyfriend Logo Founder to Open Gay Themed YouTube Channel - Model Found Guilty of Murdering Boyfriend Here's Your Gay News for Monday, December 3, 2012! Yay!!:D This is the 15th newscast of season 5. This is the 274th newscast hosted by Bradley ... Rated: 5     Duration: 177 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:21:21 PST	Jays I Like Video Home Improvement Jays I Like Video Home Improvement gallagher day prop8 prop-8 gay-adoption First Date h8 dads values california supreme court homosexuality fag queer dyke civil union same-sex eight ... Rated: 4.931818     Duration: 544 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:05:29 PDT	Federal judge throws out California gay marriage ban Federal judge throws out California gay marriage ban www.timesofearth.com San Francisco, California, United States - A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that the state's ban on gay ... Rated: 5     Duration: 79 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:36:23 PDT	Ring of Fires Weekly News May 30th Pt. 2 Ring of Fires Weekly News May 30th Pt. 2 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and David Bender (Politically Direct) give us their unique views on some of the biggest news stories of the past week, as ... Rated: 5     Duration: 536 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:03:42 PDT
Finding Justice V5 Pt 2- James Stevens vs Vons Finding Justice V5 Pt 2- James Stevens vs Vons "Finding Justice," the incredible story of James Stevens vs. Vons, an African American man who worked at Vons for over 25 years, who was ... Rated: -1     Duration: 598 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:12:20 PDT	Zach Wahls Supports President Obama Zach Wahls Supports President Obama Obama: OFA.BO In 2011, the Iowa House had a public call on a constitutional amendment to reverse the Iowa Supreme Court decision that had ... Rated: 4.5977383     Duration: 152 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:48:49 PDT

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

The Battle Over a Baby

On Christmas Eve in 2007, the State of West Virginia bestowed upon Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess of Oak Hill a relative rarity in the foster-care system: a newborn. The baby girl, TiCasey, was born on Dec. 8 to a longtime drug addict, father unknown, and entered the world with cocaine, opiates and benzodiazepines in her bloodstream. For two weeks - Pamela Paul is the author, most recently, of Parenting, Inc., a book about the business of child rearing. Her last article for the magazine was on pregnant women with cancer. - By PAMELA PAUL

Is the Prop 8 case likely to go to the Supreme Court or will the case end on a technicality?

The proponents of Prop 8 are now facing an issue of whether they have standing to appeal Judge Walkers ruling. http://www.dailydemocrat.com/rss/ci_15825725?source=rss Walker seems to have suggested that they do NOT have standing, because they failed to demonstrate how same sex marriages would give them "irreparable harm." Will the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court agree that they do NOT have standing? Realistically, could you see the Supreme Court giving them standing? In order to get standing, they have to prove they suffered "irreparable harm" from gay marriage. Which is ridiculous. Could you picture the SCOTUS agreeing that gay marriage caused them "irreparable harm" ??? Another complexity: They are now trying to get Imperial County to represent the state. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/22/MNTK1F0U3N.DTL Can a county represent the State? Not really. Kind of a far-fetched idea. but will they find a way to give them standing? Another complexity: Come January, CA will have a new governor and a new attorney general. If the Republicans win either of those seats...........they will try to interfere and file an appeal. BUT: Will they have time? The deadline to appeal is early September........ there may be obstacles that may allow them to appeal the case that late in the game........ but it doesnt seem likely that the window for a late appeal will allow them to do that.
Answer: It's hard to say........... it's difficult to imagine any of those scenarios providing them with the proper standing. but there could be some surprises. You should also note that there are 2 other possible scenarios that could stop this thing from going to the SCOTUS: 1. A 2012 ballot measure to strike down prop 8. 2. They lose at the 9th circuit, and the SCOTUS declines to hear the case.
Category: Politics

So, since prop 8 has been turned in california,?

can same-sex couples get marriage licenses now? i heart about a stay that might be or has been granted? and if after the prop 8 case is appealed to the ninth circuit and the supreme court, and is kept the way it is now (overturned), would same-sex couples have the exact same marriage rights and rules as straight couples?
Answer: My answer to a recent post.... "1. is prop 8 now cancelled? or does it need to go to another court?" The judge stayed the implementation of his ruling pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court. That means the ban stays in place for now. "2. When will gay marriages in cali start again?" If the 9th agrees with the Disctict Court judge, and does not choose to also stay their ruling until the Supreme Court has heard an appeal. "3. Do you think this will create a domino effect causing more states to allow gay marriage?" If the 9th upholds the District Court, then the ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional will be binding law in all the States covered by the 9th Circuit. (AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA) If the Supreme Court hears the case and agrees, that will be binding law in the whole USA. Richard
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases - The Washington ...

14 hours ago ... Justices will review Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. ... Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases. Smaller Text .... Supreme CourtHow the political fight on gay marriage is over -- in 2 charts ...

what does the republican party stand for?

Answer: "The Republican Party believes that making law is the province of the legislature and that judges, especially the Supreme Court, should not "legislate from the bench." Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a case of judicial activism, where the court overturned most laws restricting abortion on the basis of a right to privacy inferred from the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some Republicans have actively sought to block judges who they see as being activist judges and they have sought the appointment of judges who claim to practice judicial restraint. Other Republicans, though, argue that it is the right of judges to extend the interpretation of the Constitution and judge actions by the legislative or executive branches as legal or unconstitutional on previously unarticulated grounds. The Republican party has supported various bills within the last decade to strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of cases, in an attempt to limit judicial review. These jurisdiction stripping laws have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex marriage with the Marriage Protection Act,[2] the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance with the Pledge Protection Act, and the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay in the Detainee Treatment Act. The last of these limitations was overruled by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Compared with Democrats, many Republicans believe in a more robust version of federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power and a larger role reserved for the States. Following this view on federalism, Republicans often take a less expansive reading of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, such as in the opinion of William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez. Many Republicans on the more libertarian wing wish for a more dramatic narrowing of Commerce Clause power by revisiting, among other cases, Wickard v. Filburn, a case which held that growing wheat on a farm for consumption on the same farm fell under congressional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several States". President George W. Bush is a proponent of the unitary executive theory and has cited it within his signing statements about legislation passed by Congress.[3] The administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory was called seriously into question by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the President does not have sweeping powers to override or ignore laws through his power as commander in chief,[4] stating "the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails."[5] Following the ruling, the Bush administration has sought Congressional authorization for programs started only on executive mandate, as was the case with the Military Commissions Act, or abandoned illegal programs it had previously asserted executive authority to enact, in the case of the National Security Agency domestic wiretapping program."
Category: Other - Cultures & Groups

