Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay-rights advocates begin media blitz’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 4 2009 2:07 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Stalwart Sentinel

here is 3/4

Lewis ruled same-sex marriage bans were constitutional in NJ. Wrong.
Keycite Some negative history but not overruled.
Shepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment
Holding The high court affirmed the intermediate appellate court's ruling that New Jersey's marriage laws did not contravene N.J. Const. art. I, para. 1's substantive due process guarantee, but reversed its ruling that the laws did not violate the equal protection guarantee. Within 180 days, the legislature had to either amend the marriage statutes or enact a statutory structure that afforded committed same-sex couples the same rights of married couples.
IE barring same sex couples the rights of married couples violated the equal protections guarantee. Where have we heard that statement before? Hmmm.

Stalwart Sentinel

and 4/4

Conaway upheld state law defining marriage between one man and one woman in MD.

Keycite Some negative history but not overruled
Shepardization Caution: Possible negative treatment

Conaway is probably your best bet but still doesnt address same sex marriage as a fundamental right, but rather argues it based on a MD statute. As noted in the case was subject to rational review. See the rational review situation? That is because it is being tested against a statute, not as a fundamental right which requires your favorite subject to dodge: strict scrutiny.

Stalwart Sentinel

@ RE: SS | 9:38 a.m.

re: 14th amendment "(t)he 14th Amendment is not used in State Courts because they rely on State law."

States and municipalities have to make laws that comply w/ the 14th amendment b/c it applies to them. Do i really have to teach you about checks, balances, sovereignty? your coveted baker explores the 14th amendment in full. sorry, yet again. but....

this is too rich! i just pulled up wikipedia's 'synopsis' of baker v nelson. is that where you are getting your info?! this is hilarious! you are citing a distinguished case by using its run down from wikipedia!!! that is surely reputable. forget the 'rearview' mirror analogy, you're driving blindfolded!

for more kicks and giggles: when baker was decided (1971) marriage was not considered a 'fundamental right' but now is per zablocki v redhail, et al (1978). they never addressed the same thing you refuse to address. do i have to remind you what that is?



Anonymous

I live in California. I have never hear of a gay enemies list. I googled looking for a copy of the gay agenda and never found a copy. What the name of Utah's Limbaugh want a be? Has Glen been spreading lies again? I think gays realize time is on their side. There will be gay marriage.

I'm discussed this with gays. That articulated they want equal treatment under the law. I have never had a gay try to convert me.

Stalwart Sentinel

you say "a dismissal for want of federal question constitutes a decision on the merits and is binding on lower federal courts until instructed otherwise."

binding on lack of jurisdiction!

you cite it yourself right below: "branded a question as unsubstantial" & "without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction."

Are you deliberately trying to undermine your own argument?

DOMA? this gets better and better! when you lose one argument, jump ship and get on another. well, i'm getting into your mindset (by using your precious wikipedia) and it seems all roads lead to rome - rome being fundamental rights/strict scrutiny. SCOTUS has denied cert for all DOMA challenges. why? b/c it has been a conservative court the entire time DOMA has been in place and they know the outcome if there were to address it. is that not obvious? the SCOTUS has shirked numerous tough decisions in the past and continue to do so now, any revision of the history of the SCOTUS reveals that.

again, i reiterate the question: courts are gaining momentum in moving towards upholding gay marriage as constitutionally protected. Do you disagree with that?


Carl

I've never met a gay person I didn't like, and I've never met a Mormon that I did!

Taladega

Don't you just hate it when someone discovers you are a phony pretending to be smart by using Wikipedia?!

Hilarious!

Good job SS!

al

Sodomy is not even related to the civil rights movement. It's more related to bleeding hemorrhoids.
Stop insulting Blacks and stop peddling red herrings.

Anonymous

al,

That's not bigoted hate speech at all, is it! I suppose if the monitors weren't bigoted, hateful Mormons, they would have refused your comment.

Go figure.

Re; Carl

What? You didn't like Steve Young?

Savant

I don't know why this story is even news.

Of course most LDS support gays having basic rights.

