Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Update: Split decision on DOMA?

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.”

That’s true but they’ve never said it was a right that the government had to recognize for legal purposes.

That is, if the states got out of the marriage business and didn’t recognize any marriages, people would still be getting married (they’d done so for hundreds of years, after all). The fact that the government doesn’t give out marriage licenses doesn’t mean you can’t get married.

The issue here, I think, will be if a gay married couple in a state that recognizes it moves to a state that doesn’t. Does that state have to recognize that marriage? If they do how can they deny that to their own citizens?

It sure seems to me that states will have to do so.

SteveMG on December 7, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Where are gays treated unequally under the law anywhere in the United States?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Your right to choose the direction of your own life so long as you don’t inhibit the liberties of others.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Translation: I am for small government because I think big government should recognize all private relationships….

BTW, many people are barred from marriage to the ones they love… They have to pick out of state regulations..

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

If the states are OK with it, then fine. Again, not the Fed’s business.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Then we have a large problem with the full faith and credit clause.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Explain.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Each state has to give full faith and credit “to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state” under Art. IV s. 1.

The social problem is generally not people in SSM states being SSMed, whatever their eligibility for federal benefits (and imo that part is about nothing more than naked self-interest). The problem is those people then going to live in non-SSM states. Are you really permitted to not recognize the marriage? How do you divorce a couple you don’t recognize as married? Your kids have a bare minimum of three parents: how does an SSM state deal with that? How does a non-SSM state deal with that? How do you avoid allowing one spouse to deliberately move to a non-SSM state in order to screw the other spouse/possible non-bio-parent over? How do you keep a court from injecting that state’s public policy on SSM from affecting custody determinations? How on earth do you determine a child’s true best interest in this madhouse?

This needs to be an honest conversation about a matter that will have large societal impact and it is dominated by voices who want to short circuit the debate with meaningless platitudes like “freedom means freedom for everyone.”

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

10 quadrillion years of darkness!!!11

lester lobotomy on December 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

…as always!…GFY…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I really, really wish the gay marriage debate would stop being discussed as if it’s a political issue. It isn’t, it’s a constitutional rights issue. Being gay doesn’t mean being a liberal. HELLO?

I abhor the mainstream large vocal gay activists groups. Trust me…they piss me off HUGE. They’ve sold their souls to the “devil” in exchange for what’s amounted to as merely lip service from liberal politicians.

It’s awesome to see gay marriage becoming reality each year, if only on the state level of some of them. But again…this is one of constitutionality, and inevitability and SCOTUS knows this.

The nation won’t sink into the sea because of gay marriage. Just like the US military hasn’t fallen apart after DADT repeal.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals.

My hunch is we will see more of this. That is, of the conservatives wanting to hear controversial cases sooner rather than later.

With Obama running the show for four more years and considering Kennedy may quit at any time, it is in their interest not to wait.

I think there should take every Obamacare related case ASAP. Give Roberts a chance to at least partially redeem himself, at l
east a little.

If Obama gets to appoint a replacement for Kennedy, game over for a generation.

farsighted on December 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

What sort of “right”? Just curious, do you have a citation in mind? And would you substitute “polygamists” for “homosexuals” and feel the same?

jdp629 on December 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The issue here, I think, will be if a gay married couple in a state that recognizes it moves to a state that doesn’t. Does that state have to recognize that marriage? If they do how can they deny that to their own citizens?

SteveMG on December 7, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The same way that states have maintained very different standards for legal marriage for all these years. It’s not as if every couple that marries in one state could get married in any other state. Just the age of consent differences are stark and the states have had no problems in maintaining those differences between them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Marriage being redefined FUNDAMENTALLY transforms America!

School books are then deemed non-inclusive if they show a normal/traditional American family. Why can’t the book show that little Britney has a Transgender parent?

The left will use this the same way they did school prayer issue, and Roe v Wade.

The suicide of a Superpower continues.

And frankly the Founders could NOT construct a Republic that could have withstood the evil of Sodom and Gommorah and we’re about to see how the radical gay left defines “tolerant”.

The next few years will be a window into what it was like in the depravity of Sodom…..only with cable TV to report on it.

I’m glad I’m old.

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Edit…

I think there they should take every Obamacare related case ASAP. Give Roberts a chance to at least partially redeem himself, at least a little.

farsighted on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Yes. The right of a man and a woman to marry.
What case are you pointing to?

Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Approving gay marriage this way is the Roe v Wade route. Entrenching an issue for generations that was going the pro-abortion direction on its own (and likely would have largely gone fully that way in all the “blue states”).