Suit Seeks to Block State Policy on Same-Sex Unions

Five state lawmakers, backed by a conservative Christian policy group, sued Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday, seeking to block the governors order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside New York. The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, came as the Senate Republican conference all but ruled out - Five New York State lawmakers, backed by conservative Christian policy group Alliance Defense Fund, sue Gov David A Paterson to block his order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside New York; suit argues that Paterson usurped Legislatures authority as sole branch of government empowered to decided states definition of marriage; state appellate court ruled in February that state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, even though New York does not itself allow gays and lesbians to marry; photo (M) - By JEREMY W. PETERS

Mommy Had To Go Away for A While

On a rainy day just after Thanksgiving, Amanda Kimbrough played with her 2-year-old daughter in her raw-wood-paneled living room, petting her terriers and half-watching TV. Kimbrough, who is 32, lives a few miles outside Russellville, a town of fewer than 10,000 in rural northwestern Alabama, near the border of Franklin and Colbert Counties. - Ada Calhoun article highlights the case of Alabama woman Amanda Kimbrough, who is serving a 10-year sentence for the death of her prematurely-born child because she took methamphetamine while she was pregnant; case has attracted groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, who maintain her conviction sets a dangerous precedent. Photos (L)/ - By ADA CALHOUN

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: Prop 8, DOMA To Receive Hearings

The United States Supreme Court will review the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 law which banned gay marriage in California. The appeals court's ruling was issued in February and found the law unconstitutional. ... GlobalPost The US Supreme Court decided that it will hear cases on #gay marriage including challenges to #DOMA and Prop 8: http://t.co/spCHvoaD · 5 hours ago from TweetDeck ...

Is there a valid argument against same sex marriage?

I am an atheist, so the religion argument is something that I cant pretend to understand. But, if the only reason people are so opposed to same sex marriage is because they believe that it is their religions gods will... then why are they still opposed to it? Couldnt they just have their religion reject the marriage? Marriage has two parts: the religious end, and the legal end. Why cant same sex couples have the legal rights, without the religious recognition? That seems like a fair enough compromise. If the argument is that they cant raise well-adjusted kids, well thats invalid. Plenty of gay couples have raised perfectly normal kids. Plenty of straight couples have raised completely screwed up kids. If the argument is that "Marriage is between a man and a woman." ...well marriage used to be between a black man and a black woman, or a white man and a white woman. We revised that law, why shouldnt this one be revised as well? Or the final argument that its "disturbing" or "unnatural"... well thats not right either. A straight person cannot possibly know what it is like to be gay. And it certainly doesnt effect a straight person in ANY way for 2 people of the same sex to get married. It doesnt hurt them or help them. Why are people so invested in an issue that doesnt even effect them? Im not looking for rude answers or some sort of online fight. Im just genuinely curious. This is probably the 1 issue that I cant see any logic in the oppositions argument. Bobbin: yes lol. I am aware of what section I posted this in. Im not looking for people to agree with me, nor am I looking for people to fight with. Im just wondering if there is some argument that I havent heard yet that someone else has heard of... I want to know if there is any valid argument, as I have stated in the question.
Answer: The latest argument I have heard that is gaining momentum. If they change the definition of marriage from the traditional one man one woman it will open a Pandora's Box. They will then have to allow one man to be married to six woman or more at the same time, a 30yr old man marry a 12 yr old girl or 12 yr old boy, etc. These reasons don't fly with me. The examples I gave are presently illegal. There are laws on the book saying they are crimes. I have found no law saying two men can't be married. In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws in Texas, 6 to 3, in Lawrence vs Texas. While some states still have sodomy laws on the books they can't be enforced because of this ruling. Therefore, I can find no federal law preventing two men being married. There are some states that have now passed "Defense of Marriage Laws" they will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. Same sex marriages are presently allowed in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain,Sweden and some places on and off again here, The United States. They are under debate in Australia, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Turkey, United Kingdom and of course here in The United States. The fuse has been lite and cannot be put out. We just need now for the Supreme Court to accept a case that will strike down the Defense of Marriage type laws.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Prop 8 and the Supreme Court?

The supreme court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage in CA last june so why cant they do that again with Prop 8?
Answer: Another Yahoo ? Answers similar ? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081103211912AAwc5Du "The petition filed Wednesday asks the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law. It argues that the measure revised, rather than amended the California Constitution, and therefore first should have been submitted to the state Legislature.The Supreme Court refused to hear a petition making similar claims in June, when gay rights activists tried to get Proposition 8 struck from the ballot." per Wikipedia: "On November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature.[18] Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and the county of Santa Clara.[19][20][21] Claims made on similar grounds with respect to other constitutional changes have in some cases taken years to be adjudicated, and almost all have failed.[20]") This isn't over yet as some may think, unless the supreme court dismisses them. I think that would be highly unlikely. The problem is no mechanism in place for repeating a process. Supreme court already overturned Prop. 22. If that's possible so is overturning Prop 8
Category: Government

NICHOLE: Is my marriage gay?

