Supreme Court denies gay marriage appeals

[mystery-ak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/supreme-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals/

Published October 06, 2014Associated Press


The Supreme Court has turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.

The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states should be able to get married in short order.

That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

But the justices have left unresolved for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.

[GourmetDan]

This is just the warm-up.  Once 'gay' marriage is legal, you won't be able to stop 'gay' adoption.

And that's the real goal...

[musiclady]

Pandora's box has been opened.

The future includes legal incest, legal polygamy, and eventually, legal pedophilia.

The moral boundaries have been ripped to shreds, and there is now no rationale for making anything illegal.

[ABX]

This is just the warm-up.  Once 'gay' marriage is legal, you won't be able to stop 'gay' adoption.

And that's the real goal...

Single gay adoption is already legal in most states. Joint adoption isn't but only one party needs to be on the paperwork.

[mystery-ak]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/10/06/an-explainer-on-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision/

11:50 am ET
Oct 6, 2014 CIVIL LITIGATION
An Explainer on the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision
By  ASHBY JONES

In a surprising move, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning declined to hear appeals from five states in same-sex marriage cases.

Here’s a quick Q&A on what it all means.


In what states can same-sex couples now get married?

Same-sex marriage is likely to begin shortly in at least five states: Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia and Oklahoma. In regard to each of those states, a federal appeals court had struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, but had stayed the effect of the ruling pending a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has punted, those stays are lifted, allowing same-sex marriage to begin in each of those states.



Are any other states effected by the ruling?

Probably. Generally speaking, rulings from federal appeals courts apply to every state within a court’s territory. So a ruling from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that arises out of Virginia, for instance, typically also applies to the other states covered by the circuit, namely West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina.

On Monday, the Supreme Court left in place rulings from three circuits — the Fourth, Seventh, and 10th. It’s likely that bans on same-sex marriage in six states within those circuits are now in serious jeopardy. Those states are North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Colorado.

The bans in those six states won’t fall automatically, according to Paul Smith, the head of the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block LLP in Washington, D.C. Rather, same-sex couples will likely have to formally ask a court within those states to apply the broader circuit-court ruling. Or, alternatively, the states could start issuing licenses on their own. Once that happens, same-sex marriage will likely begin in each of those states.



And if that happens, in how many states will same-sex marriage be legal?

Thirty, plus the District of Columbia. Sixty percent of the U.S. population now live in states in which same-sex marriage is legal.

The Supreme Court took up two same-sex marriage cases two terms ago. Why the reluctance now?

It’s not exactly clear. The Supreme Court typically doesn’t explain why it decides to hear — or not hear — individual cases. And it made no exception to this on Monday, as you can tell by the order it issued.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us a bit of insight into the court’s thinking last month at a speech in Minnesota. She essentially said that without a disagreement on the issue from lower courts — a “circuit split,” in Supreme Court parlance — the court was unlikely to jump in now. A ruling upholding a state ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Ginsburg said, might prompt “some urgency” on the part of the court. Without a split, she added, “there is no need to rush.” Cases are currently pending at the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

But the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday “lets the whole chaos stand for a while,” said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage.



How did the justices vote on this?

We don’t know. Justices don’t typically reveal how they voted on whether to hear a certain case. One thing’s certain, however: that fewer then four justices voted to hear any of the cases. (Hearing a case — or “granting certiorari” — typically requires “yes” votes from at least four justices.) We can assume, based on her Minnesota response, that Justice Ginbsurg voted no. Beyond that is anyone’s guess.



So is this settled now? The Supreme Court has given the lower courts the final say on same-sex marriage?

No. All that we know is that the Supreme Court doesn’t feel like these particular cases are worth taking up now. Should a circuit split emerge, which could happen within several months, the court might be more inclined to jump in and settle the issue.



As Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, wrote in the Washington Post:

There are several more cases pending in lower courts, including some in which there are reasons to suspect the states will prevail.  If so, the court will have a split to resolve, making a grant a sure thing.  If not, and same-sex marriage advocates run the table, the court can avoid resolving the issue.