Leaving it to state legislatures or referenda will initially take longer, but end the fight way sooner (probably with all the “blue states” going that way too, and each “purple state” too).

Strategically speaking, the gay marriage group might be much better off without the Supreme Court weighing in.

krome on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Doma and the prop8 vote both have in common, that gays are not strictly forbidden by either of these laws, from engaging in heterosexual sexual unions, procreating, starting families and conducting themselves according to natural law in order to have their own blood related children. There is nothing about “sexual preference” about this, but there is no procreative sex to regulate in a homosexual/ gay marriage.

Outside of this people should be able to have whatever kinds of parties, celebrations, and prepare contracts saying what people expect from each other, that does not seem to harm anyone.

And there are a list of grievances that gay people have, that they cannot do such and such or this and this like hetero-married people can. Make a list, if gays can’t do it, perhaps other people would like that right too.

Inheritance? husband-wife protections of money…FROM THE CLUTCHES of the GOVERNMENT??? why should anyone lose their money to the government when someone dies? My mom took care of a sick relative, and in the end, she did not have any special privilege – other than being named in the will- to go around inheritance taxes, and she was a BLOOD relative. End that. No more state and federal inheritance taxes, they are mean to gays and other people. Tax rates got ‘cha down because you can’t file as married???hmmm…doesn’t look like such a break if you ask me, but they are on different tables…let brothers and sisters file together more cheaply, moms and daughters, grannies and inlaws. Just proclaim it and claim it, we can fix that just with a little note to the IRS from our congresspeople. Let unmarried co parents (Dads and Moms who don’t get married) file together, and together claim their cochildren.

Any privilege that seems unfair…can be fixed by making it fair for individuals and giving individuals a say.

I do not know why gays want to marry, I really don’t, except to have a party.

Fleuries on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Bingo! Not to mention the fact that family court would have to be overhauled a lot to deal with same sex couplings.

People like ZachV who post here told me that he wanted to marry his partner so that him and his partner could be on the birth certificate. Gay marriage can’t do that. The birth certificate is meant for bio parents,and reality is that two gay men or women cannot be bio parents togethr.. It is astounding what these people think a marriage license is going to do.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM

First off it isn’t a civil issue anymore than incestuous unions and polygamy is. It is a state regulation.

Second, DADT repeal is having problems.. There is issues of fraternization and unequal treatment of HETEROSEXUALS. Just because you and the media put your hands in your ears and go la la la- doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I’m not in favor of redefining marriage.

As an aside on the civil rights angle, a judge recently said that gays are not a protected class because they do have political power.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “right.” The decision you have to make is if you consider homosexuals to be citizens entitled to the full breadth of rights enjoyed by citizens.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Propaganda Technique # 7: Card Stacking:

Card Stacking involves the selection and use of facts or falsehoods, illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or the worst possible case for an idea, program, person or product….

t.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Freedom: Your right to choose the direction of your own life so long as you don’t inhibit the liberties of others.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Translation: I am for small government because I think big government should recognize all private relationships….

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Wildly off the mark after the first five words. Translation: some bureaucrat in the government has no business giving you a permit to marry. It’s not the government’s business. You ought to be offended that you have to go to the government to get a permit to recognize your relationship.

I am for small government. You?

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on December 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

Trust me, they’re not worrying. They didn’t worry about Roe and they won’t worry about this. Get SCOTUS to mandate gay marriage in all 50 states, and they couldn’t give a damn how many people are pissed about it.

Stoic Patriot on December 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Gheys can’t legally pairbond naturally.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM

What?

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

As an aside on the civil rights angle, a judge recently said that gays are not a protected class because they do have political power.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

LOL at that “reasoning” of the judge’s. Blacks don’t have political power (they’ve been running the major cities into the ground for decades with their political power) and women don’t have political power? The idea that a class is “protected” because it does or doesn’t have “political power” is insane and any judge or person who argues that point is a dimwit who doesn’t deserve the benefits of living in a civilized society, as he is actively working to destroy it.

Of course, in our Constitutional system (if we were to actually follow it) there is no such thing as a “protected class” of people who deserve super-laws just for them and not being held to account for the same laws that everyone else has to. This idea of human pets is a particularly despicable notion and one that has worked to destroy this nation. It’s pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Interracial marriage was reviled for all types of BS reasons too.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Yes it was, and that was wrong for many reasons. State laws prohibiting interracial marriages violated the 14th and 15th amendments to the federal constitution, for starters. And, marriage has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the federal constitution.

The interracial marriage cases are inapposite. This is because the fundamental right to marriage that has been recognized has always been between a man and a woman. (A fundamental right is one that is “objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.”) This is not so for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not “deeply rooted” in our country’s tradition.