AS many Americans know, last week Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a law that made this state the fifth in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Its worth pointing out, however, that there were some legal same-sex marriages in Maine already, just as there probably are in all 50 states. These are marriages in which at least one member of the couple has changed genders since the wedding. I’m in such a marriage myself and, quite frankly, my spouse and I forget most of the time that there is anything particularly unique about our family, even if we are what is the phrase? differently married. Deirdre Finney and I were wed in 1988 at the National Cathedral in Washington. In 2000, I started the long and complex process of changing from male to female. Deedie stood by me, deciding that her life was better with me than without me. Maybe she was crazy for doing so; lots of people have generously offered her this unsolicited opinion over the years. But what she would tell you, were you to ask, is that the things that she loved in me have mostly remained the same, and that our marriage, in the end, is about a lot more than what genders we are, or were. Deirdre is far from the only spouse to find herself in this situation; each week we hear from wives and husbands going through similar experiences together. Reliable statistics on transgendered people always prove elusive, but just judging from my e-mail, it seems as if there are a whole lot more transsexuals and people who love them in New England than say, Republicans. Or Yankees fans. Ive been legally female since 2002, although the definition of what makes someone legally male or female is part of what makes this issue so unwieldy. How do we define legal gender? By chromosomes? By genitalia? By spirit? By whether one asks directions when lost? For our part, Deirdre and I remain legally married, even though were both legally female. If we had divorced last month, before Governor Baldaccis signature, I would have been allowed on the following day to marry a man only. There are states, however, that do not recognize sex changes. If I were to attempt to remarry in Ohio, for instance, I would be allowed to wed a woman only. Gender involves a lot of gray area. And efforts to legislate a binary truth upon the wide spectrum of gender have proven only how elusive sexual identity can be. The case of Jnoel Gardiner, in Kansas, provides a telling example. Ms. Gardiner, a postoperative transsexual woman, married her husband, Marshall Gardiner, in 1998. When he died in 1999, she was denied her half of his $2.5 million estate by the Kansas Supreme Court on the ground that her marriage was invalid. Thus in Kansas, any transgendered person who is anatomically female is now allowed to marry only another woman. Similar rulings have left couples in similar situations in Florida, Ohio and Texas. A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal. A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the countrys gender laws as they pertain to marriage: Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male. Legal scholars can (and have) devoted themselves to the ultimately frustrating task of defining male and female as entities fixed and unmoving. A better use of their time, however, might be to focus on accepting the elusiveness of gender and to celebrate it. Whether a marriage like mine is a same-sex marriage or some other kind is hardly the point. What matters is that my spouse and I love each other, and that our legal union has been a good thing for us, for our children and for our community. Its my hope that people who are reluctant to embrace same-sex marriage will see that it has been with us, albeit in this one unusual circumstance, for years. Can we have a future in which we are more concerned with the love a family has than with the sometimes unanswerable questions of gender and identity? As of last week, it no longer seems so unthinkable. As we say in Maine, you can get there from here.
Answer: Emily, (interesting pen name) If what your saying in your question is correct than you know the answer to your own question, and it becomes a statement rather than a question, and Y/A is not jeopardy. Furthermore, this particular loophole in the law has been brought forward here on Y/A and several other publications, countless times in the past.. To the majority of transsexual individuals it’s already a known, and by it nature is not a valid argument for same sex marriage. the basic point is that the law does not invalidate one’s marriage simply because someone changes their “sex” and once again, referencing your story you should know that we do not change our genders but rather our sexes.. with regards to the same sex marriage issues, this is literally a basic constitutional right and terminology. Many religions feel that the term marriage is a “god” given term for them to exclusively use to create a legal contract between two individuals. And by the churches definition those individuals must be defined under sanctions as male and female, bypassing the legal aspects. The churches argument deals with their own self preservation of their own perversions, and by it they are in return directly violating the fist amendment of the United States constitution. in the case of transsexual individuals, a marriage under the law is considered a union or business contract between two individuals, and under the bill of rights and constitution creating a law which invalidated such a contract would be prejudice against those individuals based upon church. Furthermore it would ridiculous to spend the time & money to single out an extremely small number of individuals who have married, effectively the same sex prior to gender affirmation surgery. Remembering that statistically speaking your dealing with maybe .0001% of the population within the United States.. Addendum: as my partner further points out, assuming that the story you’ve posted is legitimately yours, that as an “educator and author” yourself that you should already know the answers to this question… however if your not legitimately the person of whom you’ve plagiarized, please try be more creative, many legitimate transsexual individuals are very intelligent and well versed in a verity of subjects.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Supreme Court to hear historic same-sex marriage cases - The Hill

14 hours ago ... The court announced Friday that it will hear a challenge to the ... -room/news/ 271741-supreme-court-to-hear-2-historic-cases-on-gay-marriage ...

Supreme Court To Decide 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases « CBS Miami

The United States Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with same-sex marriage in March it was announced Friday. ... Supreme Court To Decide 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases. December 7, 2012 3:44 PM. View Comments. More Activity ...

Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage | Slog

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman. One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to ... 2012 at 12:45 PM. Comment by michaelp on December 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM 2. michaelp 2. I am thrilled that they took on the Windsor case.

How long will Prop8 take to get to the Supreme Court and how do you think it will be ruled?

Im hoping that Judge Walker has made a good enough case that it will make it quickly to the Supreme Court but Ive read that it might take a year or more before it gets there. Is this true? Also, how do you think the Supreme Court will rule? @Peni Breath: It can be reversed because it is a civil rights issue and had no business being voted on to begin with. @montegutdude Great answer! I think I will also read the final ruling, Ive heard its interesting.
Answer: Judge Walker's decision is 138 pages long. I've been reading it for a while now and am almost done. It's great stuff. Once you get started, it's a real fun read. Everybody should download the pdf and read this historic decision. Yes, its true that its going to be a while still before this is settled law. Perry v Schwarzenegger is first headed to the 9th District Appeals Court, but as the 9th is a notoriously liberal circuit, they're expected to uphold the ruling. That's supposed to take about a year, but I've been hearing something about it being fast-tracked....not sure what that means. Normally, it would take a year to the 9th and then another year to the Supremes....and they can take their sweet time with it. In my opinion, we won't have a Supreme Court ruling for probably about 2-3 more years on Perry. Bummer. But, no reason to frown. I think there's an excellent chance the SCOTUS will uphold Judge Walker's ruling. Judge Walker inserted 80 findings of fact into the middle of his ruling. An appeals court can start over with their conclusions of law, but they generally have to keep the findings of fact from the original decision. In this case, it will be really tough to overturn Perry with all that in the language. The defense didn't just fail to defend Prop 8. Most of the state elected officials declined to participate in the trial and admitted that it was unconstitutional!! Also, Judge Walker seems to be, in a way, speaking directly to Justice Kennedy in some of his language. Kennedy has already authored a number of pro-gay opinions, and in my opinion, will again side with the liberals on this case. We can't win without him. How do I think they'll rule? I think they'll uphold Perry v Schwarzenegger and in doing so, will invalidate all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I believe that in a few short years, same-sex marriage equality will be the law here in America. This decision is a landmark ruling for civil rights, and is HUGE for gay rights. It's the best day ever. PS: From Perry v Schwarzenegger (2010) "At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects the state's interests. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” : )
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Equal Rights for gays in the U.S. ?

What is the Defense of Marriage Act, and how does it affect the ability of same-sex couples to get married?
Answer: The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is a federal law, officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C. The law has two effects.(2) 1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. -- Unfortunately for the DOMA, the law is not on its side as the Warren Court benefited Gay Marriage with its opinion on Voting Rights. 2) The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The DOMA relied on the States Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Constitution; however, the law is flawed since, in every case, a Right established by Congress and/or the U.S. Supreme Court has always conferred upon all states said Right. Hence, the DOMA is unconstitutional. Since the Warren verdict in 1967, Gay Marriage has been explicitly allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating the DOMA. -- One should note the DOMA was passed during an election year -- As a matter of law, a Gay Marriage Demand for Righthood should be filed in Federal Court relying on the Massachusetts decision and the U.S. Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Supreme Court could NOT refuse to hear the case, once it filters through the federal courts, due to Loving v. Virginia. It also could not refuse to state the DOMA is Unconstitutional and Gay Marriage is a right in all 50 states.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Same-Sex Marriage Issue Moves Closer to Justices

The likelihood that the Supreme Court will weigh in on same-sex marriage in the coming year grew markedly on Tuesday when a federal appeals court rejected a request to review its own recent ruling throwing out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California. The decision came less than a week after a federal appeals court in Boston also - Federal appeals courts rejection of a request to review its decision to throw out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will weigh in on same-sex marriage in the coming year. Photo (M)/ - By ETHAN BRONNER

same sex marriage when was the law passed?

hello i am doing an argumentative essay in favor of same sex marriage. i need some info on when the law was passed in cali,how many states have passed it? (if you are certain on the info) any issues i should state..like stuff about christians and the bible and how they appose it? im not religious so i dont really know anything of the bible. anything else would be great~ thanks a lot.!
Answer: I don't think there have been many laws, if any, passed in favor of it - it's based on court decisions that say denying same sex marriage is unconstitutional under state constitutions. States have their own bills of rights that offer more rights than the US constitution does. currently, prop 8 is being challenged in Federal court, so then the issue will be if it is unconstitutional under the US bill of rights to deny same sex marriage. I am pretty sure that what happened is the CA state supreme court said that denying same sex marriage was unconstitutional under the CA constitution, so then with prop 8, the state contitution was amended so now same sex marriage is not allowed, but then a federal judge intervened and said that the US constitution was being violated by prop 8. Important background information: there is a state court system, where each state has a supreme court, and they decide on state law, then there is the federal system, where you have federal courts, the circuit courts of appeal (there are 10 of them) then the supreme court, which does not take many cases in a year. so your constitutional rights can vary quite a bit under case law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, unless the supreme court settles the matter with very clear language, which of course, then there are more lawsuits to further clarify - endlessly. PS Newsweek did a really good article on this issue about 2 months ago. I personally am in favor of same sex marriage, if you care. I think this is like when interracial marriage "the mongrelization of the races" was not allowed. My much older husband says that it was a HUGE issue in the 60's, people were very upset about it. My folks say the same thing, and they have always lived in states where interracial marriage wasn't banned (my uncle married my aunt, a black hispanic woman, in the 60's. but I was too little then to hear about the flack over that. I guess some relatives had a big problem with that).
Category: Marriage & Divorce

Is There A Post-Abortion Syndrome?

Early on a a windy Saturday morning in November, Rhonda Arias drove her Dodge Caravan past a Wal-Mart at the end of her block and onto the Interstate. She was beginning the 50-mile drive from her house in southwest Houston to Plane State Jail, where she is, as she puts it, an abortion-recovery counselor. To Arias, that means helping women at - Emily Bazelon article on new strategy being pursued by opponents of Roe v Wade: switching focus from suffering of fetus to that of woman and arguing that since abortion harms woman psychologically, access to it cannot be a right; notes wealth of research showing that overwhelming majority of women who have abortions feel relieved afterwards and that psychological risks posed by abortion are no greater than risks of carrying unwanted pregnancy to term; notes resistance to new strategy from opponents of abortion, who feel it undermines absolutist moral argument against abortion; discusses abortion-recovery counseling as practiced by Rhonda Arias, opponent of abortion rights who attributes troubles in her life to her abortions, as well as counseling that some abortion providers have begun to offer to women who are torn over their decisions; notes that new strategy can been seen in South Dakotas informed-consent law, now before federal appeals court, which requires physicians to give patients written state-approved information that supplies link between abortion and increased risk of suicide and that states that abortion will terminate life of whole, separate, unique, living human being; photos (L) - Emily Bazelon is a senior editor at Slate and frequently writes about the law and science. Her last feature article for the magazine was about Wendy Mogel, a psychologist who uses Jewish teachings in her practice. - By Emily Bazelon

Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases « CBS Philly

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases - ABC News

Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases. By By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press. WASHINGTON December 7, 2012 (AP). The Supreme Court ...

Inside the Times: April 11, 2009

International A CULTURE BATTLE IN SPAIN OVER A PROPOSED ABORTION LAW Since he became prime minister of Spain in 2004, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has pushed an ambitious series of reforms, prying the social fabric of the country from the centuries-old grip of the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Zapateros latest venture is into even more incendiary

Supreme Court will hear DOMA and California gay marriage cases ...

The court also agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging California's statewide ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage are optimistic about the chances the court will strike down DOMA, making all marriages ...

High court and gay marriage - This Just In - CNN.com

[Updated at 7:04 p.m. ET] The U.S. Supreme Court's announcement Friday that it will soon tackle the contentious issue of same-sex marriage is "a major event in American history, not just in Supreme Court history," CNN senior ... Fallout spans globe after apparent suicide of London nurse who was victim of "royal" prank by 2 Australian radio DJs. on.cnn.com/Rgs4OC ... Supreme Court will hear challenges to laws dealing with same-sex marriage on.cnn.com/SE1bBi ...

