[Bob Seger]

Just not been a good week at all for liberals.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../15712319/

[WideRight05]

I wish I could celebrate this one, but I remember an interview with justice Ginsburg a while back where she mentioned that the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage would likely come sooner rather than later if the 6th circuit upheld their bans. A majority of the justices chose not to take the case when it was brought up a few weeks ago, which shows that they would likely rule in favor of it if brought up. Kennedy is most likely the deciding factor, which it is unknown where he will rule - he is known to both rule in favor of gay rights in the past, but also in deferring marriage issues to be decided by each state. I do think he leads toward gay rights, as much as I hate to say it.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Thank God for some judges with some balls.
Such a sweet day for people who have heard over and over again that this ridiculous garbage has been passed in other states. Leave it to our beautiful part of the country to hold there ground.

I hope for one thing and one thing only. Let the STATES decide. This isn't a federal issue. If KY as a majority votes to accept gay marriage, then fine. If we don't, don't make us accept the trampling of our values. It would be a win-win for everybody as gays would have the option to move and live there life the way they want to elsewhere.

Lets hope SCOTUS does the right thing on this one.

[WideRight05]

^ Let's hope so Wide Gut. I'm afraid, unfortunately, that they won't go in the right direction. Had they chosen to, I believe they would have taken up the cases previously brought to their attention.

As to the people who decided this case, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but here is a very good article on liberal Yahoo of one of the two deciding votes in this case.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-appeals-ju...34628.html

This is also one of the judges who upheld Obamacare as constitutional.

[TheRealThing]

Thank God for some judges with some balls.
Such a sweet day for people who have heard over and over again that this ridiculous garbage has been passed in other states. Leave it to our beautiful part of the country to hold there ground.

I hope for one thing and one thing only. Let the STATES decide. This isn't a federal issue. If KY as a majority votes to accept gay marriage, then fine. If we don't, don't make us accept the trampling of our values. It would be a win-win for everybody as gays would have the option to move and live there life the way they want to elsewhere.

Lets hope SCOTUS does the right thing on this one.

I can tell you that almost nobody is thinking clearly on this matter or others of like insanity. For example, when we get a DOJ that is more civil rights activist than chief law enforcement agency, honest and competent law enforcement finds that enforcing law gets turned on it's head, while those who were at one time perpetrators, find they've become the darlings of government and media idol worship.

In the case of gay marriage (totally distant and separate from any kind of true civil right FTR), the ultimate suit of sheep's clothing has been thrown over that abomination we used to call homosexuality. We had, by-in-large, achieved equality in this country in the recent past. With the politics of division we have seen the return of inequality in that the special few are afforded carte blanche status, at the expense of the dollars and liberty of people who are living respectable and responsible life styles.

The real problem with America is that her people have largely turned their backs on the moral code God handed down to man within His written Word. In so doing, America has forfeited the authority on which we used to govern. Now it's who ever can put forth the best argument and spend the most money to win in the courts. There has been a lot of argument on this forum about whether the will of voter should prevail over the wishes of minorities of doctrine and of race as filed in some clandestine court action. The decision of the 6th Circuit manifests the view of the founders in that we are to be a self governing people. The view of the lone dissenter on the court (a Bill Clinton appointee, shocker!) is the view of liberal activism and we'd better learn the difference very quickly. Once that right (the prevailing will of the people at the sovereign state level) is officially rescinded, America will cease to be. If for example, the states were not sovereign, and their authority was transferred to the federal level, a strong minded president could effectively dictate oppression. Abraham Lincoln---"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The Sixth Circuit showed enough backbone to rule as the framers of the US Constitution would rule on this issue. The same sex marriage bans in the four states mentioned were upheld. The Sixth Circuit is made up of those four states- Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.

Now that there is a conflict of laws between circuits, the USSC has really no choice but to take up the issue. When circuits rule differently on what is pretty much the same question, resolving the impasse has always been one of the major duties of the USSC.

How will they vote? From the beginning, the supporters of homosexual marriage have four votes. Those four- Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan- always vote as a block on such issues. Three of the four are Jewish. Sotomayor is what we call a "Cafeteria Catholic". She doesn't seem to be very dedicated to the tenets of her alleged church. And, before someone comes on here and says that the justices are not to let their personal beliefs play a role in their decisions, let me say that, in reality, obviously they do so. They are human beings whose beliefs are made up from the sum total of their life experiences, their heredity, and their environment, and their personal prejudices. Absolutely. We all have personal prejudices. Neither they or we are computers.

The other five justices, all Catholics, will carry the majority. Those who believe in traditional and sacred marriage can count on three votes- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts and Kennedy will provide the winning margin. If the latter two hold to their spiritual beliefs and their life experiences and personal philosohies, and remember who appointed them, it could be a win for the historic and natural intent of the constitution. For the sake of the country, we better hope that is the case.