[jmyrlefuller]

It seems that the approach SCOTUS is going to take is to wait for all the appeals courts to delegitimize laws codifying man-woman marriage, that way they don't have to do the dirty work and take the blame. At the current rate, they may be right in doing so. SCOTUS probably won't take the case unless there is a dissenting ruling, which hasn't happened in a few years.

[Dexter]

Pandora's box has been opened.

The future includes legal incest, legal polygamy, and eventually, legal pedophilia.

The moral boundaries have been ripped to shreds, and there is now no rationale for making anything illegal.

Do you honestly believe that this paves the way for legal pedophilia? There is nobody anywhere arguing for legalized pedophilia, and that will not change. The vast majority of people are not pedophiles, and they understand how vile and disgusting it is. 

[Dexter]

This is just the warm-up.  Once 'gay' marriage is legal, you won't be able to stop 'gay' adoption.

And that's the real goal...

Homosexual couples that raise children tend to be more educated and financially secure when they make the decision to raise a child. What exactly is your issue with them raising children? There is no evidence of any kind that homosexual parents raise kids that are more likely to be homosexual.

[Dexter]

Also, Roberts most likely refused to hear the case because he knows there is no legal basis for denying marriage equality. If they heard the case it would be legal nationwide instead of in a more limited fashion as we see now.

[jmyrlefuller]

Also, Roberts most likely refused to hear the case because he knows there is no legal basis for denying marriage equality. If they heard the case it would be legal nationwide instead of in a more limited fashion as we see now.

“Marriage equality” is an oxymoron. It grants married couples rights above and beyond single people. One could make the case that recognizing marriages violates the 14th Amendment. Ironically, single people are the fastest-growing demographic in America. Yet the homosexuals, who if anything are declining, are the ones who are dictating the agenda.

[musiclady]

Do you honestly believe that this paves the way for legal pedophilia? There is nobody anywhere arguing for legalized pedophilia, and that will not change. The vast majority of people are not pedophiles, and they understand how vile and disgusting it is.

Yes, of course I believe it.  Otherwise I wouldn't say it.

The same arguments used for normalizing homosexuality are beginning with pedophilia.

And there was a time when, since the vast majority of people are not homosexuals, they understood how vile and disgusting it is.

But, it's interesting that you failed to mention the parallel I also brought up about incest and polygamy.

There is absolutely no rationale to keep either of those things (among 'consenting' adults who are predisposed to their sexual condition) illegal.

None.

[Dexter]

Yes, of course I believe it.  Otherwise I wouldn't say it.

The same arguments used for normalizing homosexuality are beginning with pedophilia.

And there was a time when, since the vast majority of people are not homosexuals, they understood how vile and disgusting it is.

But, it's interesting that you failed to mention the parallel I also brought up about incest and polygamy.

There is absolutely no rationale to keep either of those things (among 'consenting' adults who are predisposed to their sexual condition) illegal.

None.

Do you believe that homosexuality is equally as disgusting as pedophilia? I would hope that you find one much more disgusting than the other, considering that homosexual relationships are consensual and pedophilia is the lowest and most disgusting form of non-consensual sexual practice.  I wouldn't participate in polygamy, but honestly I am not morally opposed to it. If groups of people want to have multiple marital partners that is their business, not mine.

[musiclady]

Do you believe that homosexuality is equally as disgusting as pedophilia? I would hope that you find one much more disgusting than the other, considering that homosexual relationships are consensual and pedophilia is the lowest and most disgusting form of non-consensual sexual practice.  I wouldn't participate in polygamy, but honestly I am not morally opposed to it. If groups of people want to have multiple marital partners that is their business, not mine.

Do I believe the two behaviors are equal?  Of course not.  That's a complete non-sequitur from what I said.

But it is argumentative, and non productive.  I'll give you that.

Go back and re-read what I actually said.  It might help in a rational discussion of the subject.

[Dexter]

Do I believe the two behaviors are equal?  Of course not.  That's a complete non-sequitur from what I said.

But it is argumentative, and non productive.  I'll give you that.

Go back and re-read what I actually said.  It might help in a rational discussion of the subject.