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases: Your view - U.S. News

If the Supreme Court decides to uphold DOMA, nullify every gay marriage in California by reinstating Proposition 8, or even declares gay marriage void in all 9 states where it has been granted, it will be an outrage, but only a ...

U.S. Marriage Act Is Unfair to Gays, Court Panel Says

A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that gay Americans are a class of people who deserve the same kinds of constitutional protections as many other victims of discrimination. The 2-to-1 ruling, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, came as the panel struck down the federal law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex - Federal appeals court rules, 2-1, in favor of striking down Defense of Marriage Act which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage; case, now considered to be leading candidate for Supreme Court review of same-sex marriage issue, was brought on behalf of widow Edith Windsor of New York City, who faced $363,053 tax bill that she would not have to pay if her same-sex marriage had been recognized. Photo (M) - By JOHN SCHWARTZ; Alex Vadukul contributed reporting.

Should Judge Sotomayor become Supreme Court Justice?

I have to do a school project where I have to debate whether Judge Sotomayor should become Supreme Court Justice. I need to know why or why not she should be on the Supreme Court.
Answer: Debates are where a person takes a stand for or against...you did not say which side you are taking. 1. There is no requirement in the Constitution to nominate a lawyer or a sitting judge of any level Court to the Supreme Court. It is, however, common practice to nominate a Circuit Court of Appeals Justice or perhaps a State Supreme Court Justice to the Supreme Court. They have heard a lot of cases and the legal written opinion is fairly well known. It is uncommon to appoint from the US District Courts, but it has happened years ago. 2. In this case, she is on the 2nd Circuit of the Court of Appeals since 1998. She has written about 380 opinions. 3. There is little doubt that she is a hard-worker, but her legal opinions tend to be so mixed...she can't see the forest for the trees is what I have read. She does not seem to be all that articulate on issues. She seems to focus on a specific argument or issue rather than considering the entire case? I really don't know - that is what I read. 4. A Catholic and of Puerto Rican heritigage by birth - that is not a big deal. That does not mean she will support Roe v. Wade or will not support it. And divorced...no idea what she will do on the same-sex marriage issue which almost has to come up to the Court soon. 5. I don't particularly like her nomination. I know she seems liberal enough in her views to appeal to Presidebt Obama and his crew. I tend to think that her past Court opinions and statements to the public make her less than the best nominee. 6. She will tend to go along with the liberals on the Court...I do not see any really great written work coming out of her why she was for or against a certain case. I tend to doubt that she will write the majority opinion or the minority opinion. She will write an opinion so filled with -- never mind -- we will never know what way that tree bends in the wind. Better yet, we get her for life or until she quits.
Category: Government

THE LISTINGS | MAY 4 - MAY 10

Selective Listings by critics of The New York Times of new and noteworthy cultural events in the New York metropolitan region this week. * denotes a highly recommended film, concert, show or exhibition. Theater Approximate running times are in parentheses. Theaters are in Manhattan unless otherwise noted. Full reviews of current shows, additional

YOUR MONEY; Same-Sex Marriage Activists Look to Law

While President Obamas support for same-sex marriage is symbolic, his words have little power to erase the long list of extra costs and legal hurdles that same-sex couples face. For a more realistic chance at change, gay couples are probably better off looking to the courts. Several cases are winding their way through the judicial system, most of - Tara Siegel Bernard Your Money column examines several court cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman; contends that cases represent the best chance to address the long list of extra costs and legal hurdles faced by same-sex couples. Photo (M) - By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD

Prop 8 for California ?

What did you vote, and why? Do you still support what you voted for? What is Prop 8? Proposition 8 was a California State ballot proposition that amended the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It overrode a decision of the California Supreme Court from earlier in the year, In re Marriage Cases, that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right by overturning the California Defense of Marriage Act. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." cookiesm... Best Answer!
Answer: I voted no, for a lot of reasons. 1, Obviously, I believe Gay people should be allowed to marry, I feel it is currently our most pressing civil rights issue. 2, Voters can't and shouldn't be allowed to overturn constitutional rights. It's a ridiculous waste of policy time for this crap to even be on the ballot. There is no way, regardless of "majority thought", that this prop will stay in effect. It violates the CA state constitution. Sources have said just today that the CA supreme court will hear the challenges to it. It won't stand, trust me. From a legal standpoint, this prop has no justification. Forget the emotive arguments, from a strictly legal viewpoint, an amendment to the constitution must come from legislatures drafting the proposition and putting it on the ballot, not a lobby group's petition with so many signatures. Second, this matter was already decided by the CA supreme court and thusly already amended the constitution. Same as someone can try, but it won't hold, to put "Vote to overturn the 1st, 2nd etc Amendment of the constitution", regardless of how many voters agree with it, these are principals that are unable to be overturned by a simple petition ballot and a majority of voters. It's the same reason why no one can try to overturn Roe v. Wade or insitutue gun control on the ballot. The constitution trumps all. Just ask DC voters. Hell, supporters of it were even trying to invalidate the marriages performed in between the sup. crt decision and election day. Nevermind ex post facto principals. It seems the drafters and supporters of this legal mockery have absolutely no respect for the Law.
Category: Elections

Some questions directed to Romney voters...?