[TheRealVille]

The Sixth Circuit showed enough backbone to rule as the framers of the US Constitution would rule on this issue. The same sex marriage bans in the four states mentioned were upheld. The Sixth Circuit is made up of those four states- Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.

Now that there is a conflict of laws between circuits, the USSC has really no choice but to take up the issue. When circuits rule differently on what is pretty much the same question, resolving the impasse has always been one of the major duties of the USSC.

How will they vote? From the beginning, the supporters of homosexual marriage have four votes. Those four- Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan- always vote as a block on such issues. Three of the four are Jewish. Sotomayor is what we call a "Cafeteria Catholic". She doesn't seem to be very dedicated to the tenets of her alleged church. And, before someone comes on here and says that the justices are not to let their personal beliefs play a role in their decisions, let me say that, in reality, obviously they do so. They are human beings whose beliefs are made up from the sum total of their life experiences, their heredity, and their environment, and their personal prejudices. Absolutely. We all have personal prejudices. Neither they or we are computers.

The other five justices, all Catholics, will carry the majority. Those who believe in traditional and sacred marriage can count on three votes- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts and Kennedy will provide the winning margin. If the latter two hold to their spiritual beliefs and their life experiences and personal philosohies, and remember who appointed them, it could be a win for the historic and natural intent of the constitution. For the sake of the country, we better hope that is the case.

Which one of those last five have a gay sister, and has already stated that he could not see barring her from marrying who she loves? How many times has the SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a right? If the religious institutions don't want gay marriage, they shouldn't have mingled marriage in with the government, and gave married couples tax benefits for being married.

[TheRealVille]

^ *Not sister, cousin.

[TheRealVille]

With the SCOTUS ruling in favor of gay marriage, in recent rulings on DOMA, and most of the District appeals courts ruling in favor of gay marriage, I wouldn't expect SCOTUS to rule any different now. I would bet, starting next June, you guys might as well figure out a way to get used to gay people being married.

[TheRealThing]

^^ That's not the analysis I'm hearing. The court is 5-4 conservative. Sisters and cousins notwithstanding.

[TheRealVille]

^^ That's not the analysis I'm hearing. The court is 5-4 conservative. Sisters and cousins notwithstanding.

They have been ruling in favor of gay marriage(DOMA), even with a conservative control. And, SCOTUS will probably rule in favor of their lower district court ruling majority.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

With the SCOTUS ruling in favor of gay marriage, in recent rulings on DOMA, and most of the District appeals courts ruling in favor of gay marriage, I wouldn't expect SCOTUS to rule any different now. I would bet, starting next June, you guys might as well figure out a way to get used to gay people being married.

Your knowledge of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation would lead one to believe that you are a union worker.

The USSC may well go against the will and intent of the framers but they can't force me to get used to homosexuals being married. I believe in following original intent in regard to interpreting the constitution. If one doesn't like to follow the intended interpretation, and traditional marriage is absolutely the intended interpretation, then he/she/it should amend the document. That is the obviously proper course of action.

Marriage was never intended to be a federal "right". No one can honestly state otherwise. It clearly falls under the umbrella of the Tenth Amendment. This has never been an issue in our jurisprudence. Thus, it is a state by state issue. And, in every state that has voted on the issue, even your fruit and nut land, has voted by large margins to protect traditional marriage. Now don't come back and cite the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. No unbiased constitutional scholar could extend that clause to marriage. Remember that marriage is intended to be a privilege and not a right.

So, in the end, the court may rule in your favor but you can rest assured that I will not remotely "get used" to this abominable assault on the natural law as well as the spiritual law. I have rights, too.

[Hoot Gibson]

They have been ruling in favor of gay marriage(DOMA), even with a conservative control. And, SCOTUS will probably rule in favor of their lower district court ruling majority.

Even I thought that DOMA was unconstitutional when it passed. Gay marriage should be a state issue, but with all the left wing judges that Obama has put onto the bench, it was predictable that some of the state bans would be overturned by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court will not be deciding the constitutionality of state bans on homosexual marriages based on DOMA, they will be deciding whether the federal government should have a say over marriage, which has historically been a matter left to the states, based on the U.S. Constitution and past precedents. If they are consistent, then the justices that ruled against DOMA should rule in favor of the states that passed bans. Of course, with four extreme liberals who have no problem legislating from the bench, no ruling will surprise me.

[TheRealVille]

Your knowledge of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation would lead one to believe that you are a union worker.

The USSC may well go against the will and intent of the framers but they can't force me to get used to homosexuals being married. I believe in following original intent in regard to interpreting the constitution. If one doesn't like to follow the intended interpretation, and traditional marriage is absolutely the intended interpretation, then he/she/it should amend the document. That is the obviously proper course of action.