And most LDS are opposed to gay marriage (as is the rest of the country). These two facts haven't changed and I doubt they ever will.

RE: SS

First, if the 14th Amendment applies, why don't homosexuals bring their claims in federal court? Answer: Because the Supreme Court has said that this is not a Federal issue so the 14th does not apply. If the 14th applied, then it would be a federal issue in federal courts. If something is in the Constitution, that makes it a federal issue and means that federal courts have the power to resolve the case. See Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc.

Second, the Supreme Court said that marriage was a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Baker case was decided a few years after this, by a "liberal court."

Third, no the tide is not on your side of the issue. 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 14 others have statutes proclaiming the same. Only 3 State Supreme Courts, in cases decided by a single vote, have held that same-sex marriage is lawful. And one of those (California) was overturned within a few months by the people.

I Smell a Rat

I find it curious that "Stalwart Sentinal" has posted so many times on this board and yet not one comment made by John Pack Lambert.

Re: Rat

You could be onto something. That or JPL is on vacation?

SLCSKP

RE: SS@6:49pm

If you take a slightly longer view, you will likely see a different picture. As I recall, the DOMA and all those states' constitutional amendments were the result of mass hysteria whipped up over the last decade by anti-gay evangelicals, looking for red meat to motivate their base. As older voters age and the next (much more tolerant, overall) generation takes over, I think we'll see those states start to undo those straight-only marriage laws.

I can't help wondering if the real slippery slope that the religious population fears is that gay marriage will happen in a few places, and the rest of the country will see it for what it is: no big deal. Straight couples are still getting married, and divorced, at the same rates as before. Marriage is no worse off.

Same with allowing gay couples to adopt. It's happening in a number of states already, and we who live in those states can see what the studies have already proved: gay parents are no worse, or better, than straight parents.

I think that's what scares the religious right: that they'll be proved wrong.

RE: SLCSKP

It may very well be that one day the people decide to define marriage differently than they do now. However, that is much different than a court mandating such a thing on the people. The judicial branch interprets the law, it doesn't make it up.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:20 a.m.

Should've had your morning coffee before this entry.
Your argument has now devolved into a sort of "O.K. gay marriage bans are legal, but since not everyone likes them, that's only an annoying technicality" line of reasoning. I guess that would explain why you have failed to advance a case in your favor, you thought we were arguing not about the law, just about opinion this whole time. It must be terribly frustrating for you that Baker (et al) don't comport to your worldview and that of gays rights activists, but you have yet to address the fact that gay marriage bans are legal and constitutional. Sorry.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 5:27 a.m.

Ah yes, the rearview mirror analogy. It's so odd, I could've sworn I remember hearing something about stare decisis. Must've just been my imagination because it's not something you seem terribly familiar with either.

How intriguing...some courts have used strict scrutiny, others have not. What was that about marriage being a fundamental right? So let me see, marriage isn't a fundamental right but it's becoming one, is that it? Pray tell.

CT and MA are now judicial bellwethers? Now you've fully undermined your credibility. I'll give you an opportunity to revise your statement lest others think you actually meant that.

Stalwart Sentinel 5:29 a.m.

You seem surprised that you would be expected to cite cases in your favor. I thought that would be old hat for someone so well versed and respected in the legal system. I didn't realize your argument had reached such a level of desperation that you would resort to asking me to provide cases for you to cite in your favor.

Before doing so, you should consider that you have still failed to refute that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Perhaps that would be a good place to start before you resume beating the 14th amendment and strict scrutiny horses to death.

Stalwart Sentinel 5:39 a.m.

You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of Stalwart Sentinel. Shall I ask one more time, where were the peaceful protests every day this week? Or would you care to revise your earlier statement that "peaceful protests occur every single day of every week." (See 5:25 p.m. Feb. 4, 2009. I'm sure it's difficult for you to keep your positions straight so I thought I'd help remind you of them.) You would be well advised to focus on the news (any news, ADHD or otherwise) before you continue to undermine your dilapidated argument regarding the domestic terrorists being the "lowest common denominator." Which do you prefer "sorry" or "you lose"?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments