Supreme Court will hear two gay marriage cases

[baseline bum]

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will decide two major gay marriage cases next year that could have a sweeping effect on the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The cases, which likely won't be decided until June, mark the first time the justices will consider arguments for and against same-sex marriage.

The court will review California's gay marriage ban, which passed in a 2008 ballot initiative months after California's high court had legalized same-sex unions and thousands of gay Californians had already tied the knot. Two federal courts have struck down Proposition 8 as discriminatory, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final judgment.

The justices will also hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed under President Bill Clinton that prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

(continue reading at http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...201555862.html )

[Wild Cobra]

They voted to let Obamacare stand because it was voted in, they just about have to let the people's vote stand.

[Drachen]

his comprehension abilities are worse than I thought, or more likely, he made some up

[ChuckD]

They voted to let Obamacare stand because it was voted in, they just about have to let the people's vote stand.

People voted to enact Jim Crow laws. Not everything voted on is Cons utional.

They also let the AHCA stand because no part of it violated the Cons ution, not because it was "voted in".

[Wild Cobra]

People voted to enact Jim Crow laws. Not everything voted on is Cons utional.

They also let the AHCA stand because no part of it violated the Cons ution, not because it was "voted in".

That is different. We've been down this road before. Refer to past threads on what was said.

[Latarian Milton]

his comprehension abilities are worse than me, or more likely, he made some up

well, that says alot tbh

[ChuckD]

That is different. We've been down this road before. Refer to past threads on what was said.

No it's not. Monstrous things are "voted in" all the time.

You seem to think the SCOTUS litmus test is if something was "voted in", then it can't be overturned. The actual test is if it violates the US Cons ution or not.

[Wild Cobra]

There is nothing monstrous as maintaining marriage as between a man and woman.

[ElNono]

in before jacob's 'i don't care about teh gays' post...

[ChuckD]

There is nothing monstrous as maintaining marriage as between a man and woman.

Again, with the Jim Crow laws, also voted in.

[mouse]

So redzero and Avente finally get their 15 minutes?

[Edward]

There is nothing monstrous as maintaining marriage as between a man and woman.

There is nothing uncons utional about making the n!ggers use their own bathroom