Marriage was never intended to be a federal "right". No one can honestly state otherwise. It clearly falls under the umbrella of the Tenth Amendment. This has never been an issue in our jurisprudence. Thus, it is a state by state issue. And, in every state that has voted on the issue, even your fruit and nut land, has voted by large margins to protect traditional marriage. Now don't come back and cite the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. No unbiased constitutional scholar could extend that clause to marriage. Remember that marriage is intended to be a privilege and not a right.

So, in the end, the court may rule in your favor but you can rest assured that I will not remotely "get used" to this abominable assault on the natural law as well as the spiritual law. I have rights, too.

Maybe since 1888, the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled 14 times that marriage is a basic right for citizens, or should have called you for your opinion.

[TheRealVille]

Even I thought that DOMA was unconstitutional when it passed. Gay marriage should be a state issue, but with all the left wing judges that Obama has put onto the bench, it was predictable that some of the state bans would be overturned by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court will not be deciding the constitutionality of state bans on homosexual marriages based on DOMA, they will be deciding whether the federal government should have a say over marriage, which has historically been a matter left to the states, based on the U.S. Constitution and past precedents. If they are consistent, then the justices that ruled against DOMA should rule in favor of the states that passed bans. Of course, with four extreme liberals who have no problem legislating from the bench, no ruling will surprise me.

Do you think states should be able to keep black and white people from marrying interracially? Isn't that also a state call? Again, since you are stating precedents, how did the SCOTUS rule on marriage being a right 14 times since 1888? If they have ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizen's right, then they will probably rule that it includes even gays. Don't try to put it on the four liberals on the bench, they can't do it by themselves, they aren't the majority.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you think states should be able to keep black and white people from marrying interracially? Isn't that also a state call? Again, since you are stating precedents, how did the SCOTUS rule on marriage being a right 14 times since 1888? If they have ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizen's right, then they will probably rule that it includes even gays.

No, with the exception of Utah, marriage has historically been between one man and one woman. For a period of time, marriage in Utah was between one man and one or more women but polygamy but the LDS Church banned the practice before Utah became a state.

The U.S. Constitution has been amended since 1888 to prohibit discrimination against blacks. You have put forth your gay agenda repeatedly over the years, and I really don't care to rehash it for the umpteenth time. There is nothing in the Constitution, IMO, that prohibits states from defining marriage. There is also nothing in that document that allows the federal government to redefine marriage and force states to accept that definition. The founding fathers never intended for men to marry men, women to marry women, or any human to marry any non-human or inanimate object. Not all discrimination is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, then I expect that it will be forced to rule that bans against polygamy are also unconstitutional. I am not making any predictions, but I believe that the right decision will be to allow states to continue to define marriage, provided that they do not violate the constitutional rights of any protected class.

I am not a gay rights advocate and I am not an anti-gay rights crusader. I am for common sense laws when people show an inability to exercise common sense. I oppose gay marriage on a common sense basis, but if the majority of the voters in my state support it, then I am fine with that too. Either way, I do not believe that it should be a federal issue.

[RunItUpTheGut]

The gays had so much momentum. What will they do if SCOTUS finally rules against them and they have nothing left to hope for? It may put an end to the attention mongers.

[Hoot Gibson]

The gays had so much momentum. What will they do if SC OR US finally rules against them and they have nothing left to hope for? It may put an end to the attention mongers.

They will be forced to do the right thing and work to change public opinion and get laws passed in their states that they favor. They will no longer be able to depend on a few left wing judges forcing the will of the minority on the majority of voters.

I fear that the Supreme Court will use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify federal meddling on the gay marriage issue, although the same arguments could have been made to support DOMA. As I said in a prior post, if the Supreme Court is consistent, it will uphold state bans on gay marriage.

[TheRealVille]

They will be forced to do the right thing and work to change public opinion and get laws passed in their states that they favor. They will no longer be able to depend on a few left wing judges forcing the will of the minority on the majority of voters.

I fear that the Supreme Court will use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify federal meddling on the gay marriage issue, although the same arguments could have been made to support DOMA. As I said in a prior post, if the Supreme Court is consistent, it will uphold state bans on gay marriage.

How many of those states have had gay marriage bans on the ballot for the voters to decide? Or, are you equating that state legislator's will as the will of the people? Seems like, with a majority of Americans favoring gay marriage in polls, the majority favor gay marriage.

[Hoot Gibson]

How many of those states have had gay marriage bans on the ballot for the voters to decide? Or, are you equating that state legislator's will as the will of the people? Seems like, with a majority of Americans favoring gay marriage in polls, the majority favor gay marriage.

Like it or not, RV, we live in a representative republic. Most laws are passed by legislators and signed into law by governors that voters elect to office.

