Supreme Court Extends Marriage Equality

[+paradox]

So I still am waiting for everyone's approval of government backed incest marriage and marrying your pets. But something tells me it will just be excuses.

way to try to change the subject, it's what you're best at instead of confronting the subject at hand and ignore people's posts...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So no answer then. And then of course when the sharia people push there agenda they are going to say it is not fair I can't marry little children. No end to government approved and tax funded marriage.

 

[+paradox]

No, because the gays are for two consenting adults allowed to be married...

How are gays supporting marrying children and animals/trees?

See, liberty, you don't make sense and you're trying to change the subject...

And you also don't defend what you say when your posts get challenged and/or destroyed, maybe because you can't and that's why you try to change the subject with more nonsense...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

No, because the gays are for two consenting adults allowed to be married...

How are gays supporting marrying children and animals/trees?

See, liberty, you don't make sense and you're trying to change the subject...

And you also don't defend what you say when your posts get challenged and/or destroyed, maybe because you can't and that's why you try to change the subject with more nonsense...

So are two consenting brother and sister. So are two consenting cousins, uncles or any close relative.

And you "hater" who are you to decide what the definition of what love is between peoples pets or a child. Because that's what happening now that the barn door is open.

I never said they are supporting such things. They are the beginning of no end to giving out tax dollars other people earned. There will be no end now.

I make sense, answer the questions and just throw in subject matter that is very relative the subject. You just don't like the answers.

Please stop destroying my posts. LOL! LOL!

 

[+paradox]

because this is about two consenting adult lovers that aren't relatives nor animals/trees...

but, you're trying to make it out to be something that it's not by bringing up other crap into it to try to spread your political agenda...

this thread is not about incest, people marrying animals or trees, so stop trying to change the subject...

and you're right, your posts does get manhandled, thanks for noticing...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

because this is about two consenting adult lovers that aren't relatives nor animals/trees...

but, you're trying to make it out to be something that it's not by bringing up other crap into it to try to spread your political agenda...

this thread is not about incest, people marrying animals or trees, so stop trying to change the subject...

and you're right, your posts does get manhandled, thanks for noticing...

Not changing the subject just showing what it leads to when marriage is defind by government. Which means marriage can be anything when controlled by government and our tax dollars.

So since no one is really answering the question that means we have h word for a bunch of people that believe in one set of standards for marriage but can't give it to others who are really going outside the box.

if it makes you happy you just keep telling yourself that.

 

[Webster]

...and Missouri makes 33!

A Missouri state judge ruled Wednesday that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ordering the St. Louis Recorder of Deeds to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison, an appointee of Gov. Jay Nixon (D), found that “any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes, is legally entitled to a marriage license.” Jeff Rainford, Chief of Status for St. Louis, indicated on Twitter that the city “will do so immediately.”

In his opinion, Burlison rejected the state’s interest in a uniform definition of marriage, explaining that a definition could be established that “does not disadvantage people on the basis of sexual orientation.” He also dismissed the argument that same-sex marriage is somehow different than marriage, because “fundamental rights are not dependent on the person seeking to exercise the right.”

This is the second ruling against Missouri’s ban in as many months. Last month, a Kansas City judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states. Burlison’s ruling takes it a step farther, allowing couples to begin marrying within the state immediately.

Attorney General Chris Koster (D) supports marriage equality, but has been defending Missouri’s ban, which he believes is his legal responsibility. He did not appeal the out-of-state recognition decisions, and said Wednesday that “Missouri’s future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion.” Some proponents believe, however, he may appeal this ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Missouri becomes the 33rd marriage equality state, beating out Kansas, where a federal judge overturned the state’s ban Tuesday but stayed the ruling for a week.(Think Progress)

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Gay Marriage Explained by Molotov Mitchell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7uFmp2-E7g&feature=player_detailpage


And the left speaks of tolerance and compromise at nauseum. Where is the compromise and tolerance now. The population is split on the topic and anger and intolerance is growing on both sides and will only continue. I guess the left likes the coming across the aisle term when they don't.

 1 man, 1 vote: Tyranny
Molotov Mitchell decries practice of 'radical judges' overturning voters' will.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/1-man-1-vote-tyranny/

 

[+paradox]

@liberty, all of that crap is a bunch of bs...

the "right" is intolerant of pretty much everything and you have the nerve to say that others are intolerant?

that makes me laugh and then puke...

 

[Ellie1142545]

Though it's not showing on the map you have posted....You can add Nebraska to it....

ACLU has just filed a suit in the State Supreme Court, stating that Nebraska Law against same sex marriage is unconstitutional.....

And now, Nebraska is now in limbo.....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

@liberty, all of that crap is a bunch of bs...

the "right" is intolerant of pretty much everything and you have the nerve to say that others are intolerant?

that makes me laugh and then puke...

Rightttttttt! LOL!

So that would be a no on tolerance and "coming together for compromise" then from the left.

