You mean showing that it is legitimately most of the left and center, and a large portion of the right, that agrees with gay marriage?

(04-28-2015 10:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You mean showing that it is legitimately most of the left and center, and a large portion of the right, that agrees with gay marriage?

<sigh> I see that being wrong again and again is a specialty of your's. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

(04-28-2015 10:32 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 10:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You mean showing that it is legitimately most of the left and center, and a large portion of the right, that agrees with gay marriage?

<sigh> I see that being wrong again and again is a specialty of your's. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

Yours. 'Your's' is a nonsense contraction which means 'your is'.

I fully expect them to rule that this is nationwide. The Constitutional argument behind it is stronger than literally everything else that could ever be argued. Heck, the Supreme Court's job is to read the laws through that lens. And the equal protections clause is being used quite well to make the argument for marriage equality.

(04-28-2015 08:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I still say I fully support making gays suffer the same penalty of marriage as the rest of us. It should be a boom for divorce lawyers.

My goodness. You're getting warmer. Rationality rears its head in this thread at last. Kudos!

(04-28-2015 10:32 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 10:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You mean showing that it is legitimately most of the left and center, and a large portion of the right, that agrees with gay marriage?

<sigh> I see that being wrong again and again is a specialty of your's. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

Oh dear. Someone's been slacking off on your public opinion polling research! Here are a couple of recent polls to serve as a refresher :)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/p...index.html (a more left-leaning source, indicating ~45% of GOP support and ~75% of DP)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/09...news-poll/ (a more right-leaning, saying ~40% of GOP and ~74% of DP)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-ma...-high.aspx (interesting source indicating across all ideologies, ~78% of those between 18-29 support marriage equality; ~58% independents say 'yes', and ~31% of 'true conservatives')

(04-28-2015 11:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I still say I fully support making gays suffer the same penalty of marriage as the rest of us. It should be a boom for divorce lawyers.

My goodness. You're getting warmer. Rationality rears its head in this thread at last. Kudos!

"Be careful what you wish for."

(04-29-2015 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 11:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I still say I fully support making gays suffer the same penalty of marriage as the rest of us. It should be a boom for divorce lawyers.

My goodness. You're getting warmer. Rationality rears its head in this thread at last. Kudos!

"Be careful what you wish for."

There's actually a serious point here. I have represented a couple of people involved in same-sex (both female) breakups. In one case, there was considerable property on both sides, while the other had considerable property on one side, but very little on the other. In both cases the attorneys ended up in conference with the judge who said basically, "You work something out, because I don't have a clue what the law says."

These experiences left me very much with the opinion that we absolutely need something from a legal standpoint, regardless of one's views about the moral and social implications.

(04-29-2015 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 11:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I still say I fully support making gays suffer the same penalty of marriage as the rest of us. It should be a boom for divorce lawyers.

My goodness. You're getting warmer. Rationality rears its head in this thread at last. Kudos!

"Be careful what you wish for."

There's actually a serious point here. I have represented a couple of people involved in same-sex (both female) breakups. In one case, there was considerable property on both sides, while the other had considerable property on one side, but very little on the other. In both cases the attorneys ended up in conference with the judge who said basically, "You work something out, because I don't have a clue what the law says."

These experiences left me very much with the opinion that we absolutely need something from a legal standpoint, regardless of one's views about the moral and social implications.

Which appears to be an equal protection argument.

What people aren't focusing on is that HOW the court rules when it makes same sex marriage legal in all 50 states very important

If they rule using the 'no rational basis' for discrimination in marriage laws, that creates a much more limited precedent than if they rule on the basis of 'equal protection'.

At any rate, I don't think the court wants unprecedented levels of protests across America this summer. Nor do I think that a majority of them want to be seen as bigots and bad jurists by posterity. This will probably be the most high profile ruling they will make.

My guess is that they'll say 'no rational basis' on a 6-3 vote. And then not even address 'equal protection' except in concurring opinions. That being said, for me, I'd prefer a 5-4 ruling using 'equal protection' and 'no rational basis' over a 9-0 ruling using 'no rational basis'.

Quote:At any rate, I don't think the court wants unprecedented levels of protests across America this summer. Nor do I think that a majority of them want to be seen as bigots and bad jurists by posterity. This will probably be the most high profile ruling they will make.

Your hyperbole is approaching hysteria.

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:At any rate, I don't think the court wants unprecedented levels of protests across America this summer. Nor do I think that a majority of them want to be seen as bigots and bad jurists by posterity. This will probably be the most high profile ruling they will make.

Your hyperbole is approaching hysteria.

No hyperbole here.

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:At any rate, I don't think the court wants unprecedented levels of protests across America this summer. Nor do I think that a majority of them want to be seen as bigots and bad jurists by posterity. This will probably be the most high profile ruling they will make.

Your hyperbole is approaching hysteria.

No hyperbole here.

That is nothing but hyperbole.

(04-29-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:At any rate, I don't think the court wants unprecedented levels of protests across America this summer. Nor do I think that a majority of them want to be seen as bigots and bad jurists by posterity. This will probably be the most high profile ruling they will make.

Your hyperbole is approaching hysteria.

No hyperbole here.

That is nothing but hyperbole.

Well we will just have to disagree, because the court is going to establish that banning Gays from marriage is unconstitutional. So we won't find out.

Justices spoke today about how this is changing the definition of marriage. Yep, people have been saying this from the beginning.

Also asked how you deny polygamists after gay marriage . Guess they need to get UCF's list. LMFAO.

(04-28-2015 06:28 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:03 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Any chance NY would not recognize a, you know, REAL marriage?

What a beautifully unamerican sentiment. I GOT MINE.

I'm not married.

Shocker

(04-29-2015 04:29 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:28 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:03 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Any chance NY would not recognize a, you know, REAL marriage?

What a beautifully unamerican sentiment. I GOT MINE.

I'm not married.

Shocker

+1

Damn. I must be fat, bald... and gay. LOL.

A bigot... pinko... baby murderer....

Hyperbolic one issue partisan hack...

Incapable of performing even modest, part time mod duties....