I say this as someone who supports same-sex marriage an idea. I do so, however, only when it is voted on and approved at a state level, either by referendum or by the state legislature. This is because it is not the province of our federal courts to legislate results that they may agree with as a policy matter, especially on state matters like marriage.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Each state has to give full faith and credit “to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state” under Art. IV s. 1.

The social problem is generally not people in SSM states being SSMed, whatever their eligibility for federal benefits (and imo that part is about nothing more than naked self-interest). The problem is those people then going to live in non-SSM states. Are you really permitted to not recognize the marriage? How do you divorce a couple you don’t recognize as married? Your kids have a bare minimum of three parents: how does an SSM state deal with that? How does a non-SSM state deal with that? How do you avoid allowing one spouse to deliberately move to a non-SSM state in order to screw the other spouse/possible non-bio-parent over? How do you keep a court from injecting that state’s public policy on SSM from affecting custody determinations? How on earth do you determine a child’s true best interest in this madhouse?

This needs to be an honest conversation about a matter that will have large societal impact and it is dominated by voices who want to short circuit the debate with meaningless platitudes like “freedom means freedom for everyone.”

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

The non SSM state is then not required to provide a SS couple with a marriage license. They do recognize the “marriage” as performed in another state. This isn’t that difficult really. The marriage certificate is like any other business contract. SSM couples would enjoy all the rights and privileges of a married couple, but will not be married in a non SSM state, This also means that when the marriage terminates, the formerly loving couple would get a divorce in a SSM state.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Translation: some bureaucrat in the government has no business giving you a permit to marry.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

That’s utterly retarded.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Wildly off the mark after the first five words. Translation: some bureaucrat in the government has no business giving you a permit to marry. It’s not the government’s business. You ought to be offended that you have to go to the government to get a permit to recognize your relationship.

I am for small government. You?

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Yeah I am for taking marriage out of the government’s hands. It has done nothing but ruin it, so it doesn’t bother me any. I don’t think marriage has anything to do with “freedom.” I think it is asking the state into private relationships. Since that isn’t going to happen. You are the one equating the Supreme Court overturning voters rigths with freedom, not me.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:38 PM

La Shawn Barber:

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/12/loving-v-virginia/

As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no “overriding purpose” to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman other than blatant racial discrimination.

Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the entire Civil Rights movement in their quest to legalize marriage between two men. Aside from the moral outrage this should generate in the black community, marriage between a man and woman of different races and marriage between people of the same sex aren’t comparable at all. Marriage is a legal union recognize by the states as serving fundamental purposes: provides structure for family formation and rearing children, and provides a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM

What?

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Let me give you a bio lessen. Heterosexuals NATURALLY and legally pairbond via children. Homosexuals do not. Don’t like it, take it up with nature.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:40 PM

First off it isn’t a civil issue anymore than incestuous unions and polygamy is. It is a state regulation.

Second, DADT repeal is having problems.. There is issues of fraternization and unequal treatment of HETEROSEXUALS. Just because you and the media put your hands in your ears and go la la la- doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

It’s an issue of equal protection clause of the US constitution. It’s not polygamy. It’s not incest. Or pedophilia or bestiality or anything else.

And please, I’d love to see an example or two of these problems you mention with DADT repeal. Please.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Card Stacking involves the selection and use of facts or falsehoods, illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or the worst possible case for an idea, program, person or product….

t.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:33 PM

We have another gay posting?

T Definition 1:
used by gays as a way to say wassup, what’s going on, etc.
Definition 2:
also used if someone is gossiping, “spilling t”

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=t

ZachV on December 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

the states have had no problems in maintaining those differences between them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Actually the difference you cite (min age) is the only major difference among the states’ definitions of marriage, and the problems associated with it disappear once the participants reach legal age; six years, tops. You’re creating a civil institution that does not have the benefit of centuries of tradition behind it to show us how to navigate the social questions it poses. There will inevitably be unforeseen consequences. The best approach would be to calmly talk about the conflict and how to resolve at least the foreseeable consequences. That approach is impossible given the ubiquitous appeals to emotion in the pro-SSM rhetoric.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM

As an aside on the civil rights angle, a judge recently said that gays are not a protected class because they do have political power.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I don’t know why that matters. Something is only a civil rights issue if people are being treated unequally under the law. No one anywhere in the United States is treated unequally under the law when it comes to marriage.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Let me give you a bio lessen. Heterosexuals NATURALLY and legally pairbond via children. Homosexuals do not. Don’t like it, take it up with nature.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:40 PM

As a matter of biology, animals of the same gender hook up all the time. It may be unnatural to you, but it is to them. Man is an animal, thus part of nature. This really doesn’t have to be this difficult.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

ZachV on December 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Huh?

I’m a Christian and a conservative. I’m completely opposed to redefining marriage. I’ve made many, many, many comments here to that effect. My point in that comment was to show how CH was using a propaganda technique.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

It’s an issue of equal protection clause of the US constitution.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

How are gays treated unequally?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

It’s an issue of equal protection clause of the US constitution. It’s not polygamy. It’s not incest. Or pedophilia or bestiality or anything else.

You are wrong. Beastiality and Pedophilia do not have consenting adults(but consent is a legal term that can be changed with the culture.) Polygamy and incest have consenting adults who form a bond and have sex.. Pretty much what homosexuals do. Equal protection and marriage right therefore must be afforded those unions as well.

Example of DADT: Marines have been ousted from the military for making political statements, but the man who asked the question at the Repub debate did not have permission from his command and yet didn’t get in trouble at all.

Second example: the gay pride parade and the military sanction of wearing the uniform.

Third example: Men and women cannot be in each other’s rooms in war zone.. Even married couples serving together are prohibited, but gay couples who serve together do not have the same rule. In fact, command is now seen as turning a blind eye regarding this fraternization for fear of being called homophobic. Can’t blame them either, the whole movement are fascist crybabies.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

It’s an issue of equal protection clause of the US constitution. It’s not polygamy.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

That’s right. Polygamy is actually “marriage” and has been recognized as such by just about every culture on earth at some point. Polygamy has a long history in all of our cultures. Gay pretend marriage, on the other hand, has no history in any culture to speak of and stands as a totally concocted perversion of marriage, used to twist the word into something it never was.

No, gay pretend marriage isn’t polygamy because polygamy is actually recognized marriage. If the definition of “marriage” is to be expanded, then it ought to re-incorporate polygamy before anything else. The mormons were hunted down and killed over polygamy … but you want to have gay pretend marriage be treated as real marriage (LOL) and keep polygamy illegal. That’s a really nasty position you gay pretend marriage people take.

I pine for the days when gays used to hate the idea of marriage and call the rest of us “breeders”. Now gays want marriage and want to force us to call them “breeders” even though they can’t breed in the pretend marriages they claim (that they hated so much just a couple of decades ago). It’s pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I don’t know why I’ve been twice misinterpreted. I must not be stating things clearly. I don’t have the link handy, but I think the ruling was on the idea of being a protect group was because of claims to being oppressed. I thought there was a civil rights connection because of claims of discrimination. Maybe I’m mistaken and not remembering the ruling correctly.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

You are wrong. Beastiality and Pedophilia do not have consenting adults(but consent is a legal term that can be changed with the culture.) Polygamy and incest have consenting adults who form a bond and have sex.. Pretty much what homosexuals do. Equal protection and marriage right therefore must be afforded those unions as well.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Exactly. If gay marriage is unconstitutionally declared a right then there is no sound legal reason to bar polygamy or incestuous relationships.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM

The marriage certificate is like any other business contract.

But the union is not at all like a contract. Treating marriage like “any other business contract” is one place where society went off the rails long ago.

jdp629 on December 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The non SSM state is then not required to provide a SS couple with a marriage license. They do recognize the “marriage” as performed in another state.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The people who live in that state don’t want to recognize the marriage. They have expressed their public policy as clearly as possible, via a direct amendment to their state constitution. Do you still think they have to recognize it? Does this really reflect a states’ right to self determination?

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

First off it isn’t a civil issue anymore than incestuous unions and polygamy is. It is a state regulation.

Second, DADT repeal is having problems.. There is issues of fraternization and unequal treatment of HETEROSEXUALS
. Just because you and the media put your hands in your ears and go la la la- doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Who could’ve guessed that.
At some point the clash is going to come with Democrats who court gays and want to ignore radical Islam. There seems to be the ever faint backlash against homosexuals beginning in the EU. The high court over there ruled against gay marriage.. saying it was not a right. There were a few other things this past year that signaled a possible shift in the winds in the EU.

Islam is expanding here in America.

I expect the court to bow to the homosexual agenda. But I bet at some point during the next 4 years… the winds will shift against the homosexual community. And it will be from the democrats. They have another interest group. Radical Islam.

