End Times and Current Events
June 27, 2017, 02:03:42 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)

Shoutbox
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 8 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Romans 8 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
January 24, 2017, 09:38:51 pm Romans 8 says:
January 16, 2017, 07:17:24 pm Romans 8 says:
October 24, 2016, 03:38:23 am Christian40 says: i'm here again i get bonus time on the Net today Smiley
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)  (Read 11015 times)
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2013, 08:19:48 pm »

Mat 13:3  And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
Mat 13:4  And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Mat 13:5  Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Mat 13:6  And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away
.
Mat 13:7  And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Mat 13:8  But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.


Mat 13:18  Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Mat 13:19  When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
Mat 13:20  But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21  Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 08:24:30 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
tennis shoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2013, 11:18:24 pm »

So the Supreme Court will hear this trash but refuse to hear a case that has evidence of the current sitting President using an admittedly forged birth certificate, fake social security number, and forged selective service registration.

Guess that’s just not important. Oh, snap! He has the authority to nominate them into the court. That explains it. Justice? Not on this earth.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2013, 11:38:38 am »

DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

“The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents,” says the administration.

To support this argument, one of the documents the administration cites is a “policy statement” by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be “superior” to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households.

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

The Obama administration further argues that because California law already permits domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples are allowed all the "incidents” of marriage--including the right to adopt children and be foster parents--that Proposition 8 only denies same-sex couples the use of the word "marriage" and does not change the status of child-rearing in the state.

“Moreover, as the court of appeals determined, ‘Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California,’” says the administration. “As explained, California law, both before and after Proposition 8, grants registered domestic partners the same parental rights and benefits accorded to married couples. And Proposition 8 does not alter California’s adoption, fostering, or presumed-parentage laws, which 'continue to apply equally to same-sex couples.’

“In light of California’s conferral of full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples, Proposition 8’s denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry bears no cognizable relation, let alone a substantial one, to any interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing (however defined),” says the administration. “Indeed, because a substantial number of California children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples.”

In effect, the administration is arguing that California had already conceded the administration’s point that children do not need a mother or a father when it enacted laws treating same-sex couples the same as married couples in its adoption, foster-parenting and other laws--which Proposition 8 did not seek to overturn.

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2013, 08:43:19 pm »

So the Supreme Court will hear this trash but refuse to hear a case that has evidence of the current sitting President using an admittedly forged birth certificate, fake social security number, and forged selective service registration.

Guess that’s just not important. Oh, snap! He has the authority to nominate them into the court. That explains it. Justice? Not on this earth.

And not to mention too all of the Hegelian Dialect dog-and-pony-show theatrics going on - there was an article the other day over why Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to strike down the various states's anti-sodomy laws in 2003...b/c supposedly he favored states rights.

So..."conservative", anti-abortion Justices Clarence Thomas and A. Scalia are anti-states rights b/c they voted against striking it down? While "liberal", pro-abortion Justices Ruth Ginsberg and John Stevens are pro-states rights b/c they voted for striking it down? And for that matter too, wasn't Kennedy appointed by "Christian Freedom Fighter" Ronald Reagan?

You see the level of stupidity this Hegelian Dialect dog-and-pony-show threatrics have become?
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2013, 11:32:53 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/no-immediate-ruling-michigans-gay-marriage-ban-163106011.html

3/7/13
DETROIT (AP) — A judge said Thursday that a lesbian couple seeking to jointly adopt children made a "compelling" case Michigan's gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution, but he wants to wait for guidance from the Supreme Court before deciding whether to throw it out.
 
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman heard arguments from the two Detroit-area nurses who filed a lawsuit last year attacking a Michigan law that prohibits them from jointly adopting children because they're not married. At Friedman's suggestion, they expanded their challenge to the gay marriage ban approved by 58 percent of Michigan voters in 2004.
 
But Friedman said he would benefit from seeing how the U.S. Supreme Court handles cases involving a gay marriage ban in California as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Arguments are scheduled later this month in Washington.
 
An immediate ruling in Michigan "would not be fair to either side," Friedman said while holding court in front of students at Wayne State University law school.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2013, 01:56:44 am »

3/10/13
The issue of gay marriage is hurtling toward a Supreme Court date this month, and activists on both sides are fearing — or hoping for — another Roe v. Wade-type decision.
 
The 1973 Roe decision — which the justices hoped would settle the legal question on abortion once and for all — instead spawned a political and cultural clash that is still raging. Many traditional-values advocates are predicting a similar divisive scenario if the high court overrides laws approved by legislatures and voters in dozens of states defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
 
If the Supreme Court “mandates genderless marriage, the resulting social divisions and political contentions will probably equal — and may surpass — those resulting from Roe v. Wade,” Nevada lawyer Monte Stewart and the Coalition for Marriage said in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both of which take a stand against same-sex marriage.
 