Okay so, I just want to have an understanding as to why you are voting for Romney... and also some things that Romney has stated that he will do which make no sense. 1.Why is he planning to spend billions of dollars into the military when the countrys economy isnt even fixed yet? Dont you think a country should be internally fixed first before spending money outside the country? 2. Do you think its right that he will cut the financial assistance to kids from low-income families that want to go to college? He WILL cut government aid (grants) to many students that otherwise could not pay for college if they didnt receive that grant. Shouldnt everyone have a right to education? 3. Do you agree with his views on same-sex marriage? Why is it anyones business who gets married with who? 4. Are you okay with the fact that he makes millions of dollars a year and only gets taxed 14% while some middle income families that dont make anything close to half a million (like mine) get taxed 35%? He has talked about cutting the taxes for the rich, not so sure about the middle/low income families. 5. How would low-income families move forward when education is so expensive and government does not want to aid them? The more education you have, the better chance of getting high paying jobs (programers, lawyers, doctors, etc), so in this case, low-income families wont be able to pursue such careers if its so costly to do so. Just some questions that came to my mind:) So much negativity from some simple opinion based questions! Calm down people. Zombie88: Im not small brained, I just have different views, but I guess you dont accept them because you are close-minded. Joe: Yes I am growing up, still a teenager. And yes I understand responsibility and Im not getting any financial aid of any kind for my pre-med, but Im just speaking for those who are getting grants. The Martian: They are my questions and Im allowed to ask what I want, right? By the way, you need to improve your grammar, you cant just put quotes around every word.
Answer: 1. That's a great question. Our national debt is skyrocketing, and now is the time to DECREASE spending, not increase it. Of course there is a lot of argument as to which parts of government need to be reduced, and which are absolutely necessary. I would say that the military is more important than the entitlement programs. I'm guessing you would say the opposite. So we can agree to disagree on that - but I don't think any intelligent individual really believes that increased overall spending is a good idea right now. 2. The easy availability of government grants actually drives up the cost of education. Colleges will raise tuition as much as they possibly can without losing the students that they need. When government gives students more money, colleges can raise tuition just that much more. Honestly I think that there is a problem with how society in general views education - many jobs don't care what your degree is in, as long as you have a degree. I think that's ridiculous. But anyway, more financial assistance is not the answer. And that's not an elitist point of view - I have qualified for plenty of grants myself. I came very close to dropping out of college for a semester, because I didn't think I could afford it. But my plan was to spend a semester working full time and budgeting so that I could pay for the next semester... I'm not saying there aren't people who have it worse than me, but I do know what it means to have to work for my education. 3. You might want to look at Obama's views on same-sex marriage (he has changed his mind a few times based on what he thinks the voters want to hear. I don't think his real views on this issue are all that different from Romney's). 4. There is a lot of criticism of his economic plans, but a lot of evidence that they will work, too. Your figures aren't quite accurate, but I won't get into it here anyway. It would take a whole lesson in economics to explain why I think his tax plans have the potential to benefit the middle/low income families more than Obama's would. Also, keep in mind that according to the Supreme Court, Obama came up with the largest tax increase in American history - and it falls directly on the middle class. 5. Same answer as your second question. Anyway, those are my thoughts on it. Based on the questions that you asked, I am sure you will disagree with most of my answers just because of our ideological differences. But I just wanted to prove that there are plenty of Romney supporters who really think through those kinds of questions, and are still confident that he will be the most effective leader we can get.
Category: Elections

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage - NYTimes.com

14 hours ago ... Supreme Court to Hear Two Challenges to Gay Marriage ... enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases ... couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in ...

What are your reasons to support traditional marriage only?

Here are 5 of mine, does any one else have more. Top Five Reasons to Support Traditional Marriage Only: 1. Marriage is about affirming the ideal. And when it comes to children, science and common sense both say: Mothers and fathers both matter to children. 2. Same-Sex Marriage sends a terrible message to the next generation: alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families, children dont need a mother and a father, and marriage is about adult desires for affirmation or benefits, not about the well-being of children. 3. Its just wrong for the law to pretend that two men being intimate are the same as a husband and wife, especially when it comes to raising children. 4. Marriage belongs in the hands of the people. Four judges in Massachusetts have no business rewriting the moral rules our kids are going to live by. 5. Marriage isnt a special interest, its a common good. Every American benefits from a healthy marriage culture. All Americans pay the price in increased taxes, social disorder, and human suffering when mothers and fathers fail to get and stay married. I am interested in hearing all of your reasons. The social order was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Reynolds vs US, a polygamy case.
Answer: So why don't we have the right to get married, huh? Just because someone isn't what you people deem as normal and acceptable in society, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to show our love for each other by getting married. And who says every straight, married couple have kids? Marriage is not about children or families, it's just about love and commitment. And everyone has a right to that.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Supreme Court will hear 2 gay marriage cases - Fort Morgan Times

14 hours ago ... WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule ...

Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases

8 hours ago ... Obama: Take 2 .... stumbleupon: Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases · digg: US Works With Sudan Government Suspected Of ...

U.S. Supreme Court will hear gay marriage cases ... - Florida Today

3 hours ago ... U.S. Supreme Court will hear gay marriage cases .... Error on line 2 position 1375 : Exception thrown and not caught. 7 Al Neuharth: Hillary the ...

Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases : Roll Call ...

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would hear two same-sex marriage cases before the end of its term: one related to a California ballot proposition and another related to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Same-sex marriage cases get Supreme Court review | General ...

2 hours ago ... The Supreme Court is taking a potentially historic look at same-sex marriage by agreeing to hear two cases that challenge governments' different treatment of gay Americans. ... Act. The gay marriage cases probably will be argued in March and decisions in all the court's cases .... Page 1 2 « Previous Next » ...

Which sets a more dangerous legal precedent? (prop 8 related)?

Which of these precedents is more dangerous? 1: A majority vote being able to restrict the freedoms of a minority group. 2: The federal government overriding a majority vote to give those freedoms back. I was reading somewhere that people wanted the federal government to intervene and try to legalize gay marriage nationwide. Regardless of how you stand on Prop 8, which of these precedents is potentially more harmful to our democracy?
Answer: Clearly #1 is more dangerous, because it is the only one contrary to our long history. I just returned from a local demonstration, and as a featured speaker, I addressed exactly this topic. I spoke for about 15 minutes, but I will give readers the short version here. Here we go. In California, the legal filings before the Court are available to anyone on the California Supreme Court's web page. Go there, you won;t have to hunt for the links to the files. You will find the actual legal reasoning both for the In Re Marriage Cases from this summer, and the request for the stay of enforcement of Prop 8. By Monday at noon, the State Attorney General will be filing a response, and it will be available there too. As for the decision this summer, the court found, that in California, sexual orientation is a pivot that people have been discriminated against in the past and present, and that it is not related to the issues that were at hand, and that is it both widespread and insidious enough to require special court attention. Other similar matters are race, gender, national origin, age, religion, etc. It is really hard to disagree that gays are discriminated against, both by the general public and by the law. If you disagree with that, please stop reading until you come to your common sense. OK, glad you are still with us :) Once the Court identifies such a distinction, as is their right and obligation, and they have done many times before, then any laws that discriminate are subject to "strict scrutiny". That means the State must show compelling reason for the discrimination. That is possible of course - blind people may be part of such a group, yet the State could show compelling reason to not allow blind people to drive. In this case, there are many laws that have been passed regarding domestic partnership over the past 10 years or so. By the legislative history, it is clear that the intent was to have something as close to marriage as possible without it actually being marriage. That the laws do discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the Court found to be true. This is the case even if the laws are almost close to each other. Separate but equal is not equal - that is a well established principle of law. The state was offered the opportunity to show a compelling reason for the discrimination, and the Court found that the reasoning was not sufficiently compelling to allow the laws to stand. As a remedy, the Court ordered, as is its right and obligation under the separation of powers clauses of the State Constitution, as well as other checks and balance available to it, that the discriminatory aspects of marriage laws are null and void. That is how the case was decided - from that point of view, it is hard to argue in legal terms, in fact I have never seen it debated in legal terms and I have looked. hard. Emotional fallacies and religious claims, not based on rational thought or principles of justice, are what the anti-same sex marriage proponents fall back on, every single time. OK, that is the case from the summer. While all that was happening, Prop 8 was placed on the ballot, purportedly as an Amendment to the Constitution, containing the same exact language as the Family Code that was under consideration in the case mentioned above, and which was in fact invalidated before the initiative election could occur. The reason for an Amendment was because, it was claimed, that it would be difficult if not impossible under California law for such an amendment to be subject to review by the Courts, or for a repeal to be passed by the Legislature. So we married about 18,000 couples between the court's ruling and the election, then we voted. You know the results of the election. The next day, there were 3 lawsuits filed in the same State Supreme Court, seeking an immediate stay, and then a hearing on the validity of the measure on the ballot. All 3 made essentially the same argument: That under the Constitution, and during our long history, Courts have exercised their right and obligation to protect minorities from majorities, under our oldest and one of our most important rights: Equal Protection. Equal Protection dates from at least the year 1215, from the original Magna Carta, and possibly earlier. You can read and confirm that on wikipedia and the sources it links to. From the Magna Carta, the history of Equal Protection goes in a straight line to the US Constitution, and then to the California Constitution. This is nothing new, and judges acting independently to assure equal protection for all is only wrong to Prop 8 proponents because it is not working out for them. Judges were not activists in the summer case, and they are not being asked to be activist now - simply to do what they have a long documented history of. The substance of the case before the Court now is that Prop 8 was not an amendment but a revision. What are the differences? In common parlance, not much, but in legal parlance, a lot. An amendment makes limited revisions to a specific matter. A revision changes fundamental underlying principles. Under the CA Constitution, amendments can be made by ballot initiative, but revisions must be passed by supermajority of both houses of the Legislature, and then passed by voter ballot. So, the claim now before the Court is that Prop 8 is not an amendment but a revision. How so? Were Prop 8 to take effect, it would specifically take away the right and obligation of the Court to protect minorities under the Equal Protection clause, as it did this summer and many times since California has been a state. Not taken away in all cases of course, but in the case of marriage and sexual orientation. This would be simply unprecedented. to cripple an independent judiciary in that way. It could happen, but that is clearly contrary to the existing and longstanding principles of our society. That means it can only be done by revision. You asked about danger. This is extremely dangerous, as I told the assembled crowd today. It means that no rights, no consistent way of organizing the government, no sense of permanent separation of powers or checks and balances could be relied on beyond the next election cycle. An initiative, to be voted on and passed by 50% +1 would be able to change anything anytime. Our founding fathers recognized this possibility - they knew that these types of revisions to principles might be necessary some day, but that they should not be subject to the whims of the day, but rather subject to extremely careful and persuasive deliberations by the representatives of the people. You can read this in James Madison's own words in the notes he kept during the Constitutional convention, it is available on line for free. California adopted that principle as well for fundamental principle revisions of its Constitution. It is the Court's responsibility to see that through. Prop 8 proponents can pass a revision by starting in the Legislature if they so desire, but not by a mislabeled initiative, that is the basis of the suits filed this past week. So far there has not been a response from the Respondents, in particular the State Attorney who represents the State in such matters. The Court has asked for that response to be filed by noon Monday. I wait with baited breath to see what the argument will be. Other then claiming the precedents described are false or misinterpreted, I don't see what else there could be. I am not a lawyer, so I might be missing something, but I have been researching legal academic professor blogs, and I have not been able to find anyone positing a possible defense either. So we will see. But this is all VERY dangerous stuff indeed. As for making is a Federal issue, it will probably end up there some day, from some state. But for strategic reasons specific to each side, both sides are working hard to keep it at the state level for now. None of the arguments before the Court in any of the pending suits relies on Federal claims at all. Until and unless US Constitutional issues are raised, then US Courts have no jurisdiction. But once they are raised, there is jurisdiction, and they US Courts also have a long history of expanding marriage rights, not contracting them, regardless of popular opinion at the time. It was only 1968 when the US Courts overturned ant-interracial state marriage laws. A few were undone right before that because the handwriting was on the wall. But well into the 1960s, 49 states had such laws on the books. The only exception, of course, was California, and that ruling was 40 years to the day of this summer's rulings. The arguments in favor of banning interracial marriages was essentially the same as we have now for same sex marriage religious fervor and the "ick factor" hiding a fundamental bigotry founded in a profound misunderstanding of our society's core principles, some listed above and some not. Today, you have to work really hard to find people who think any of that was a good idea, times have changed, as they always do. Keep in mind that this was so recently, that our President-elect's parents could not have married each other in 49 states when they got married and when he was born. Bottom line, what is dangerous is the lack of education regarding our basic principles of society that people even think for a second that a ballot issue is a better way to do anything best reserved to the Judicial branch.
Category: Law & Ethics

G.O.P. Field Stoking Anger At U.S. Courts

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidates are issuing biting and sustained attacks on the federal courts and the role they play in American life, reflecting and stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and - Republican presidential candidates issue attacks on federal courts and role they play in American life, stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary; focus their anger at court rulings on social matters like abortion, same-sex marriage and role of religion in public life, issues that hold potential to fire up the partys base and to provide crucial support in the primaries. Photos (M) - By ADAM LIPTAK and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Is there any CONSTITUTIONAL Agreement against Same sex Marriage?