If they are not in the same realm of grotesque behavior why should we assume that allowing one will make way for allowing the other? Pedophilia is an entirely different level; that's like saying gay marriage will lead to the legalization of rape and murder. There is no legal rationale to keep gay marriage illegal, but there will absolutely always be a clear and obvious legal rationale to keep pedophilia illegal. There will never be giant groups of people arguing that a grown adult should be able to have sex with children. Do you honestly believe a political platform like that could ever gain traction? I have to vehemently disagree with you.

[flowers]

Mambla.........man boy love association.  What about that organization?  They are gay and like little boys. They have a following here in the states. Yes pedophilia will come out of gays adopting, not all but it will. I was shocked a few years ago when I found out this mambla was real.

[musiclady]

If they are not in the same realm of grotesque behavior why should we assume that allowing one will make way for allowing the other? Pedophilia is an entirely different level; that's like saying gay marriage will lead to the legalization of rape and murder. There is no legal rationale to keep gay marriage illegal, but there will absolutely always be a clear and obvious legal rationale to keep pedophilia illegal. There will never be giant groups of people arguing that a grown adult should be able to have sex with children. Do you honestly believe a political platform like that could ever gain traction? I have to vehemently disagree with you.

Last post if you continue to deliberately misinterpret what I've actually said......

I am not making the argument that they are equal.  The proponents of pedophilia are beginning to make noises that sound very much like the arguments made 30 years ago in the effort to normalize homosexuality.  It's the way they were born.   It's normal for them.  It doesn't hurt anybody.

I repeat.........I am not the one making the argument.  Please try to understand that, and respond accordingly.

Thirty years ago, the vast majority of Americans found homosexual behavior disgusting (and perhaps still do, but are afraid to say it for fear of the reprisal and name-calling that would follow).  Incrementally, the left began to make moves to say it was 'normal' behavior, and had nothing to do with right or wrong (something understood by most when they began the campaign).

If one says both behaviors are wrong, that is in no way whatsoever, saying they are equal.  That would be like saying taking a candy bar from a store (wrong behavior) is "equal" to stealing a car (also wrong).

You continue to put words in my mouth based on your feelings on the subject.

As for "giant groups"..........it didn't take a "giant" group to removal the societal mores against homosexuality as normal.  It just took a steady, relentless small group influencing social thought.  To say it is impossible that 30 or 40 years from now it couldn't happen, is conjecture on your part, and not based on the logic of what has preceded you.  You may be right, but based on my 6 and a half decades of living, I wouldn't count on that, were I you.

Now, if you want to discuss the subject as a whole (including incest, which you have avoided), without your focus' being entirely on pedophilia sometime in the future, I'll consider it. 

[Dexter]

Mambla.........man boy love association.  What about that organization?  They are gay and like little boys. They have a following here in the states. Yes pedophilia will come out of gays adopting, not all but it will. I was shocked a few years ago when I found out this mambla was real.

I believe you're referring to Nambla, and they have been abandoned by the LGBT community. There are straight pedophiles too, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind pedophilia being legal either. Pedophilia is disgusting, and there is no way any significant number of people will ever fight for it to be legal.

[musiclady]

Mambla.........man boy love association.  What about that organization?  They are gay and like little boys. They have a following here in the states. Yes pedophilia will come out of gays adopting, not all but it will. I was shocked a few years ago when I found out this mambla was real.

And there are other organizations with the same focus.

One has to have one's head in the sand to deny that efforts to normalize pedophilia are going on now.

[musiclady]

I believe you're referring to Nambla, and they have been abandoned by the LGBT community. There are straight pedophiles too, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind pedophilia being legal either. Pedophilia is disgusting, and there is no way any significant number of people will ever fight for it to be legal.

Disgusting to YOU.

What makes you think your morality should determine what other people do in their private lives?

There are clearly many, many people who don't find it disgusting at all.

Why should their lives be dictated by your morals?

[Dexter]

Last post if you continue to deliberately misinterpret what I've actually said......

I am not making the argument that they are equal.  The proponents of pedophilia are beginning to make noises that sound very much like the arguments made 30 years ago in the effort to normalize homosexuality.  It's the way they were born.   It's normal for them.  It doesn't hurt anybody.