“It is not an exaggeration to call the [Proposition 8 case] Hollingsworth v. Perry the ‘Roe v. Wade for marriage,’” said Ron Prentice, chief executive of the California Family Council.
 
The similarity seen between the 1973 abortion decision and the two marriage cases lies in how a broad decision declaring a fundamental right has potential impacts for state marriage laws and, in some cases, constitutional provisions. A court declaration of a general right to marry a person of one’s own sex, as it did in the case of abortion, also would freeze political debate.
 
When Roe declared abortion a right, it struck down any state laws that conflicted with that ruling, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. With same-sex marriage, that means nullifying or overriding overnight statutes in 41 states to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
 
If the Supreme Court rules that those kinds of man-woman marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution, then the effect “would be to change the definition of marriage for all 50 states, and impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states,” said Mr. Sprigg. “That’s why these cases are like the Roe v. Wade of same-sex marriage.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/gay-marriage-ruling-may-rival-roe-v-wade-in-turmoi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2NDBwWPFv
 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2013, 09:54:22 pm »

Sometimes I wonder if these people have been working for the enemy all along...

Wells without water...

David Blankenhorn, Institute For American Values President, Explains Gay Marriage Shift
2/28/13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/david-blankenhorn-institute-american-values-gay-marriage-_n_2782841.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-marriage

In a new video with Faith In America, Institute for American Values President David Blankenhorn explains his personal change of heart on gay marriage.

Last summer, Blankenhorn wrote a revelatory op-ed piece for The New York Times where he explained his newfound acceptance of marriage equality.

"I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over," he wrote at the time. "Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."

In this honest and candid video, the man who served as the chief witness for marriage equality opponents in the California Prop 8 case explained his revelation even further.

"I felt that, at some level, I was pointing a finger of condemnation at other people...based on who they are," he recalls in the new clip. "From a spiritual point of view, my own spiritual life...when I felt that I was no longer doing that, I felt better."
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2013, 02:32:58 pm »

Pretty much, as everyone can see here, the Hegelian Dialectic b/w "conservatives vs. liberals" is really being played out here, and is showing their rotten fruit, ultimately.

It seems like every day now, some self-professing "Republican" or "conservative"(or for that matter some professional sports player) is coming out supporting gay marriage - is this a surprise per se that they are doing so? No, but nonetheless for many years(since the early 80's), the false Churchianity system allowed themselves to be sucked into this Hegelian Dialectic war of words concerning social issues, thinking their good works(ie-voting) would somehow help change this country for the better.

Also interesting too is that in Matthew 24 when Jesus talks about the end times - yes, he talks about the signs(ie-earthquakes, famines, pestilences, wars, etc) to watch for. However, the BIGGEST sign he said to keep on guard is DECEPTION...look how many times he talks about it in this chapter...

Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:12  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Mat 24:23  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25  Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26  Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Yeah, you can't deny that part of the end times deception has been to get the false Churchianity system into this dogfight, when Jesus Christ says to WATCH and PRAY(and that is all!).
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2013, 03:00:56 pm »

"Nevertheless we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night, because of them." Nehemiah 4:9 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2013, 11:54:18 pm »

Well, this GOP Sen Rob Portman guy - in interviews he said that he now supports gay marriage b/c he wants to make his son happy. While I can empathize with him(for the most part, raising kids are not easy, and some can stray). However, if he wants to use this logic...

So if his son gets into alot of fornication and infidelities, does that mean he should come out as pro-fornication and pro-infidelities?

If his son has a drinking problem, then does this mean he should push for laws benefiting drunkards?

If he finds out his son is a serial killer, then does this mean he should push for laws benefiting serial killers?

All to make his son "happy"? Whatever happened to the children honouring the parents, which is the 1st commandment with promise as says in scripture? So now is Portman saying it should be the other way around?

FWIW, Portman isn't the only person to come out with this attitude recently.

Mat 15:4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2013, 05:36:32 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-support-gay-marriage-180805675--abc-news-politics.html
Poll Tracks Dramatic Rise In Support for Gay Marriage
3/18/13

Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.
 
That number has grown sharply in ABC News/Washington Post polls, from a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, advancing to a narrow majority for the first time only two years ago, and now up again to a significant majority for the first time.
 
Most Americans, moreover, say the U.S. Constitution should trump state laws on gay marriage, a question now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And - in another fundamental shift - just 24 percent now see homosexuality as a choice, down from 40 percent nearly 20 years ago. It's a view that closely relates to opinions on the legality of same-sex marriage.
 
Intensity of sentiment about gay marriage also shows considerable change in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In 2004, strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters by a broad 34 percentage points. Today strong supporters are ascendant, outnumbering strong opponents by 11 points.
 
CHANGE - Results of this survey extend evidence of a remarkable transformation in public attitudes. Views on basic social issues often move slowly, if at all. Support for gay marriage, though, has gone from 47 percent to today's 58 percent in just the last three years - culminating a period of change first endorsed by some state courts, then by some political figures, notably with Hillary Clinton expressing support for same-sex marriage today, and Barack Obama doing the same last May, a position he went on to underscore in his second inaugural address in January.
 
