Comments for: Supreme Court to review gay marriage for first time

Posted Dec. 07, 2012, at 5:04 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage for the first time, agreeing to rule on a California ballot measure banning the practice and a federal law defining marriage as solely an opposite-sex union. The cases, which the court will decide by June, loom as …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • This is great news but this comment section is about to get interesting.

    12/5/12

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx

    Religion Big Factor for Americans Against Same-Sex Marriage

    Overall, 53% favor legalized same-sex marriage, tying previous record high

    PRINCETON, NJ — Americans who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, 46% of the adult population, are most likely to explain their position on the basis of religious beliefs and/or interpretation of biblical passages dealing with same-sex relations.

    • Better AndBetter

      If religion is all they have, it’s good news.

      • Anonymous

        I would guess that if the Supreme Court tosses these arguments it will be on the basis of tax laws and financial breaks rather than on religion.

        Many of the 1400 tax breaks given to married couples were provided to encourage population growth. The class of married men and women in fact do what the breaks specify. Men and men, and women and women can not do what the tax breaks encourage, so it is possible that the new class of “marrieds” does not deserve them?

        Equality would be better served if the States and Feds got out of the marriage business all together. Let churches, or individuals set up their own “bonding rituals” and tax the entire population as single people.

        That would be fair, that would be just, so I’m not holding my hand on my butt waiting for it to happen.

        • Do you know anyone who had children because of tax breaks?

        • Better AndBetter

          It’s not just taxes… by any stretch. There are over 1,100 protections and benefits under the federal government for married couples.

          You cannot use the kid argument if you’re going to continue to allow sterile heterosexual couples marry…After all, according to your version of things, they do not deserve marriage… But there is no legal requirement for kids in any marriage law anywhere.

          I do agree with your sentiment, but I don’t see any movement to abolish state or federal recognition of marriage, and I don’t think most of the citizenry will go for it.

  • Anonymous

    Multiple courts in three circuits all determined that there is no basis for these laws and that they were implemented simply to hinder or harm gays and lesbians. It’s a slam-dunk. Prop. 8 and DOMA will both be gone next year by June when the SJC gives its decision.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      I hope so.

    • maineiac123

      Don’t count on it. There are still 5 right-wingers on this court that I think far too often give opinions based on their moral principles rather than the constitution.

      • Anonymous

        Like thevACA decision?

      • Anonymous

        The Obamacare decision gave me a lot of hope actually. I think Roberts has an ego and he doesn’t want to have the legacy of having a radical court that ignores obvious precedent — that’s where the legacy was going after wildly unpopular decisions like Citizens United. The 4 ballot wins for equality in various states across the country this past election are helpful too because I think it gives proof that this is where the country is going.

        • maineiac123

          I wish i could say the ACA decision left me with hope but I do hope you are right. I stll wonder though if they’ll find a way out and simply say there is no standing in both cases. If they hold true to form in the California case that is the only decision they can make.

        • Anonymous

          The “States across the Country” of which you speak were the low-hanging fruit.

          When Gay marriage gets a win in Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, or even Georgia, I’ll admit that the winds have turned,

          • Anonymous

            If you look at polls, whether it be Maine or Kansas, all of them indicate a turn in acceptance. Maybe Kansas will take longer than Maine did, but it will eventually get there. Popular opinion is irrelevant to the court decision anyway, but those 4 wins are a nudge, like I said. And your low-hanging fuit comment is pure nonsense. No place in the world has voted to legalize gay marriage before. We as the state of Maine were the first to do that and it wasn’t an easy win.

            And just a reminder, the bans on interracial marriage couldn’t have been lifted by popular vote in those southern states when the Court ruled.

    • Anonymous

      What is the SJC? Do you mean the Supreme Court? Typical liberal, dont even know what you are talking about.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Do you have a legal argument against gay marriage?

        • Anonymous

          Pile on the rabbit!

          Downeaster2012 had a good point. He educated (or attempted to educate) another poster.

          Your post smacks of vendetta.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It was a legitimate question… and his was simply an insult.

      • Anonymous

        Supreme Judicial Court.

        • Anonymous

          Supreme Judicial Court is in Maine, not in DC. If you want to seem like you know what you are talking about why not get the court right.

          • Anonymous

            Is the US Supreme Court not a Judicial court? Why do they have Justices then?

          • Anonymous

            Why dont you use this website and look up with the supreme court abbreviation is. http://www.google.com

          • Anonymous

            Why don’t you answer my questions? LOL

  • maineiac123

    I would not be surprised the the California case was decided on the issue of standing thereby getting SOTUS off the hook. Even though the California Supreme Court said the plaintiffs had standing SCOTUS could easily say there is none for federal purposes.

    There is also the possibility that there is a standing problem with DOMA as well. Since the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws, I’m not so sure that a legislative panel also has that right. Should be interesting.

    As far as DOMA, other than the standing issue, is concerned, I’m actually surprised they took the case. If Thomas and Scalia are true to form then they would have to strike down DOMA because it infringes upon state’s right. The states and not the federal government have had control of marriage laws since the inception of our country. I suspect however that Scalia’s and Thoma’s animosity towards the GLBT community may override their usual “originial intent” philosophies.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Most things I’ve read from legal analysts put Section III of DOMA as a more clear cut case than Prop 8. Prop 8 can be kept, yet Section III killed, leaving the rest of DOMA in place. That leaves states’ views intact. I’m hopeful for both Prop 8 being tossed as well as DOMA.

      It will be interesting.

      • maineiac123

        I don’t think there really is any question that the Feds have a right to not force states to accept laws from other states. I don’t like that part of DOMA but it most likely is constitutional. But part of the question really will be whether the Court will get past the standing issue. I find that to be more interesting.

        • Anonymous

          Actually under the Interstate Commerce clause of the US Constitution the Feds DO have a right to force States to accept the laws of other States. That is why it is called “A Union” Wisconsin has no inspection mandate for passenger vehicles, but Wisconsin drivers can operate their cars in States which do require inspections, because the Feds say that a car duly licensed in one State has the right to travel in all States. This even though the individual States have the exclusive rights to license vehicles.

          • maineiac123

            The only reason that is true with licensing is because of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The court would be very hard pressed to say that marriage, something the state has always controlled, falls under that act. The Court simply will not do that and since the Constitution provides that States do NOT have to follow each other, then the court won’t force them to.

  • Anonymous

    It is about time the Supreme Court weighed in on this issue. The question is, are all Americans equal? I hope they have the intestinal fortitude to say yes.

    • maineiac123

      They won’t. They’ll find a way around it until it becomes legal in many more states. That will happen as states start to overturn some of their laws and repeal their constitutional prohibition against SSM. That will happen.

      • Anonymous

        Have you ever been to Oklahoma? Montana? Wyoming? Idaho? Mississippi? Alabama? Utah? Kansas? Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alaska. Check the popularity of gay marriage out there and you will find some of these States have rates of opposition in access of 85%

        Gay marriage may be forced on these people (how democratic is that?) but those States will not be safe places for “alternative” lifestyles for at least 100 years. Sort of like when the slaves were “freed” in 1865, but didn’t get their “rights” until Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965.

        • I’m from Kansas originally and am thankful every day my parents moved us to Maine when I was still young. Not just for this reason of course.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Um… there are two Civil Rights Acts. One in 1964 and one in 1968.

          And they don’t just cover race. They cover religion, national origin, and a host of other protected classes.

          I do have to admit that I don’t foresee SCOTUS striking all laws against gay marriage in the nation (but then again, I was wrong on the referendum in November), but I do consider nixing Section III of DOMA to be the nail in the coffin for anti-gay marriage laws over time… after all, state recognition of marriage offers nowhere near the protections and benefits that federal recognition offers.

          So, go to a state that allows it that will wed out of state couples, and go home with federal recognition. State law becomes toothless at that point.

        • Anonymous

          And if you put slavery to a popular vote today in Southern states, that would likely pass too. Does that make it right? Civil rights are not a matter that should be left up to what is popular.

        • notateapartier

          Some of those same states were pretty unhappy when schools were integrated, and when black people could use the same bathrooms and swimming pools as white people. This doesn’t mean that they should have had a say in the matter. The civil rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote. Thankfully, most people in Maine are for equality.

          • maineiac123

            “The civil rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote.” True but we continue to do that in this country until it becomes obvious to the Supreme Court that that is the direction the country is moving. Only then does the court seem to be willing to take on those issues and say they are protected. It’s a shame too because so many will lose out in the mean time. So much of society will lose because of this bigotry.

        • maineiac123

          Let’s see you named 14 out of 50 states. Last I saw that isn’t even close to a majority. Will some states continue to oppose same-sex marriage? Of course they will, but many more states will follow New England and start to legalize it. That is when SCOTUS will step in and say SSM is a fundamental right. It won’t even have to be a majority of states simply a showing that that is the direction states are moving. And move they will.

    • Anonymous

      You really believe that all Americans (I’m assuming you mean US citizens) will be treated equally after gay marriage is allowed by the court?

      When Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn N.Y. provides the same Education as Sidwell Friends School Where Barak’s offspring go, THEN I’ll believe our country is working toward true equality.

      Gay marriage is not about “equality” it is about getting out of the high-tax single column.

      Everything in the USA is about money.

      • Anonymous

        That’s the only reason people get married in this country? That’s a pretty cynical belief you hold.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Do you really think that it’s all about taxes? Me and my partner make enough money that we’d be penalized for filing jointly… you are aware of this? It’s called the “marriage penalty”…

        Is marriage really all about taxation to you?

  • Anonymous

    States have been compelled in the past to uniformly recognize marriages by various classes of people. Most recently in the 1960s state laws forbiding marriages of mixed race couples were overturned. States do not have the authority to infringe fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has on 14 occasions ruled marriage a fundamental right.

    • Mórrígan

      The last occasion the Supreme Court weighed in on the matter of marriage being a fundamental right, homosexuality was formally identified and treated as a mental illness. This was true until the DSM revision in the mid-70’s. The Supreme Court had no intention for the decision to have any bearing on marriage between two or more men or between two or more women or any other combination.

      Since that 1967 decision, there have also been several state decisions interpreting Loving v. Virginia as being operative only for man – woman unions. As recently as 2006, the highest court in New York ruled there was no constitutional right to same sex marriage. (See Hernandez v. Robles.)
      This debate is complex and multi-dimensional.
      Believing you fully understand it is delusional.

      • Anonymous

        And yet you think you understand it?

        The logical conclusion of all legal arguments doesn’t allow for discrimination based upon homosexuality. Men and women are considered “similarly situated”, so it’s not constitutional to discriminate against them or consider them to not be interchangeable. Moral disapproval alone is not and never can be the basis for laws. Relations between consenting adults are constitutional. The right to marry is a fundamental right. You cannot hold similarly situated individuals to different standards. Etc.

        So, exactly, what is there left? You can’t argue that gays can’t reproduce because that isn’t a requirement for heterosexuals to marry. You can’t say that men and women aren’t equal, so a man/man marriage should be just as fundamental as a man/woman marriage.

        Of course the issue is complex, but the precedent is all there and that’s why multiple courts and multiple circuits have all come to the same conclusions.

        • Mórrígan

          I don’t claim any extraordinary understanding of the issue. I just believe it deserves more thoughtful discussion than simple bumper sticker slogans or the mindless parroting of trolls. That is why we have become such a polarized society.

          While I applaud the care and attention you put into your reply, it puzzles me why the justices on New York’s highest court overlooked your line of reasoning. I guess they just were not as smart as you.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure which case you’re talking about when you say NY’s highest court? But any way, New York’s Supreme Court only looks at New York’s laws and Constitution. What I spoke about in my reply are the laws and precedent of the US Constitution. State and federal courts look at different sets of precedent when coming to their decisions.

          • Mórrígan

            The case was Hernandez v. Robles. The highest court in NY is the Court of Appeals. Yes, it was a state issue, but state courts have jurisdiction to declare something not in conformance with the US Constitution. It is how California’s Prop 8 case got before the SCOTUS.

            Here is a link to Hernandez v. Robles:

            http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm

            Noteworthy statements from the decision included: “Plaintiffs’ reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the
            proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental “right to
            marry the spouse of one’s choice” outside the male/female construct is
            misplaced.” and (despite the homosexual claim to the contrary) ” Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one
            man union, it is evident
            from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as
            fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.”
            As I said before, this issue is more complex than just a question of civil rights. It has also suffered from far too much bumper sticker sloganeering and other BS from both sides. People deserve to have comments here based on fact, as much as fact is available.

          • Anonymous

            That’s an awful argument though and has failed in every other decision. You’re not required to procreate to be wed — that has never been a requisite so it isn’t right to hold gay people to a different standard.

            I don’t really know what ou’re talking about sloganeering and bumper sticker stuff? It is about equality and civil rights. Just because you can condense something large into a few words, that doesn’t somehow make the statement invalid.

  • Jazz11

    Not so fast. The SCOTUS will look at this case as states rights. In doing so they will allow Gay marriages to stand and also allow federal benefits to those married. BUT… It will not cover those states that do not allow gays to be married. Just Sayin.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Just like they looked at states’ rights in the ACA case, Loving v. Virginia, and Lawrence v. Texas?

Similar Articles