The difference is that pedophilia will never be able to make a legitimate claim that there is no legal rationale to keep it illegal. Homosexuals can do that because it is an act between two consenting adults. Large amounts of normal people will not justify pedophilia in their minds; it just won't happen. There is no way the idea of legal pedophilia will ever gain any traction. Please show me where people are arguing that pedophilia doesn't hurt anybody. It sometimes is the way they are born, but I have never heard anybody make a ridiculous claim like it doesn't hurt anybody, and anybody that did make a claim like that would surely be in an unbelievably small minority. If there were even hints at legalized pedophilia people would take to the streets by the millions. A handful of pedophiles getting together to justify their own actions as people will always do does not mean that they will somehow actually have success achieving their goals.

Thirty years ago, the vast majority of Americans found homosexual behavior disgusting (and perhaps still do, but are afraid to say it for fear of the reprisal and name-calling that would follow).  Incrementally, the left began to make moves to say it was 'normal' behavior, and had nothing to do with right or wrong (something understood by most when they began the campaign).

I don't believe that 30 years ago the amount of people disgusted by homosexuality was anywhere close to the amount of people disgusted by pedophilia. I would agree that a lot more people than today believed that homosexuality was wrong/disgusting. There is nothing for anybody that supports pedophilia to stand on when it comes to justification, and that is why it will never be legal.

As for "giant groups"..........it didn't take a "giant" group to removal the societal mores against homosexuality as normal.  It just took a steady, relentless small group influencing social thought.  To say it is impossible that 30 or 40 years from now it couldn't happen, is conjecture on your part, and not based on the logic of what has preceded you.  You may be right, but based on my 6 and a half decades of living, I wouldn't count on that, were I you.

I understand your position here, but I completely disagree. I don't see any way that legalized gay marriage will further the interests of people that want legalized pedophilia. It will never happen.

Now, if you want to discuss the subject as a whole (including incest, which you have avoided), without your focus' being entirely on pedophilia sometime in the future, I'll consider it.

My instincts tell me that incest is wrong, but unlike pedophilia I cannot with confidence tell you that it will never be legalized. The reason for that is that incest can occur between two consenting adults, and pedophilia cannot. Your argument that gay marriage legalization may pave the way for polygamy and possibly incest does have merit, but I feel pedophilia cannot be included if that argument is to retain its merit.

[Dexter]

Disgusting to YOU.

What makes you think your morality should determine what other people do in their private lives?

There are clearly many, many people who don't find it disgusting at all.

Why should their lives be dictated by your morals?

Their lives should be dictated by my morals because their behavior is victimizing an innocent person. Their lives should be dictated by my morals for the same reason that a serial killer's life should be dictated by my morals. Homosexuals are not victimizing each other; the behavior is consensual.

[musiclady]

Well, I'm glad to see that you admit that you think America should be run according to YOUR morals.

You're not the only one making arguments without historical perspective either.  Many others are doing it, perhaps leading to your "confidence" that what you feel shouldn't happen will never happen.

(I'll leave the discussion of the changing age of consent to another day, and why the laws against pedophilia could change on a dime if the definition of who is a child changes.  And that just might include how a 13 year old girl can legally get an abortion, but not a measles shot......leftist age of consent 'logic').

But again, it's good to see you admitting that you're the one who should determine the country's moral boundaries, and not someone more conservative than you........OR more liberal.

See ya, Dex. 

[Dexter]

But again, it's good to see you admitting that you're the one who should determine the country's moral boundaries, and not someone more conservative than you........OR more liberal.

I think common sense and reason should determine moral boundaries. It shouldn't be legal for one person to victimize another person. I think most people would agree with that.

[MACVSOG68]

I think common sense and reason should determine moral boundaries. It shouldn't be legal for one person to victimize another person. I think most people would agree with that.

You have a lot of patience.

[truth_seeker]

I think common sense and reason should determine moral boundaries. It shouldn't be legal for one person to victimize another person. I think most people would agree with that.

And the source of that "common sense" and "reason" would be what?