Gay marriage today is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and civil unions are legal in eight more states (and were approved last week by the state Legislature in a ninth, Colorado). Thirty-one states ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment.
 
Sharp differences across groups remain, but there have been large advances across the board. In one striking gap, gay marriage is supported by a vast 81 percent of adults younger than 30, compared with just 44 percent of seniors. But that's up by more than 10 points in both groups just since March 2011, and by more than 20 points in both groups since 2004, the low point for gay marriage support in ABC/Post polls.
 
On the political front, 72 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor legalizing gay marriage, vs. far fewer Republicans, 34 percent. Still that's up by 18 points among Republicans since 2004, as well as by 24 and 29 points among independents and Democrats, respectively.
 
Similarly, while just 33 percent of conservatives support gay marriage, that's up by 23 points from nine years ago. Support encompasses more than seven in 10 liberals and moderates alike, with the greatest growth among moderates, 31 points higher now than in 2004.
 
Sentiment among religious groups shows the same kinds of trends. Among non-evangelical white Protestants, 70 percent in this poll support gay marriage, compared with fewer than half as many of those who describe themselves as evangelicals, 31 percent. But that's up by a nearly identical 25 and 24 points among these groups, respectively, since 2004. Support for gay marriage also is up, by 19 points, among Catholics, to 59 percent.
 
CHOICE? - As noted, just 24 percent of Americans now see homosexuality as "something people choose to be," down from 40 percent in an ABC/Post poll in 1994 and 33 percent (among likely voters) in 2004; the rest, 62 percent, instead say it's "just the way they are," up from just fewer than half in 1994.
 
It matters quite a lot: Among the declining number of people who see homosexuality as a choice, just 29 percent support gay marriage, with nearly seven in 10 opposed. Among those who reject this view, support for same-sex marriage soars to 73 percent.
 
There's one especially dramatic difference in seeing homosexuality as a choice: Forty-five percent of evangelical white Protestants hold this view, among the most to say so in any group tested; among non-evangelical white Protestants, 13 percent agree, among the fewest. Those are down from 1994 by similar margins - 15 and 18 points, respectively.
 
CONSTITUTION - The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings on gay marriage next week, including challenges to a vote in California barring gay marriage, and to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a woman and a man, denying married gay and lesbian couples federal benefits given to married heterosexual couples. This poll suggests that the high court is the right place for it: Americans by nearly 2-l, 64-33 percent, say the legality of gay marriage "should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution" rather than by each state making its own law on the issue.
 
That view, interestingly, is not much impacted by attitudes on the issue itself: Among supporters of gay marriage, 68 percent say the Constitution should rule; among opponents of gay marriage, 62 percent say the same.
 
Preference for a Constitution-based determination encompasses two-thirds or more of Democrats and independents, liberals and moderates alike; it's lower, but still a majority, among conservatives (56 percent) and Republicans (54 percent).
 
METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 7-10, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-25-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
 
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2013, 07:32:40 pm »

Changed Minds & Demographics in Gay Marriage Shift
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/changed-minds-demographics-gay-marriage-shift-18776831
3/21/13

The nation's views on gay marriage are more favorable in large part because of a shift in attitudes among those who know someone who is gay or became more accepting as they got older of gays and lesbians, according to a national survey.
 
The Pew Research Center poll also finds that a large group of younger adults who tend to be more open to gay rights is driving the numbers upward. The issue has grabbed the national spotlight recently with the public embrace of same-sex marriage by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
 
"We've certainly seen the trend over the last ten years," Michael Dimock, director of the center, said Wednesday. "But we're now really in a position to talk about the combination of generational change and personal change that have sort of brought the country to where it is today."
 
Overall, the poll finds 49 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and 44 percent opposed to the idea. That's more people now favoring gay marriage than opposing it. A decade ago 58 percent opposed it and a third supported it.
 
The 49 percent who now support same-sex marriage includes 14 percent who said they have changed their minds
.
 
When asked why, almost one-third say it's because they know someone who is gay — a family member, friend or acquaintance. A quarter said their personal views have changed as they thought more about the issue or just because they've grown older and more accepting.

One of those polled said: "My best friend from high school is a gay man, and he deserves the same rights," adding that his friend and a partner "are in a committed relationship."
 
Another person attributed the shift in attitude to "old fashioned ignorance," and said "I grew up a little bit."
 
Just 2 percent overall said their views have shifted against gay marriage.
 
Another major factor in the long-term shift in the public's view: the so-called millennial generation of young adults born since 1980—today's 18- to 32-year-olds who entered adulthood in the new millennium. The survey finds 70 percent of millennials favor same-sex marriage.
 
Gay marriage has long been an issue of partisan political debate, but it resurfaced recently with Clinton and Portman declaring their support, and as the Supreme Court prepares to take up the issue.
 
On Monday, Clinton announced her support for gay marriage — lining up with other potential Democratic presidential candidates who favor it.
 
In an online video released by the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, Clinton says that gays and lesbians are "full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship."
 
And last week, Portman reversed course and said he now supports gay marriage. He said he had a change of heart after he learned one of his sons is gay. "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," he wrote in an op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch. His reversal makes him the only Republican in the Senate to back gay marriage.
 
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a challenge to a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It's also reviewing California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
 
The Pew Research findings are based on a survey of 1,501 adults nationwide conducted Mar. 13-Mar. 17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2013, 03:18:43 am »

Quote
That's more people now favoring gay marriage than opposing it

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that. I think they are outright lying just to forward their gay cause.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2013, 10:43:56 am »

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that. I think they are outright lying just to forward their gay cause.

Although you can't deny that the Millenial crowd has bought into the gay marriage agenda(as well as other globalist agendas like not knowing what Roe V Wade is, evolution, big government, etc) - no, not saying everyone in this age group is brainwashed(we have a couple of people fellowshipping here in this age group that bear good fruit in the KJV), but at the same time look at all of the rotten fruit that has gotten to an all-time low that this demographic has been exposed to in their public institutions, modern-day churches, entertainment media, etc. It was pretty bad in my days as a kid in the 80's, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.

And yes, I know these "polls" are rigged too - but at least in my neck of the woods, I also sense even the older folks are softening up on these issues. For example, when I told someone how Rick Warren endorsed gay pastors, he said, "But what if my son was gay??". On another occassion they admitted they emphathized with the young youth group leaders at their church for exposing Christian Rock music to their flock b/c "they themselves grew up with it". Do they even realize that alot of our national leaders are/were sodomites? Do they even realize that rock music is runned by Satan and his minions?

Ultimately, there's just NO accountability anymore toward the younger generation of today. When I was a young boy, my mom used to get after me alot for listening to rock music(among other things). I hated it then, but I am very grateful for it now. But fast-forward to our present day - for the most part, it's just that parents et other supervisors don't care anymore. Even pastors of their respective churches will bring alot of filth in their walls, and noone says anything about it. Yes, I know the Churchianity system is corrupt, but it just didn't happen in my days as a young boy.

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2013, 11:12:14 am »

Another thing - this has been part of the Hegelian Dialectic since 1980(when the "religious right" formed), in order to bring about this acceptance over the gay rights agenda. On one end, there's Churchianity, and on the other end of the "dogfight" are the activists like Hollywood/Ellen Degenerous crowd.

Ultimately, the whole "war of words" that lasted for so long(including seducing Churchianity to blindly vote for and follow Republican leaders) was part of this whole scheme, and to boot to make Christians look foolish.

Fast-forward to our present day - you just don't hear a chirp from the "religious right"/Churchianity since Bush II left office. The James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons, etc have all but "admitted" that they want to hang up the spurs and wish they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Come to think of it too, back in 2004 when Churchianity just got tons of media attention that election year for their "good works to get out the vote", was also the same time period when the "religious LEFT" starting infiltrating the walls quietly(ie-Rick Warren's PDL "studies" started sweeping churches across America).

Polls, scholls, you can't deny the feeling among the masses, in general, is that this once hot-topic social issue is no big deal anymore, and probably should embrace it instead.

Luk 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2013, 08:58:21 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/town-poised-first-ariz-civil-unions-221112846.html
3/21/13
Town poised to be first in Ariz. with civil unions

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. (AP) — A former mining community in rural southern Arizona that has shifted over the years into an artists' haven and tourist destination is poised to become the first city in this conservative state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

The Bisbee City Council, on an initial vote Tuesday, unanimously endorsed an ordinance that would give same-sex partners in civil unions the same rights in the city as married couples, the Sierra Vista Herald reported (http://bit.ly/Y1NIHL).

A formal vote on the measure is scheduled for April 2.

Bisbee City Councilman Ken Budge called the proposed ordinance long overdue. He described Bisbee, which is more liberal than most Cochise County communities, as a "compassionate and open city" doing the right thing.

"We are the blue dot in a red state of red," he said.

Some of the wording for the ordinance is from bills proposed but not passed in the Republican-led Arizona Legislature.

The head of an influential advocacy group for social conservatives said the group was studying how Bisbee's proposal "interfaces with state law."

"Clearly Bisbee granting civil unions is not in accordance with state policy," said Cathi Herrod, president of the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy. "Clearly it applies only in Bisbee."

Tucson enacted a city law in December 2003 that recognized domestic partnerships, but Bisbee's proposed ordinance appears more comprehensive.

Under the ordinance, two people in a civil union would be considered spouses in such matters as property ownership, guardianship in cases of illness, and disposition of remains upon death, City Attorney John MacKinnon said.

The measure says Bisbee would be exercising "inherent powers of self-government" under its city charter to attempt to reduce discriminatory practices. It also says every person has the right to enter into a "lasting and meaningful relationship with the partner of his or her choice, regardless of the particular sexual orientation of that partnership."

If the ordinance is approved, same-sex couples could go to City Hall and get a form indicating they want to enter into a civil union. The city clerk would file the notarized form and a signed affidavit, then issue the couple a certificate of the civil union.

The form would cost $76, the same cost of a marriage license.

Several Bisbee residents urged the council to support the measure.

Margo McCartney said after her partner of 16 years died, the partner's daughter had to sign all documents because the couple wasn't married and had no rights.

"It's so humiliating," McCartney said through tears. "So. I'm hoping that Bisbee will be out there first."
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2013, 07:04:22 pm »

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=f1d0f6f3-358f-4253-b501-3c847ba2cf0c&_nwpt=1
3/22/13
After more than 25 years of research, American Academy of Pediatrics has found no link between parents’ sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being.

Next week, the hot topic of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court for arguments on its constitutionality.

Support for the legalization of same-sex marriage sits at 53 percent and a recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans say gays and lesbians should be able to legally adopt children.

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, issued a powerful statement supporting marriage equality for all consenting couples, as well as full adoption and foster-care rights for parents regardless of sexual orientation reports The Huffington Post.

“There is a lot of research to back up this policy,” Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston told The Huffington Post. “If a child has two parents that are dedicated and willing to provide a permanent, secure family, why would we not support that family? It's clearly in the best interest of children.”

In 2006, after 25 years of research AAP concluded to have found no link between parents' sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being.

“The statement by the AAP also reaffirms more than 30 years of social science research that concludes that children grow up with the same positive developmental outcomes whether their parents are of the same gender or different genders,” wrote a Family Equality Council spokesperson on its website. “More importantly, it matches the lived experiences of many of our parents who have raised a generation of children into young adulthood who are successful by every measure.”

In the United States, between 1 million and 6 million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2013, 03:03:40 am »

Quote
American Academy of Pediatrics has found no link between parents’ sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being

Well, of course they did! I expect no less from a bunch of atheist scientists. Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2013, 03:50:11 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/straight-people-paved-way-gay-marriage-132613801.html
3/23/13
How Straight People Paved the Way for Gay Marriage

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments next week for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage, the public is increasingly coming down on the "for" side.

In fact, an ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday (March 18) found that 58 percent of Americans now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, a number that leaped from just 37 percent in 2003. The shift in opinion is dramatic compared with other social issues. Public opinion on abortion, for example, has barely budged since the 1970s.

Some of the change is likely the result of more advocacy and visibility by gay Americans. But marriage itself has changed, gradually toppling the gendered roles that once defined man and wife.

"Now we're organized in a gender-neutral way,"
said Stephanie Coontz, the director of the Research Council on Contemporary Families and author of the book "Marriage: A History" (Penguin Books, 2006
).


"It's up to the individual couple to negotiate their roles and duties," Coontz said. "It's really easy for a heterosexual couple to say, 'That's what I've got, why shouldn't same-sex couples have it?'" [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

Out of the closet

Tolerance for gays and lesbians has gone up considerably. Some of this is generational: According to the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of the Millennial generation (born after 1980) supports legal same-sex marriage, compared with 49 percent of Gen Xers (1965-1980) and 38 percent of Baby Boomers (1946-1964). The Silent generation (1928-1945) is least likely to support same-sex marriage, at only 31 percent in favor.

But support within each of those generational brackets has risen over the past decade, too. For example, in 2003, only 17 percent of the Silent generation supported same-sex marriage.

Visibility of gays and lesbians has made part of the difference. When Pew asked people who had changed their minds from anti-same-sex marriage to in favor why they'd shifted their attitudes, the most common response (32 percent) was that they knew someone who was gay and that personal relationship had altered their opinion.

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio recently made headlines for altering his opinion in just this way. The senator came out in support of same-sex marriage in an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch on March 15, saying that he'd changed his mind after his college-age son came out as gay.

Another 25 percent of Pew respondents simply said they'd grown more open or thought about it more, and 18 percent said legal same-sex marriage was "just inevitable." Another 18 percent cited love, happiness or the need for the government to stay out of relationship decisions.

Changing marriage

As opinions have shifted, so has marriage. Getting married once meant signing on to traditional gender roles wholesale. Companies once refused to consider married women for employment, or required women who were getting married to resign. (IBM, for example, only altered this policy in 1951.) It wasn't until the late 1970s that women could sue for consortium, or the right to their husband's aid, support and companionship. Before then, a man could sue a third party that injured his wife (through medical malpractice, for example) on the grounds that her injury took away his right to consortium — she couldn't provide him with services and companionship he had rights to. But because women were legally inferior to men, a wife could not sue on behalf of her husband.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 that married couples won the right to contraception. Assisted reproduction, such as it was back then, was also frowned upon. [7 Surprising Facts about The Pill]

"In the 1950s, at least two state courts held that assisted reproduction was adultery and the child was illegitimate," Coontz said.