JellyToast on December 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

As a matter of biology, animals of the same gender hook up all the time. It may be unnatural to you, but it is to them. Man is an animal, thus part of nature. This really doesn’t have to be this difficult.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I especially like how big cats eat the progeny of rivals. don’t you?

tom daschle concerned on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I don’t know why I’ve been twice misinterpreted. I must not be stating things clearly. I don’t have the link handy, but I think the ruling was on the idea of being a protect group was because of claims to being oppressed. I thought there was a civil rights connection because of claims of discrimination. Maybe I’m mistaken and not remembering the ruling correctly.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I’m not saying gay marriage proponents don’t use civil rights as a legal tactic. I am only stating that the civil rights argument is bogus.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Let me give you a bio lessen. Heterosexuals NATURALLY and legally pairbond via children. Homosexuals do not. Don’t like it, take it up with nature.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:40 PM

As a matter of biology, animals of the same gender hook up all the time. It may be unnatural to you, but it is to them. Man is an animal, thus part of nature. This really doesn’t have to be this difficult.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

You people are obtuse. First, off animals don’t have legality so way to miss the whole point. A child naturally pairbonds and binds a couple LEGALLY. Government realized that it was in the best interest to cement these kinds of unions.

And as far as the animal kingdom-some cannibalize their young and eat their own poop.. So I guess that should be okay with humans then.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

As a matter of biology, animals of the same gender hook up all the time. It may be unnatural to you, but it is to them. Man is an animal, thus part of nature. This really doesn’t have to be this difficult.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Animals sh#t in the open, have incest, kill their own children, perform cannibalism and do lots of other things. Are you sure that you want to look to animal behavior in the wild to get your cue on how humans should be acting? Are you an Occupooper or something?

Meanwhile, no gay hookups in the animal kingdom generate offspring, so your silly answer is still pointless … unless you want to extend this to asexually reproducing entities, now? Heck … why not? You’re rolling …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

How are gays treated unequally?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The state offers numerous benefits, financial or otherwise, to married couples, yet denies homosexuals that same opportunity, it’s violating the 14th amendment.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Well, it appears that the SF writers are correct – the cockroaches will win out.

OldEnglish on December 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

As a matter of biology, animals of the same gender hook up all the time. It may be unnatural to you, but it is to them. Man is an animal, thus part of nature. This really doesn’t have to be this difficult.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Oh and furthermore, those animals who “hook’ up with the different sex are smart enough when it comes time to reproduce to hook up with the “right” sex to do the job. Very few if any of those animals cited as gay stay gay throughout their lives.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

And as far as the animal kingdom-some cannibalize their young and eat their own poop.. So I guess that should be okay with humans then.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I think OWSers would be OK with adopting a right to throw poop.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Huh?

I’m a Christian and a conservative. I’m completely opposed to redefining marriage. I’ve made many, many, many comments here to that effect. My point in that comment was to show how CH was using a propaganda technique.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

… lol! Did you know that you were using gay slang?

You walk up to someone, “What’s the t?” – Meaning, ‘What’s the truth’ or ‘How’s it going’. Or someone says something that you agree with, and you reply ‘T.’

ZachV on December 7, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The state offers numerous benefits, financial or otherwise, to married couples, yet denies homosexuals incestuous couples and polyamourous couples that same opportunity, it’s violating the 14th amendment.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The state offers numerous benefits, financial or otherwise, to married couples, yet denies homosexuals that same opportunity, it’s violating the 14th amendment.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Because gays can’t marry? Where?

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The state offers numerous benefits, financial or otherwise, to married couples, yet denies homosexuals that same opportunity, it’s violating the 14th amendment.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You’re welcome to marry anyone who meets your state’s eligibility. The gov’t doesn’t care about your sex life.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The people who live in that state don’t want to recognize the marriage. They have expressed their public policy as clearly as possible, via a direct amendment to their state constitution. Do you still think they have to recognize it? Does this really reflect a states’ right to self determination?

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

“The people who live in the state” aren’t the ones who will (or will not) recognize the marriage. The SS couple will be afforded the same rights as any married couple that were married in another state. What the people of that state want is to not have to have SSM performed in their state, and it won’t be, if they prohibit it by law. Why make this more difficult? It’s a matter of law, of constitutionality, of keeping the Federal Government out of decisions that belong to the state.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Example of DADT: Marines have been ousted from the military for making political statements, but the man who asked the question at the Repub debate did not have permission from his command and yet didn’t get in trouble at all.

Again, you stating something doesn’t make it true.

Please…link an example…one example.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The people who live in the state” aren’t the ones who will (or will not) recognize the marriage. The SS couple will be afforded the same rights as any married couple that were married in another state. What the people of that state want is to not have to have SSM performed in their state, and it won’t be, if they prohibit it by law. Why make this more difficult? It’s a matter of law, of constitutionality, of keeping the Federal Government out of decisions that belong to the state.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I’ll ask you the question again.. Who is making it a federal issue– Gays or socons?