If the majority of Americans really favor gay marriage, then it should be easy for gay marriage advocates, such as yourself, to get laws passed to make it legal in the states where they reside. Of course, those polls may be as inaccurate as many of the polls were before Tuesday's elections.

[TheRealVille]

Like it or not, RV, we live in a representative republic. Most laws are passed by legislators and signed into law by governors that voters elect to office.

If the majority of Americans really favor gay marriage, then it should be easy for gay marriage advocates, such as yourself, to get laws passed to make it legal in the states where they reside. Of course, those polls may be as inaccurate as many of the polls were before Tuesday's elections.

If you are an advocate of "majority rules", surely you could favor putting it to ballot?

Fortunately, voters can't decide citizens rights issues.

[TheRealThing]

How many of those states have had gay marriage bans on the ballot for the voters to decide? Or, are you equating that state legislator's will as the will of the people? Seems like, with a majority of Americans favoring gay marriage in polls, the majority favor gay marriage.

And the 70+ percent of Kentuckians that voted for a ban on gay marriage, what does that show? In fact, only one state has ever had a vote which went against bans on gay marriage and that was in Arizona in 2006. Even then the margin was a razor thin 4 percent. People do not vote anywhere near as liberal as they may answer a poll question.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you are an advocate of "majority rules", surely you could favor putting it to ballot?

I oppose gay marriage. If asked to sign a petition to get the issue on a ballot, I will politely decline. Getting issues on ballots is the job of those advocating change.

There is nothing stopping you from working to get legislation passed, just don't ask me to support you effort. However, I will cast my vote on whatever issue makes it to the ballot. Otherwise, I will vote for candidates who I expect to best represent my interest in elected office.

I personally do not think that gay marriage advocates want to see gay marriage referendums on ballots. That is why they are so focused on using the federal courts to advance their left wing agenda.

[TheRealVille]

And the 70+ percent of Kentuckians that voted for a ban on gay marriage, what does that show? In fact, only one state has ever had a vote which went against bans on gay marriage and that was in Arizona in 2006. Even then the margin was a razor thin 4 percent. People do not vote anywhere near as liberal as they may answer a poll question.

With the big court ruling that marriage is a citizen's right, voters can't decide to ban citizens rights. And, that will probably be reflected in next June's ruling. Why don't Kentuckians, like yourself, rally, and try to get rid of KY's beastiality rule?

[TheRealThing]

They will be forced to do the right thing and work to change public opinion and get laws passed in their states that they favor. They will no longer be able to depend on a few left wing judges forcing the will of the minority on the majority of voters.

I fear that the Supreme Court will use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify federal meddling on the gay marriage issue, although the same arguments could have been made to support DOMA. As I said in a prior post, if the Supreme Court is consistent, it will uphold state bans on gay marriage.

Now that the people have spoken forcefully against the liberal agenda, the SC will have new motivation to do what they know to be right. In my view, only anarchists want to see the bastions of decency broken down in this country.

[Hoot Gibson]

With the big court ruling that marriage is a citizen's right, voters can't decide to ban citizens rights. And, that will probably be reflected in next June's ruling.

In other words, working to build a consensus among voters is hard work that liberals prefer not to do. It is pretty clear that in most states, gay marriage advocates do not want to risk a vote. So much for public opinion polls.

[TheRealThing]

With the big court ruling that marriage is a citizen's right, voters can't decide to ban citizens rights. And, that will probably be reflected in next June's ruling.

Maybe the outcome is 50/50 but, I don't believe it will pass this time. I don't believe the true believers will ever concede they are in the minority. Seeding the courts with liberals is hardly the bellwether of the people. They are mere liberal lap dogs.

[Hoot Gibson]

Now that the people have spoken forcefully against the liberal agenda, the SC will have new motivation to do what they know to be right. In my view, only anarchists want to see the bastions of decency broken down in this country.

The problem is that the liberals on the SC are the ones who are most likely to be swayed by election results, public opinion polls, and other extraneous information. They are also the least likely to pay any attention to election results that they do not like.

I am not confident that the SC will rule in favor of the states. I was extremely disappointed in Scalia's application of the commerce clause to nullify the 10th Amendment in a case involving a woman in a western state who was growing marijuana on her own property for her own use.

There was no way that the 10th Amendment should not have applied in that case. there was absolutely no interstate commerce involved and no way that the woman's small pot patch impacted interstate commerce in any way. I could see Scalia applying the same twisted logic in the case of gay marriage. I hope that he shows better judgment in this case.

[TheRealVille]

I notice both of you overlooked my question on Kentucky's beastiality problem. Kentuckians want to be able to screw a cow, as long as they don't allow gays to marry.

[Hoot Gibson]

I notice both of you overlooked my question on Kentucky's beastiality problem.

I try to overlook all of the red herrings that you throw into a debate. This red herring is a state issue and I am a Virginia resident. It is your problem, not mine.