Laws such as this gradually got overturned, Coontz said, making marriages far less gendered. At the same time, expectations that a married couple must procreate have declined — and assisted reproductive technology is far more acceptable for couples who can't have kids the old-fashioned way.

In other words, same-sex couples haven't changed marriage for straight people, as opponents of same-sex marriage often argue, Coontz said. Heterosexuals changed marriage first.

"It's the opposite sequence than what is described by opponents of same-sex marriage," she said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage tend to hold more traditional, gendered views of marriage than supporters, Coontz said. But given that heterosexuals aren't quizzed on their plans for splitting up the household chores or having babies before being handed a marriage license, it's hard to construct legal arguments around that view.

"It's harder for opponents to say every family has to have a guy who does this and a gal who does this," she said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry on Tuesday (March 26), reviewing a federal appeals court decision that found Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, unconstitutional. On Wednesday (March 27), the Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a challenge against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which refuses federal benefits to same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is legal.

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2013, 03:59:43 pm »

^^ Yeah, can't deny that all of this didn't exactly happen overnight, nor in the last 20-25 years alone, but GRADUALLY and SLOWLY over a very, very long period of time. The article did a good job to point out where it all started...

Eph 5:22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Luk 17:28  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all
.

**the word "plant" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary has several meanings, and it doesn't necessarily mean plant a garden or infrastructure of a building. One of the meanings they have is "to establish".
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,plant
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2013, 06:41:18 pm »

Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chief-justice-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-attend-prop-145833042--election.html

Chief Justice John Roberts' first cousin, a lesbian, will attend Tuesday's oral arguments in the first gay marriage case to reach the Supreme Court. She will be in the seating section reserved for the justice's family and close friends.

Jean Podrasky, 48, told the Los Angeles Times that she hopes her first cousin will decide to overturn California's gay marriage ban, called Proposition 8, so that she can marry her longtime girlfriend. “He is a smart man,” Podrasky told the paper of the George W. Bush-appointed justice. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

Podrasky said she arranged to get her seats through Roberts' sister. The courtroom seating for the historic case has been very much in demand, with supporters of gay marriage lining up as early as Friday afternoon to wait more than three days for a shot at entry.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20789



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2013, 06:29:50 am »

‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then much will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points this out: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, ****, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/03/25/marriage-equality-spells-marriage-extinction-n1548427/page/full/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2013, 12:18:50 pm »

Quote
To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/03/25/marriage-equality-spells-marriage-extinction-n1548427/page/full/

Coming from Townhall - pretty much a Republican-establishment leaning site. So no mention of the 100+ Republican establishment people that wrote memos to the USSC endorsing gay marriage? No mention of Anthony Kennedy, a RONALD REAGAN appointee, voting to strike down anti-sodomy laws(Lawrence vs. Texas) in 2003? No mention of John Roberts, a Bush II appointee, over inviting his lesbian cousin to watch the court proceedings?

You pray that that the USSC vote to strike down gay marriage? I agree with you, but you shouldn't have turned a blind eye when Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, and John Roberts were appointed by GOP Presidents, and you shouldn't have turned a blind eye when 100+ GOP people endorsed gay marriage recently.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2013, 01:10:59 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/prop-8-supreme-court-justices-spar-over-gay-155005999--politics.html
Prop 8: Supreme Court justices spar over gay marriage case
3/26/13

Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Tuesday that the proponents of California's gay marriage ban have the legal right to defend the proposition in court.

Several of the justices closely questioned the attorneys in the landmark case over the procedural legal issue, called standing, suggesting they may be poised to throw the case out without significantly addressing the broader issue of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to wed. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said. "The voice of these children is important in this case," he said
.


Later in the oral arguments, however, Kennedy said he wondered whether the case should have been granted at all, again mentioning the standing issue.

"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Prop 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit.

Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.

The standing issue has dogged supporters of Prop 8 since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general declined to appeal a lower court's decision striking down the ban. A coalition of people who helped place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place stepped up to defend the ban in court without financial help from the state. That group must prove they would experience a direct injury if Prop 8 is struck down in order to have standing to appeal.

The state Supreme Court in California ruled that the coalition had standing to pursue the case, but justices from both the liberal and conservative wings of the court appeared skeptical of that ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was appropriate for supporters of a ballot initiative to defend it in court, rather than the state itself. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court had never "allowed anything like it" in the past.

If the justices decide to throw out the case on standing, the lower court's decision allowing gay marriage will most likely be the law of the land in California.

Even if the justices get past the standing hurdle, they did not appear to be poised to issue a broad ruling affirming gay marriage.

But the Court's four more liberal justices, along with swing justice Kennedy, closely questioned the Prop 8 defenders' attorney about why the government has a reason to exclude gay people from marriage.