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

OK.

INC on December 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Oh and furthermore, those animals who “hook’ up with the different sex are smart enough when it comes time to reproduce to hook up with the “right” sex to do the job. Very few if any of those animals cited as gay stay gay throughout their lives.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Those ones are just “bi.”

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I’ll ask you the question again.. Who is making it a federal issue– Gays or socons?

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Bill Clinton made it a federal issue. DOMA is his baby.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I pine for the days when gays used to hate the idea of marriage and call the rest of us “breeders”. Now gays want marriage and want to force us to call them “breeders” even though they can’t breed in the pretend marriages they claim (that they hated so much just a couple of decades ago). It’s pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

You’re still breeders…all us homersexuals didn’t get here by magic glitter ya know. If you breeders stopped having gay kids you could end the entire issue.

:P

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

The SS couple will be afforded the same rights as any married couple that were married in another state. What the people of that state want is to not have to have SSM performed in their state, and it won’t be, if they prohibit it by law.

That is absolutely not how the marriage amendments read. They read as definitions of marriage, not an expressed wish to not have certificates provided to certain people. It’s far more fundamental.

Why make this more difficult? It’s a matter of law, of constitutionality, of keeping the Federal Government out of decisions that belong to the state.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I see it as exactly the opposite, the intrusion of the feds into a state dispute. If you really believe it’s an easy decision, I do not think you are giving enough consideration to the opposing arguments.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

once you accept the lie that humans are just animals…..ANYTHING done to the dumb witless brute is justifiable in their eyes.

Darwin/Marx/Engels/Hitler all believed the same in this regard.

Wait until the radical left gay movement can get their hands on the young in churches that they can’t right now.

I can see the media camped out in front of these so called “churches” asking them why they discriminate against gays and won’t let them teach their young children.

THIS is a war for the very soul of a nation…..and the Conservative movement is losing on ALL FRONTS.

And yes, America has changed……..and it’s not likely to come back.

Weep for the young……they inherit our decisions now.

No nation in human history has survived the rise of homosexuality. It might not be a pleasant truth but it is truth.

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 5:58 PM

You’re still breeders…all us homersexuals didn’t get here by magic glitter ya know. If you breeders stopped having gay kids you could end the entire issue.

:P

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If homosexuality is truly biological someday they may.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM

the whole movement are fascist crybabies.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

You forgot the removal of female pictures, by inspectors in Soldier’s rooms, because gays are ‘offended’.

Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Again, you stating something doesn’t make it true.

Please…link an example…one example.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Do your own research. Actually talk to some servicemembers. I mean you do know that the survey that was filled out about DADT was written even before it was sent out right?

And the soldier who was supposedly booed was named Stephen Hill. His command did not know anything about him asking a political question. Gary Stein was ousted from the marines for political speech. And the gay pride parade and servicemembers objections to it is widely publisized.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM

You’re still breeders…all us homersexuals didn’t get here by magic glitter ya know. If you breeders stopped having gay kids you could end the entire issue.

:P

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Here is hoping for genetics to put an end to the gays then. Productive people are happy people. Having a small section of unproductive people, not so bad. Celebrating their non productivity on the other hand tends to increase their numbers, and is not so good.

astonerii on December 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Bill Clinton made it a federal issue. DOMA is his baby.

john1schn on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Actually all DOMA does is protect the states from the full faith and credit clause. DOMA is most likely unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean there is a federal question on gay marriage.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Ever notice….THE LEFT never ever hesitates to bring up Social issues?

Did Conservatives do this?

Nope.

But somehow WE are “intolerant” for voicing our concerns about these issues.


Tolerance once defined…….isn’t.

PappyD61 on December 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I especially like how big cats eat the progeny of rivals. don’t you?

tom daschle concerned on December 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Cohabitating couples are far more likely to separate than are married couples, which means children often live with non-relative adults. A child living with his mother and her boyfriend is at maximum risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported that children in such households are 50 times more likely than children of intact families to be the victims of physical or sexual abuse.

http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2012/12/07/single_belles_single_all_the_way/page/2

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I’d like to get some straight answers (I crack myself up) for the following questions from homosexual readers/participants of this thread:

1) Should the military segregate homosexuals into separate living quarters from one another as they do heterosexuals?

2) Should polygamy and/or incestuous marriages between consenting adults be legal?

3) Do you agree, as an earlier poster posited, that we are all simply nothing more than members of the animal kingdom?

4) Does this post make me look fat?

“t.”

/

Dion on December 7, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Would those in favor, please list the Genetic Factors that create a homosexual for me, and cite your sources. Thanks.

Meanwhile, a guy named Caligula wants a marriage license for him and his horse.

They are a sexual minority, too.

kingsjester on December 7, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Hill says the fact that he just outed himself on national television had barely registered when he absorbed the boos and Santorum’s answer followed by applause.

“When the actual booing occurred, my gut dropped out, because my first inclination was, did I just do something wrong?” he said. “The answer, obviously, wasn’t very supportive of gay people, and there was a lot of fear of how the Army would take the question.”

He did not have to wait long to find out. At breakfast later that morning, the segment was playing on the chow hall television. Hill immediately tracked down his commander, who told him she had no problem with what he’d done but that she would need to run it up the chain of command. She later

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/stephen-hill-gay-gop-debate-_n_1102229.html

There ya go Jetboy. He went full throttle political in uniform without his command’s permission. Want to know how that turns out for non-homosexual military members research Gary Stein and General Boykin..

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

You’re still breeders…all us homersexuals didn’t get here by magic glitter ya know. If you breeders stopped having gay kids you could end the entire issue.

:P

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Careful. Your liberal straight friends will abort gays once they find that elusive gay gene.

CW on December 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Do your own research

Or in other words…”I can’t back up my ridiculous accusations”.

Got it.

As for Stephen Hill…what is it you’re even saying exactly?

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Congress can exempt recognition. But that doesn’t matter anyways. A state does not have to recognize another state’s marriage for purposes of benefits. One state’s laws do not usurp another state’s laws. Usually one state’s recognition of another state’s marriage issues only applies to court rulings like child custody and mandated payments. And I have never heard of one state trying to unilaterally void another states family court rulings.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You’re still breeders…all us homersexuals didn’t get here by magic glitter ya know. If you breeders stopped having gay kids you could end the entire issue.

:P

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Which compels another question:

If homosexuality can be discerned in the fetus, will homosexuals protest the aborting of that fetus by a woman who opts to not bring a homosexual into this foul, homophobic world?

Dion on December 7, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Careful. Your liberal straight friends will abort gays once they find that elusive gay gene.

CW on December 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Yep.

NotCoach on December 7, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Or in other words…”I can’t back up my ridiculous accusations”.

Got it.

As for Stephen Hill…what is it you’re even saying exactly?

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Yeah linked the example. I am saying that gays get special privileges because your group is so good at playing victim. Again look at my example and look up Gary Stein and General Boykin..mmkay and see how that worked out for them when they made political speech in uniform without command permission.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:11 PM

The next few years will be a window into what it was like in the depravity of Sodom…..only with cable TV to report on it.

I’m glad I’m old.

PappyD61

I suspect you and I have zero overlap on issues on which we might agree politically, but your post makes me . . . sad. There’s nothing to be afraid of, Pappy. Seriously.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Does it matter what Kennedy does when the chief is a worshipper of the state?

besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I suspect you and I have zero overlap on issues on which we might agree politically, but your post makes me . . . sad. There’s nothing to be afraid of, Pappy. Seriously.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Yep. That’s what Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire said.

Did you find those Genetic Factors, yet?

kingsjester on December 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I certainly do not equate being gay with anything racial, BUT …

I can’t help but mourn how gays are being used, in the same ways blacks have been.
Countless intelligent blacks and latinos have been swept into the arms of anyone who convinces them of their alleged victimhood, promising them the moon, winning some battles, and eventually they’re fully deluded into utter devotion to those manipulators .. sort of like Stockholm syndrome.
Truly saddens my heart, as I’m presently watching it happening to gay friends, and weep.
Progress ? Yeah, sure. *eyroll*.
Who are the Ches, Jesse Jacksons of THIS movement, anyway ??

pambi on December 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Self-delusion.

OldEnglish on December 7, 2012 at 6:20 PM

It is amusing how quickly these movements go from being about people in group A not wanting people in group B telling them what to do and what to think, to being about people in group A telling people in group B what to do and what to think. Fools.

besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Court decided that it isn’t the business of the federal government to get involved at all.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Dion on December 7, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Sure.

1) Should the military segregate homosexuals into separate living quarters from one another as they do heterosexuals?

- I’m not in the military and I should have no say. This should be left up to the generals and the rule-makers in the military. What’s to note is that straight men-women are separated to prevent sexual activity (I think?, again not in military). Straight men and gay men do not have sexual activity together.

2) Should polygamy and/or incestuous marriages between consenting adults be legal?

- No, unless future generations decide otherwise. Heterosexual polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships mostly (generalization) involve non-consensual relationships where the woman is being forced into the union. If there’s a way around such human right abuses, whatever.

3) Do you agree, as an earlier poster posited, that we are all simply nothing more than members of the animal kingdom?

No – we are separated only from the animal kingdom by a much more advanced to reason; that is apply logic and deduction, and be able to understand cause-effect to several levels deeper than the smartest animals. This leads to a sentience not shared by other species.

4) Does this post make me look fat?

As much as we’d like to think we’re above this, your physical appearance is still used by your peers, coworkers, etc. to make decisions. Whether you look friendly and date-able, or are the one who will be hired out of the pool of job candidates.

Exercise and eating healthy are extremely important to keeping yourself in shape and in health. Furthermore, dressing appropriately, like choosing clothing that fits you (instead of baggy or loose clothing) is important in not making you look like a slob and unattractive.

ZachV on December 7, 2012 at 6:23 PM

. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

Why would they worry about a “backlash”? That would be noisy, but in the end would not alter their ruling in the least.

KS Rex on December 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

You are the one equating the Supreme Court overturning voters rigths with freedom, not me.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I look at it as an opportunity for the court to determine that the federal government has no jurisdiction. Less government in the business of marriage.

I’m for small government. You?

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I suspect you and I have zero overlap on issues on which we might agree politically, but your post makes me . . . sad. There’s nothing to be afraid of, Pappy. Seriously.

lostmotherland on December 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Except you wanting to be a tyrant and force people to agree with you. And if they don’t, patronize and belittle them.

besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I look at it as an opportunity for the court to determine that the federal government has no jurisdiction. Less government in the business of marriage.

I’m for small government. You?

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

You know they aren’t going to do that. SCOTUS’s precedent(pun intended) is to strengthen the federal government and restrict state’s rights. What will end up happening is the decision to take marriage regs away from the state.

And yes, I am for small government. Why do you think differently?

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:27 PM

1) Should the military segregate homosexuals into separate living quarters from one another as they do heterosexuals?

- I’m not in the military and I should have no say. This should be left up to the generals and the rule-makers in the military. What’s to note is that straight men-women are separated to prevent sexual activity (I think?, again not in military). Straight men and gay men do not have sexual activity together.

LOL– And yet it was non-military pushing for the social experiment. Even to go as far as faking a survey that was sent to military members.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I look at it as an opportunity for the court to determine that the federal government has no jurisdiction. Less government in the business of marriage.

I’m for small government. You?

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

For Prop 8, that means it is in force.

For DOMA, that doesn’t make any sense. DOMA is about the regulation of the interaction between states. Clearly something that is in the Feds purview – unlike most of the things the Feds find reason to involve themselves in.

besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I’m curious, as an U.S. citizen your afforded equal rights under the Constitution. Marriage is not specifically stated in any portion of the Constitution. So, will the arguments before the Supreme Court be based on equal rights as per the Constitution or Marriage, which as it stands is administered through States Rights? Would this fall under the 10th Amendment?

DDay on December 7, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Maybe it was just an automatic decision, it is the Ninth Circuit after all.

Cindy Munford on December 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM

by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is

This is exactly what disgusts me about this country now. Neither political party is objective….both are diametrically opposed to one another on purely ideological grounds…no longer what’s good for all citizens…but what’s good for each others half of the country…which now for all intents and purposes is a deeply divided country.

We’re as deeply divided as a “country” as we were during and after the civil war. For those of us on the right…we are in a civil war and a battle to overcome the dissidents and socialists. And…the right is losing to the parasites as well as the sodomites.

So now we have a Supreme Cout…which is SUPPOSED to be neutral and OBJECTIVE

Consisting of IMPARTIAL judges soely on the letter of the law…and not what freakin’ political bent they have. They’re supposed to be POLITICALLY ulnemcumnbered.

Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy and the other week kneed sister…Breyer…are openly…OPENLY selective…even racists as I see it…and their recent appointments fulfilled the AA goal to a tee.

We may as well secede….We’ll never be able to cast a vote as free citizens in any state…so long as the turds in black robes can and will overturn the will of the people.

Twana on December 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

SCOTUS’s precedent(pun intended) is to strengthen the federal government and restrict state’s rights.

melle1228 on December 7, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I thought the trend was to do whatever keeps John Roberts popular at DC cocktail parties. If handing it back to the states allows for that, then it will likely go that way.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM

AP, welcome back!

Lawdawg86 on December 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8