Ive heard all the RELIGIOUS arguments but have yet to heard one CONSTITUTIONAL argument against same sex marriage. Isnt The US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Under our constitution we are legally required to provide same sex marriage under the ruling against Separate but Equal. In fact if you think about it, the only time we deny rights is when dealing with criminals who break the law, and even in that case a Murderer, rapist, child molester, terrorist, etc have more rights than a law abiding tax paying gay/lesbian couple... How so? A rapist , murderer, child molester, etc can still get married while a gay couple cannot. So unless you outlaw gay behavior, arent we CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED to provide equal rights? Is there a Constitutional argument against Same sex marriage? (Im not talking Religious. Strictly talking about the Supreme law of the Land-- the US Constitution.) The Question is supposed to be "Is there any CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT against Same sex Marriage?" Sorry for any confusion. I dont get why its even a STATE LEVEL issue. It should be a FEDERAL LEVEL issue becuase states cant individually deny civil rights according to multiple Supreme Court Rulings. Example: A state cant vote to deny Interracial marriage just becuase they vote that way becuase its protected at a Federal level.
Answer: Right now it is a state issue. If a Constitutional argument was desirable to either side (either 'for' or 'against' gay marriage) then a constitutional amendment would be needed most likely. Another possibility would be for the Supreme Court to find a Roe v. Wade-style 'right to privacy' that they construed as granting gay couples the right to marry and barring states from preventing gay marriages. A Due Process/Equal Protection argument under the 14th amendment could also be put forward, though currently sexual orientation jurisprudence is limited in that area. Edit: Those opposed to gay marriage could argue that the 10th amendment bars the federal government (that is, Congress) from legislating on the issue (federalism), which also reinforces the need for a full-blown constitutional amendment if any change is to made in this area. Please note that I am not taking a side for or against gay marriage but am simply answering your question. Edit 2 (response to your additional question): The Supreme Court provides 5th and 14th amendment protections (see above) to certain specific categories of state action. In other words, the states have a right to legislate generally, unless that legislation would violate specific protections found in the Constitution or in cases construing the Constitution. Race (which you mentioned) is a category that gets the highest level of scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") from the Court when states pass legislation on it. Other categories get less protection by the Court (for example, gender legislation gets "Intermediate Scrutiny"). The lowest level is "Rational Basis" scrutiny which means that most legislation simply has to have a rational basis to pass judicial scrutiny. I am guessing that marriage and sexual orientation legislation currently falls into this lowest level of protection. This is not to say a future Court ruling could not provide Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny levels of protection going forward. It's just that right now it does not. Sorry for the long-winded answer.
Category: Marriage & Divorce

LGBT: THIS BREAKS MY HEART...?

PLEASE LOG ON TO: couragecamapign.com/Divorce & add your name now!!! "Fidelity": Watch the video and join our letter to the state Supreme Court, signed by over 300,000 people Tell the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starrs case, and let loving, committed couples marry. DEADLINE EXTENDED: March 2 "Fidelity" used with permission from Regina Spektor and EMI Records. We, the undersigned, share President Barack Obamas view that for too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. Its time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect." Yet, on December 19, 2008, Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and seeking to nullify the marriages of 18,000 devoted same-sex couples solemnized before Prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, with a decision expected within 90 days. We, the undersigned, ask that the Court enforce the equality promised to each of us by our constitution and invalidate Prop 8. So doing will protect all loving, committed couples in California -- including the 18,000 who said "I do" last year -- and prevent the initiative process from being a tool for stripping vulnerable minorities of precious constitutional rights. As Americans who believe in the rule of law and fundamental civil rights, we know that Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Funds shameful attempt to nullify equal protection and all these bonded unions will be condemned in the eyes of history. We know that, ultimately, love will prevail, no matter how hard they try to fight it. 303,893 people have signed this letter*. NEW GOAL: 350,000 signers by March 2. Please add your name now! couragecampaign.com/Divorce Please answer to let me know what you think of the video and that you added your name....THANKS!
Answer: didnt sign my name but nice video
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

#TopStories The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases via The Atlantic http://t.co/u6XJXHSy
From: MinutePost - Source: twitterfeed

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic http://t.co/xnna3hi3 #TopStories #news
From: newgooglenews - Source: NewGoogleNews

#newspaper #obama The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic: The AtlanticT... http://t.co/91pZwjsv #news #usa
From: Mo7medEzat - Source: twitterfeed

#Latest #News The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic: The AtlanticThe Supre... http://t.co/5xS6OQwG #BNews
From: BejahNEWS - Source: twitterfeed

#NigerianDailyNews The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases – The Atlantic: The Atlant... http://t.co/SWcsLKNJ #World #News
From: NG_DailyNews - Source: twitterfeed

News247 The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases – The Atlantic: The AtlanticThe Supreme Court... http://t.co/3LOE2cmK #NNC
From: NaijaNewsCo - Source: twitterfeed

Redding News The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic: The AtlanticThe Supreme Court... http://t.co/ley8YXs9
From: ReddingNews - Source: twitterfeed

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic http://t.co/jV65dF6Q
From: MinnesotaSiren - Source: Google

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic http://t.co/iX8Qxl1G
From: Oshilo - Source: Google

The Atlantic The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases The Atlantic Garrett Epps… http://t.co/284uaA8d
From: pixeldome - Source: Google

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic http://t.co/eP2o4Wwh #topstories
From: NewsjustForYou - Source: Google

The Atlantic The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases The Atlantic Garrett Epps - Garrett Epps, a…
From: ellynews - Source: Google

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic: The Atlantic The… http://t.co/lRM6Ys05
From: arcagility - Source: Google

The Supreme Court Will Hear 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases - The Atlantic http://t.co/dFsCk8rJ
From: autoinsuranceus - Source: twitterfeed

Supreme Court to hear 2 historic cases on same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hea... http://t.co/Ph0lIvtA
From: asexystud2 - Source: twitterfeed