Bloomberg News is reporting that the US Supreme Court will examine California's gay marriage law to see if the 14th Amendment bars the state from defining marriage in a traditional way.
The SCOTUS Blog posted this update Friday afternoon via CoveritLive:
“Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.”
In 2008, 52 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in February, ruling Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Prop. 8 supporters then appealed to the country's highest court.
This chronology of the history of gay marriage on the LA Times explains the complex road that has led to today.
The SCOTUS Blog also clarified the immediate impact of the court's decision Friday—there is none.
“Although the Court is ruling on Prop. 8, there is nothing in the order that would lift the 9th CA's stay. So marriage licenses in Calif. will have to wait until this case is decided.”
Friday, the Supreme Court also granted a review of Windsor, a challenge to federal Defense of Marriage Act, according to Bloomberg.
DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples.
State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris spoke in support of the court's decision to review Prop. 8.
“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people,” Harris said in a prepared statement. “For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.”
Others echoed her sentiments.
“We are pleased that the court has agreed to decide once and for all whether these blatantly discriminatory marriage bans are permitted under our Constitution,” Ilona Turner, Legal Director of Transgender Law Center in San Francisco said in a prepared statement. “These laws that unconstitutionally restrict access to marriage based solely on gender must be struck down.”
Eight other cases involving same-sex marriage were not added to the Supreme Court's “orders list,” essentially its docket for the next term. Most involved the Defense of Marriage Act.
It's expected the court will hear the marriage cases in the March sitting, March 18-27.
“What is "traditional" about marriage?” -the union of one man and one woman- “Homosexual marriage will have ZERO effect on a heterosexual marriage” -homosexual marriage (oxymoron) legitimizes perverted acts like anal sex between two males- “If two people fall in love and decide they want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, who are you, or I, do stand in their way?” -what about three people? what about my biological mother? or my sister for that matter? who are you to stand in our way? do you see where this is going?- “Why do you even care what two other people do? Is your marriage somehow less valid or worthy if two men marry, or two women?” -this is not about me but rather upholding the traditions of marriage- “If your religious views…” -when did religion enter into the fray? suggestion: the word ‘marriage’ is taken. choose another word-
-do you find anal sex between two males to be tasteful, normal and moral?-
"...there is no valid reason to deny two adults the ability to marry" -so you don't take issue with an adult son and his biological mother marrying, fornicating and having children between them?-
again, do you find anal sex between two males to be tasteful, normal and moral?
By the way, back to the sophomoric charge ... your inability to refer to me by name while you hid behind a fake identity is, well, somewhat sophomoric.
“what you don't get is that your question is irrelevant” -for clarification the question was not addressed toward you- “anal sex has nothing to do with morality” -au contraire, if males are allowed to marry then anal sex will follow and become the norm. children will pick up on this filthy practice via tv, the internet, at public schools etc. and will equate the perversion as being good. this is where it becomes a moral issue- “As for the other two criteria you're applying, my definition of tasteful or normal is irrelevant” -but anal sex between males is not normal; it violates their bodies and leads to disease. to allow them to marry would condone abnormal behavior. clear? “your focus on this one particular aspect of this issue is a total and complete red herring” anal sex is a violation of one’s body and leads to disease. to write off this behavior as irrelevant is pure ignorance- “…and evidence of your sophomoric intellect” -you sir are an ignoramus of the highest order-
you mean women marrying each other i presume? in a physical sense there is no violation, no disease being spread etc. and so i place this issue on the back burner. but in a moral sense i must condemn this behavior much like i condemn single women having / raising out of wedlock children -it sends the wrong message to families, to children and is harmful for society btw i do wish you'd answer my question. i've answered all of yours...no?
"spreading of disease" is a problem for you, them men should never have sex with women, because women have the potential to get all kinds of things from a man. But guess what-condoms are effective to prevent the spread of diseases to both women and men. But that doesn't solve the of issue of the fact that it is NO business of yours what two consenting adults do in the bedroom.
They lost the battle to protect the word marriage right around the point when people could be married at a drive thru in Vegas or via a reality show. They have failed to offer equal benefits via gay marriage at a federal level. They simply have lost too much ground. A victory now is but a small battle in a large war they are losing. The debate is in the process of being brought to a slow close as older American's die.
See the problem is that if one follows your train of comments here, it's pretty clear. You find it absolutely repugnant that a man might stick his thing in that hole -- something tells me you're kind of paranoid about it happening to you. And because you find it repugnant and would never do it yourself, you simply cannot understand or tolerate the idea that other people might not be so repulsed, so you manufacture all of these "justifications" that have basically no relevance or foundation. Keep it up, though, you continue to demonstrate that the opposition to gay marriage is based on nothing other than irrational fear.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it because it's the best answer....I want the SCOTUS to rule in a way that will require state governments to recognize (and issue licenses for) "Civil Unions" for everyone. Marriage ceremonies can be done in church to ratify the "civil union" if the participants wish. "Marriage" should not be a government issue. All unions should be "civil unions". If individuals want to call what they have a marriage, so be it. If they want to call what they have a Frizbee, let them call their civil union a Frizbee. Who cares?
If it makes anyone feel better, I've seen nothing in the law that would require a member of the clergy to perform a same-sex marriage--just as some churches still refuse to perform interracial wedding rites or wedding rites between persons of different faiths. So let's continue to have wedding ceremonies, while understanding they have no legal standing; but let's recognize that the appropriately completed certificate turned into the appropriate office constitutes the official act of marriage.
http://www.guccibeltstb.com/ Gucci Belt http://www.coachoutletonlinetsy.net/ Coach Online Outlet http://www.coachoutletstoredet.net/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.hermesbeltsst.com/ Hermes Belts