Supreme Court & Gay Marriage/Prop 8

on that note wrote: .......I want gay folks to be able to get married, I want any combination of humans in any quantity to be able to get married, I just don't want any of them to have more or less rights after going through the process. You just want it now, and I want it forever.

I like your entire post but had to exerpt this part because it sums it up and I completely agree 'otn.' People shouldn't be rewarded for simply wanting to be together for the rest of their lives, even if they're marital status says their "special."
I lived with my girlfriend for over ten years before we "tied the knot" and although we have bennies we qualify for, we're frugal and keep things as close to the way they were BEFORE we got married as possible, we don't "want" as many do on a lot of things. Besides, do you think I'm gonna get any kind of special treatment because of how long I waited to GET married? A decade is a long time to be with someone without any "official" document saying one person is bound to another legaly and stay strong in every way, including all the financial burdens. Anywho, good post and happy posting.

Yahoo was speculating today that the Justices don't want to really rule on these cases and expect a very narrow definition. NPR was saying pretty much the same thing.

Predicting an 80% change that DOMA will be overturned...

Funny how discrimination enshrined in law rarely stands for very long.

Guessing what the Supremes can do is almost as difficult as predicting the weather. When are they supposed to make their ruling?

I hear that both decisions will be announced in June....

Prop 8 Lawyer Basically Concedes Gay Marriage Foes Will Lose In Long Term

WASHINGTON -- The lawyer representing supporters of California's ban on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court essentially conceded Tuesday that gay marriage opponents are going to lose in the long term.

During oral arguments, Charles J. Cooper referred twice to voters hitting the “pause button” to “await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing” before making a decision on same-sex marriage.

Cooper’s point seemed to be that although same-sex marriage may eventually become the law of the land, the Supreme Court shouldn’t speed up that process. He said it wouldn’t have been irrational for a California voter to support Proposition 8 in 2008 in order to observe how the gay marriage “experiment” worked out first in other states.

Referring to a decision in a lower court, Cooper said it was “accepted truth” that things were “changing rapidly in this country as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... f=politics

It's just a matter of time when you have Bill O'Reilly admitting that the only thing the Pro-Prop8 side has going for them is "thumping their Bibles"....

I think O'Reilly has already come out for homosexual marriage.

Interesting that folks that have a political agenda tout the laws passed by liberal legislators (hummmm say guns CO) as the will of the people......BUT, that nasty BUT.....DOMA anf CAL anti-homo proposition which are also the will of the people are deemed by some twisted logic to need to be overturned in a court......lack of integrity IMHO. Pack the SCOTUS with conservatives......we did that as I recall.
SO in turn

---

RECALL and Ballot Initiatives are certainly good vehicles when a legislature overrules the will of the people.

Now the new speculation versus Fox News and Kennedy's questions, DOMA is going down.

The "will of the people" doesn't get to vote on other people's RIGHTS... That's why they're called "RIGHTS"... (And how'd that Amendment-2/"Romer v. Evans" thing work out for ya?)

If one majority's "ending of discrimination" is another minority's "political agenda", then so be it....