Justice Elena Kagan asked attorney Charles Cooper to explain how allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt heterosexual marriage. Cooper replied that he did not think that was the question at hand in the case, at which point Kennedy interjected and asked if he was "conceding the point" that gay marriage does not cause harm. Cooper answered that there may be unforeseen consequences of broadening the "age-old, bedrock" institution of marriage to include gay people.

But even though Kennedy appeared skeptical of the argument that the government has a reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, he also expressed frustration with the quality of the case, mentioning both the standing issue and some of the odder legal arguments advanced by the lower courts.

Kennedy also noted that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.

Many legal experts believe Kennedy will join with the four liberals on the court to write an opinion that strikes down Prop 8 on narrow grounds that will not affect the gay marriage bans in effect in dozens of other states.  But during arguments, Kennedy criticized the Ninth Circuit opinion narrowly striking down Prop 8 in California as advancing an "odd rationale," which suggests he may not want to uphold it.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2013, 03:52:20 pm »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have

Quote
The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

Well, well...surprise surprise! Roll Eyes Wow...it seemed like the whole Bush v. Gore ordeal was yesterday, and now we're seeing lawyers that were on OPPOSITE sides TEAM up together to push for gay marriage, while their "opponent" happens to be one of their long-time colleagues? Roll Eyes

Looks like one big happy family now!

Quote
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.


Uhm...didn't Obama once upon a time ago say gay marriage should be LEFT UP TO THE STATES?(Before he "changed" his position, that is)

This is just my opinion - but if the ruling will be just this(left up to the states), then it's going to open up a whole new can of worms, why? B/c the gay rights movement in those 30 states are going to come out complaining, "But California got their way with the high courts, why can't we have our equal rights?".

This line of thinking by the establishment is a TRAP!

Isaiah_24:5  The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2013, 03:53:16 pm »

Quote
children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to wed.

That's bull dung. Children can be cared for medically and mentally, regardless of their parents status. It's done every day across the country in free clinics. If the child is sick, you treat them, regardless of parents or medical insurance.

Parents, people, or groups who are denying children medical care, especially based on their insurance or lack of, should be the ones questioned.

Insurance companies are the first ones that should be in court explaining their actions, but the evil world and it's politicians simply won't do that. Too much money involved for the medical industry to be non-profit.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2013, 07:25:11 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-next-gay-marriage-case-eyes-federal-050121766.html
Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law
3/27/13

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court seemed to be leaning on Wednesday toward striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in a move that would reflect a shift in Americans' attitudes about gay marriage.

In a second day of oral arguments on same-sex marriage, a majority of the court raised serious concerns with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, enacted in 1996 under President Bill Clinton.

Arguments over the last two days on the DOMA case and a separate one challenging California's ban on gay marriage marked the high court's first foray into a delicate and divisive political, religious and social issue in the United States as polls indicate growing public support for same-sex marriage.

In theory, the cases have the potential for the court to take a significant step toward endorsing gay marriage as it gains support in some parts of the country. Based on the arguments, however, a partial victory for gay rights activists seems more likely than the sweeping declaration of same-sex marriage rights they had hoped for.

As demonstrators rallied outside the Supreme Court building for a second day, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, showed a willingness to invalidate DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples access to federal benefits by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

He warned of a "real risk" that the law infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage.

A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights.

In contrast to the ambivalent approach they displayed on Tuesday in arguments about California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, the nine justices seemed willing to address the substantive issue in the DOMA case, while also eyeing procedural questions
.


The court is not expected to rule on the two cases until the end of June. If the justices were to strike down DOMA, legally married gay couples would be winners because they would have improved access to federal benefits, such as tax deductions.

Justices gave a strong indication they might resolve the Proposition 8 case on procedural grounds, but even that would be viewed as a win for gay rights activists as same-sex marriages in California would likely resume.

What appears highly unlikely is a sweeping declaration of a right for gay people to marry, a possible option only in the California case.

Overall, a majority of the justices made it clear that, while they might not impede the recent movement among some states toward gay marriage, they were not willing to pave the way either.

Nine states now recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

On several occasions over the two days, the justices' own remarks illustrated how quickly attitudes have changed in favor of gay marriage.

During Tuesday's arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, questioned whether there was sufficient data to show that children are not adversely affected if raised by same-sex couples. Likewise, Justice Samuel Alito noted the concept of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."

Offering a liberal perspective, Justice Elena Kagan prompted murmurs of surprise from onlookers on Wednesday when she quoted from a U.S. House of Representatives report written less than two decades ago, at the time DOMA was enacted, that referenced "moral disapproval" of gay marriage.

'SKIM MILK MARRIAGE'

As attention turned to DOMA on Wednesday, Kennedy made it clear where he stood, referring to DOMA as "inconsistent" because it purports to give authority to the states to define marriage while limiting recognition of those determinations.

His states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns about the law.

Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married.

"It affects every area of life," she said.

Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by the federal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

On that issue, Kagan spoke of a "red flag" that indicates Congress passed DOMA with the intent of targeting a group that is "not everyone's favorite group in the world."