 

[+paradox]

not saying the left ain't intolerant, but you're trying to make it seem like one side is better than the other side, in with a lot of people do in many issues or complaints, but each side that blames the other side for anything and everything forgets what their own side did and is doing...

humans are intolerant...

just keep dividing and crumble like you always do... (;

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

not saying the left ain't intolerant, but you're trying to make it seem like one side is better than the other side, in with a lot of people do in many issues or complaints, but each side that blames the other side for anything and everything forgets what their own side did and is doing...

humans are intolerant...

just keep dividing and crumble like you always do... (;

We ain't dividing. I guess you didn't watch the second video. Only one side is unable to meet half way with a compromise. If people are not going to demand government out of marriage and whatever other name it would be called there has to be a mutual compromise for the nation to have peace on the subject. Because no matter where this goes anger is going to grow on the subject. It is not ever going to accepted among half the nation at a minimum.

 

[+paradox]

you're really telling me that america ain't divided?

it's human nature to divide, no matter what empire, religion or tribe...

if america continues with two major party domination then there will always be division, on almost all if not all subjects/issues...

just because something gets "settled", still doesn't mean the issue dies...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

No. Nowhere did I say anything but the opposite. So as I said so much for that coming together thing with some compromise

 

[Webster]

...its' not often we hear from the Court's resident silent member, but one suspects that, reading his words below, that the Court likely would've affirmed the appellate court decisions last month had they gone before the High Court...

WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas suggested Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court was divided over whether to hear the gay marriage cases the justices rejected last month.

Thomas offered a peek at what happened behind the scenes when the court turned away appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin on Oct. 6.

At the time, the justices said nothing to explain their action and there was no way to know whether the court was unanimous. But Thomas made reference to the same-sex marriage cases in a statement he attached to a high court order in an unrelated immigration case from Arizona. He said he doesn’t understand why the court did not hear appeals from the states that sought to preserve their bans on same-sex weddings.

The court often reviews decisions striking down state laws. “But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months,” Thomas wrote, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
It takes four justices to grant review of a lower court decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said the court did not get involved then because lower appellate courts had all ruled the same way – in favor of same-sex couples. But last week, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld anti-gay marriage laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee and created a division that the Supreme Court is expected to resolve.(LGBTQ Nation)

 

[Webster]

Huffington Post: Michigan Case Could Be Deciding Case On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

The couple who challenged Michigan's ban on gay marriages are taking their battle to the U.S. Supreme Court with a case that seeks to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the court Monday, seeking to overturn the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision to uphold the gay marriage ban in Michigan. The appeals court ruling, made earlier this month, also affected cases from Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. The crux of DeBoer and Rowse's petition is simple and sweeping: It asks the court to determine "whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry."

"Gay and lesbian citizens in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are denied the fundamental freedom and equal right to marry, and their families are deprived of the status, dignity, security, and stability that marriage brings," the petition states. "This Court should grant the petition and hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from joining in marriage violates our nation’s most cherished and essential guarantees."

Michigan's attorney general, who has rigorously defended the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban, has also encouraged the Supreme Court to review the case.

Petitions have additionally been filed in the cases from Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. As SCOTUSblog reports, the cases are ready to be submitted to justices as soon as state replies are filed. They appear to have arrived in court in time to be heard and decided in the current term, which ends mid-2015. However, the Supreme Court must first decide to review any of the cases.

In October, the Supreme Court declined petitions seeking the appeal of rulings that struck down gay marriage bans in five states. However, at the time, appeals courts had not disagreed on the issue.

The petition from DeBoer and Rowse argues that the Supreme Court should hear their case in part because the 6th Circuit decision conflicts with four other circuit courts that "concluded that the Constitution cannot tolerate laws that bar same-sex couples from marrying."

The Ohio and Tennessee cases revolve around recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The petition stemming from the Ohio case says the state "treated Petitioners as second-class citizens whose most intimate relationships have been denied the dignity and respect they deserve."

DeBoer and Rowse began their legislative fight in 2012 in a suit that sought to change Michigan's adoption code. They had adopted three children -- two with special needs -- and were seeking joint custody and equal parental rights.

However, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman recommended they try a broader approach and instead challenge the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 59 percent of voters in the state in 2004. In March of this year, Friedman struck it down, leading the way for the appeals court reversal this month.

“When we first brought this case, we vowed to do anything we had to in order to protect our children and our family, even if that meant having to take our case all the way to the Supreme Court,” DeBoer said in a statement Monday. “That day is finally here, and we hope the Court sees fit to accept our case and provide the same security to our family that other families count on.”

If this case falls the way Windsor v. U.S. (12-307) did last year, this could very well bring an end to the issue, one way or the other. *fingers crossed for a favorable ruling from the High Court*

 

[Webster]

...and boom, goes the judicial dynamite:

HELENA, Mont. – A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday overturned the state's gay marriage ban. U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled that Montana's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

"This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome," Morris wrote. "This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority."

In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Idaho and Nevada's bans are unconstitutional. Montana is part of the 9th Circuit, and Morris cited the appeals court's opinion in his ruling.

The move comes after four same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in May challenging Montana's ban. The plaintiffs included Angie and Tonya Rolando.

"Calling Tonya my partner, my significant other, my girlfriend, my perpetual fiancΘe has never done justice to our relationship," Angie Rolando said. "Now I can look forward to the day when I can introduce Tonya as my wife.

"Love won today," she said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. The organization said earlier that it expected the favorable ruling because of the 9th Circuit's finding.

Morris also noted Montana no longer can deprive plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves. He said his ruling was effective immediately. "The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within the Ninth Circuit and recognize that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws," the judge wrote.(Fox News)

 

[+paradox]

@Webster!