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

Separately, several conservative justices criticized Obama and his Justice Department for not defending the marriage law in court.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Obama had "the courage of his convictions" for continuing to enforce DOMA while calling it invalid.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2013, 07:28:46 pm »

The man who brought us Anthony Kennedy(and Sandra Day O'Conner too)...

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2013, 11:23:43 pm »

Analysis: Gay marriage rights may carry bigger U.S. tax burden for some
3/28/13
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-gay-marriage-rights-may-carry-bigger-u-222320190.html

By Kim Dixon and Patrick Temple-West

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman, the newfound rights for gay married couples may bear something not so welcome - a bigger tax burden.

That's because with equality, gay couples will face the same tax woes of many heterosexual couples with similar incomes, including the tax hit known in America as the marriage penalty.

Taxpayers filing as married couples may be forced to pay higher taxes as their collective income crosses into a higher tax bracket sooner than if they were filing separately.

Oral arguments on Wednesday gave gay marriage backers hope the court would overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after a majority of the nine justices raised concerns about the law's validity under the U.S. Constitution.

Taxes are at the very heart of the challenge to DOMA.

The case involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple. When Spyer died in 2009, DOMA prevented Windsor from enjoying one of the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by heterosexual Americans - the exemption from federal estate tax on wealth passed from one spouse to another.

If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

Cynthia Leachmoore, a tax preparer in Soquel, California, has about 40 same-sex married couples as customers ranging from teachers to Silicon Valley workers.

A handful of them have joint incomes that top $1 million. They're facing $25,000 to $30,000 more in federal and state taxes if DOMA goes down and they file taxes jointly, she said
.

"Most of them don't care. They'd really like to be able to say that they were married" on tax returns, Leachmoore said. "That's more important to them."

COMPLICATIONS

Married gay couples would see other benefits, including a break in taxes now paid on health insurance and greater access to federal family and medical leave.

There are some 130,000 same-sex married couples in the United States as estimated by the Census Bureau, and nearly 650,000 same-sex couples, married and not, in total.

The Byzantine U.S. tax code's marriage definition is not consistent. In some sections, the marriage provisions are defined for a "husband and wife." Other places say "spouse."

If the law is struck down, the Internal Revenue Service may need Congress to clarify the tax code, or the Obama administration may say same-sex married couples will be treated the same as opposite-sex marriages, said Annette Nellen, a tax professor at San Jose State University.

GOOD FOR TAX COFFERS

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 estimated that recognition of gay marriage would, on net, help the budget's bottom line by $1 billion a year over 10 years. The increased revenue would account for about 0.1 percent of total federal revenues at the time.

My Comment: So this is about $$$$ after all as well?

The Williams Institute, a unit of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, estimates that gay marriage may be good also for the fiscal health of states and localities that legalize it.

Of the 50 states, 31 have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It is legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

The remaining states' policies vary, with some recognizing marriage from other states, some providing some of the legal benefits of marriage and others denying marriage by state laws.

Williams Institute estimated that if Rhode Island legalized marriage, its coffers would gain $1.2 million in 2010 dollars over three years, largely due to lower spending on social welfare programs and increased income tax revenue and marriage license fees.

That is the small slice of the hundreds of millions in operating deficits Rhode Island is expected to be working under in the next five years, as estimated by a governor's report.

Because of differing state laws, it is unclear what the impact might be in states with laws disallowing gay marriage.

Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, said that if he married legally in Washington, D.C., and moved to Oklahoma, where gay marriage is not legal, the federal government might still recognize the union.

But Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery and author of a book on domestic partner benefits, said he was not so sure that would be the case.

"It is an open question as to what happens in Oklahoma," he said. "Each state will still be allowed to legislate marriage
."


INCOME, ESTATE, HEALTH TAXES

Although the case was about the estate tax, only 3,600 estates owed the estate tax in 2012, according to government figures, and the wealthiest Americans pay most of it.

The end of DOMA might also save same-sex couples from having to pay some federal taxes on healthcare benefits they receive through a spouse's employer. Unmarried domestic partners on average owe an extra $1,000 annually in taxes on these benefits because they are now taxed, according to Williams.

"Everyone will get a benefit if they were carrying health insurance," said Nanette Lee Miller, head of non-traditional family practice at accounting firm Marcum LLP in San Francisco.

The impact on Social Security benefits will be mixed. DOMA prevents same sex couples from claiming the survivors benefits extended to married couples. But Social Security recipients might face greater taxes on their benefits because they will hit the level where the benefits begin to be taxed sooner if married.

(Writing by Kim Dixon; Editing by Howard Goller, Mary Milliken and Tim Dobbyn)
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 11:28:36 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27164


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2013, 11:28:01 pm »

^^ So apparently, one of the agendas here is the love of money...lawyers, accountants, and the federal/state governments will all be profiting quite a bit over this(well, maybe not the latter as much b/c they are so deeply in debt).

Prov_11:1  A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines