.

Sound Off: Supreme Court to Consider Same Sex Marriage Case Friday

The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to decide whether to hear an appeals case that would determine the legality of same sex marriage in California. What do you think it should do?

After years of legal wrangling, the U.S. Supreme Court could decide if same sex marriage is legal in California Friday.

The court will convene to decide whether to hear a case challenging Proposition 8, the amendment banning gay marriage in California. In February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the amendment unconstitutional, and Prop 8 proponents appealed the ruling. If the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the appeal, then the circuit court ruling would stand, and gay marriage could, once again, be legal in California. If the nation’s top court does take up the case, Californians would likely have to wait several months before a decision is made.

According to the court panel's ruling, the proposition's primary impact was to ``lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.''

``It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of `marriage' to describe their relationships,'' according to the court's decision. ``Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in child-rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples.

``Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard those liberties.''

Opponents of same-sex marriage were equally strong in their words condemning the ruling at the time.

Proposition 8 supporter Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, blasted the ruling, calling it ``unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system...''

``It's illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior,'' he said after the ruling. ``That's not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable.''

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IN THE COMMENTS?

Do you think the Supreme Court should hear the case? Or should the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling be the final word on the matter, legalizing gay marriage in California.

 - City News Service contributed to this report.

john tecumseh November 30, 2012 at 07:19 PM
If that's true, than DOMA is unConstitutional, too. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether States can deny marriage rights to same-sex couples without running afoul of the US Constitution.
john tecumseh November 30, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Who would decide it then? The voters of California voted to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. Only the courts can overturn that. State governments DO have the right to define marriage. The federal government defining marriage is NOT THE ISSUE HERE. Andromeda and Luis you seem rather confused about both the issues of this case, and the way our elgal system works.
Justice Will Be Served December 01, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Too bad there are officers at the LBPD that were for prop 8, against gay marriage, homophobic, and make fun of the gay population of long beach. When will it get fixed?
Andromeda December 01, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Never. The public safety unions run the government. Haven't you heard?
Stephanie December 01, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Gays cannot be discriminated against when it comes to marriage, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. They cannot be discriminated against that because they don't qualify for it. The umbrella of marriage is it's definition, anyone cannot go under that umbrella and say, "We are married". I've never understood why they want to be part of a group that has a 50% failure rate. They could completely rewrite the rules for domestic partnership and fix all the things that are wrong with marriage as a contract. There is no common law marriage in California and they could have fixed that too. We could be the first state to have a legally binding and popular domestic partnership law with all the rights of a marriage. But the gays are too busy trying to get accepted, hoping that marriage will make people see them differently. But the church won't accept it and the state will eventually.
Andromeda December 01, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Okay, John. I'm flexible and will entertain your point. I just think it's an insult to adjudicate DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) when it clearly violates the letter of the US Constitution with the government somehow believing that it can define what marriage is when that is NOT expressly authorized under the powers of the US Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did not want the US Constitution to be complicated. That is why the Bill of Rights is very simple and plain, so that a commoner can read it and understand it's meaning. It just infuriates me when legal minds get involved and twist and distort what was originally supposed to be something that someone with a 7th grade education could understand. So I will concede to you that the SCOTUS should make the decision. But the pending ruling should be obvious to any rational and discerning adult in America. If DOMA is ruled to be constitutional we are no longer a nation of laws and certainly not one that believes in equality under the law. And, again, let me emphasize. I am not sympathetic to most gay causes. I find many of them to be absurd. And I am not gay myself. But on this matter I stand locked arm in arm with each and every one of them. I believe in FREEDOM and I believe in EQUALITY UNDER THE LAWS. Two aspects of modern American life that are not very healthy in 2012. I pray that the SCOTUS does the right thing here for the sake of America and our children.
met00 December 02, 2012 at 11:42 PM
"Gays cannot be discriminated against when it comes to marriage, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Marriage is a contractual relationship with specific rights and responsibilities as recognized by the Federal and State government. The requirements to enter into this contractual relationship are: 1) Must be able to enter into a contractual relationship by age. 2) Must not already be in such a contractual relationship. Since animals can't enter into a contractual relationship, the whole "will lead to people marrying animals" as BS. Since people under the age of majority are not able into a contractual relationship, the whole "adult marrying child" is BS. Now, if you can provide a LEGAL reason why two adults may not enter into this State recognized contractual relationship if they meet the above two legal criteria, then you have a point. If the point is that they are of different races, well you are stuck back in the 1950's when that was actually the law in many states. But that law was found unconstitutional as it deprived a set of people rights. If people are of the same gender can they enter into the contractual relationship? Unless you can define why they shouldn't be allowed to get the same rights as a mixed gender pair of adults, you have no case to deny these people their rights. Kind of simple.
Stephanie December 03, 2012 at 12:07 AM
@met00, Why yes, it is simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I never said anything about children or animals, you did. Who said I don't want gays to have rights? I believe we all should have equal rights, just don't call it a marriage. And the legal argument is that gay marriages are two people of the same gender, the definition of marriage does not include that. You only want to spew at me without comprehending what I'm saying. In your eyes, someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't want gays to have equal rights and that is not true. I could care less if they are together in a civil union or something that has the same rights as marriage. That would be easier for the population to get behind, instead of calling everyone names and getting all pissy over nothing. I guarantee, the majority of people who don't believe in gay marriage still want those couples to have equal rights. Go attack someone else, I'm not the enemy.
Stephanie December 03, 2012 at 12:16 AM
@met00 Plus, California allows domestic partnership. This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage but does not apply to federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states. They already have the same rights in California! Ha! And it's not a marriage!
met00 December 03, 2012 at 12:20 AM
"Why yes, it is simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman." according to whom? The State? This is the same State that once said that people could only marry people of the same colour. That was thrown out. It took away the rights of people for no reason. So, why have a different gender requirement? Who says that gender defines the contract? How? "I never said anything about children or animals, you did." Actually it was Santorum not I. "Who said I don't want gays to have rights? I believe we all should have equal rights, just don't call it a marriage." Separate but equal. That doesn't work. Either we have equal rights or we don't. If you want the State to call it "gooblegokery" instead of marriage, then I'm all for it, as long as they do it for everyone equally. "Go attack someone else, I'm not the enemy." No more so than those that wanted blacks to have their own water fountains and bathrooms. They could still ride the bus, just in the back. They could still have schools, just with no funding, or less qualified teachers. They were separate, but equal. Didn't work then. Won't work now. My wife and I have a "license of confidential marriage" issued by the State of California. There is no reason why Bill and Ted or Laverne and Shirley can't get one as well. It doesn't affect my rights in any way.
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 12:35 AM
"I've never understood why they want to be part of a group that has a 50% failure rate." Have you understood why unmarried heterosexuals want to be part of that group, then? Once you do, perhaps you'll understand why the homosexuals want to do so as well. "But the gays are too busy trying to get accepted, hoping that marriage will make people see them differently." No, they are busy trying to get the same rights as heterosexuals do. "But the church won't accept it and the state will eventually." The church can do what it wants in their acceptance. It is a private business and it can decided not to grant gays a certificate.
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 12:43 AM
"Plus, California allows domestic partnership. This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage but does not apply to federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states. They already have the same rights in California!" "almost all state-level rights" and "the same rights" are not the same thing, but assuming you really meant, "almost", this shows you that that is not quite the "almost" one figures: http://elfwreck.homecircle.org/misc-temp/DifferencesMarriage-DomPart.pdf Simple question: If gays were allowed to get married, will you stop having meaning in your marriage (assuming you were married)? If so, please details exactly what meaning for you is lost.
Stephanie December 03, 2012 at 01:22 AM
@Shiripathi, I just read your link. You think its a good thing for a child to enter into a marriage before they are 18? I think hetero and homo sexual minors shouldn't be allowed to marry under the age of 18. You do? Good luck championing that cause. Plus, there are certain federal rules that the state of California simply can't override, like social security benefits. Until that changes at the federal level, there's no point in blaming the state of California. That link is extremely slanted and the accompanying commentary contains the phrases "indicates" and "could lead to" which are theories and not proof. If domestic partnership isn't good enough for you, go fight for what you want. I never said gay marriage would take anything away from me. Why do I have to have some personal stake in this to have an opinion? And yes, gays are looking to have marriage as a way to be seen as normal. That's what I've heard from several of my gay friends. @met00, If you think I'm some racist, don't sugar coat it. Just say it. I find your assumptions laughable, but I don't know you nor do you have any effect on who I am or how I see myself. I prefer to stick to the issues and not make personal attacks. Try it.
met00 December 03, 2012 at 02:38 AM
"Plus, California allows domestic partnership." Yes, you can sit on the bus, but you must sit in the back. "This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage but does not apply to federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states." "almost all" = You people are almost equal, but not quite. I don't think that will wash constitutionally. Would you like it if someone decided that you couldn't have the same rights as everyone else? You were "almost equal" to them, but not quite. There is NO legal reason why Harry and Tonto can't get the exact same "certificate of confidential marriage" as Harry and Sally. There is no legal reason why they can not have equal rights. Not "separate but equal", but the exact same thing with the exact same rights.
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 02:38 AM
"I just read your link. You think its a good thing for a child to enter into a marriage before they are 18?" Please point out where this link is where I said anything remotely like that, and then I will respond to your question. "I think hetero and homo sexual minors shouldn't be allowed to marry under the age of 18. You do? Good luck championing that cause." Please point out where I said anything remotely like that, and then I will respond to your question. "Plus, there are certain federal rules that the state of California simply can't override, like social security benefits. Until that changes at the federal level, there's no point in blaming the state of California." All you have done so far is a. Not answer the question I raised b. Introduced more red herrings contd...
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 02:40 AM
"That link is extremely slanted and the accompanying commentary contains the phrases "indicates" and "could lead to" which are theories and not proof." As opposed to what you have presented? That link cites the differences, if you disagree that they are differences, *state so*. You are yet to submit a thought in response. Please do so before the kettle calls you a pot. "If domestic partnership isn't good enough for you, go fight for what you want." Good, so now you realize that it is different, and you'll leave the fighting to those who care. "I never said gay marriage would take anything away from me. Why do I have to have some personal stake in this to have an opinion?" Because if you have no stake, then it neither harms nor benefits you. That is the definition of having no stake. So if you then object to someone else getting what they want, well, connect the dots, it says something about you. "And yes, gays are looking to have marriage as a way to be seen as normal. That's what I've heard from several of my gay friends." Then that applies only to your gay friends. As many of them as you think are there. Tell your gay friends that they do not represent the gay community, or have them post here, so that we may discuss exactly how they feel. I am not inclined to take your word as representative of them.
met00 December 03, 2012 at 02:49 AM
@stephani "If you think I'm some racist, don't sugar coat it. Just say it." No, I think you are doing EXACTLY what the racist have done in the past. They were on the wrong side, and you are too. Separate but equal doesn't work. You seem to think that "almost" is good enough and "equal" can be "almost". It can't. I have no idea if you are a racist. I do know your arguments for the denial of equal rights echoes those that were used to deny rights to people of colour. "I prefer to stick to the issues and not make personal attacks. Try it." Pointing out that your arguments for maintaining the elimination of the equal rights of one group matches those that were used in historical past is NOT a personal attack. It's pointing out that we have covered this exact same ground before in our history and it was wrong then, and is wrong now. And that is the issue. The rights of all men to be equal, a right that we find to be self evident, is the issue. You clearly believe that something that "grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage" is good enough for those people. I disagree. I feel "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." and therefor all deserve equal rights, not "almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage".
Stephanie December 03, 2012 at 03:20 AM
@Shiripathi, You provided the link that cites the differences between domestic partnership and marriage. One of those differences is that marriage allows for minors to marry with the consent of their parent or guardian. Domestic partnership only lets homosexual couples enter into a domestic partnership when they are 18. It's one of the differences in the link you provided. Like I said, I don't think anyone under 18 hetero or homosexual should get married under the age of 18. What are you not getting? Sorry, I'm not advocating for kids to marry or have a domestic partnership. Why did you post the link if you don't believe in it? Aren't these the differences you are unhappy with?
Stephanie December 03, 2012 at 03:56 AM
@Shiripathi, I don't have to have a stake in anything to have an opinion. I can spout off and talk about anything I want, weather it affects me directly or not. It's called free speech, and if you don't agree with what I say, I can't help that. Plus, you don't believe what I say anyway, since my friends must be wrong and don't represent the gay community. Also, who are you? I'm supposed to bring my gay friends on here to debate with you? Oh right away, I'll get right on that, some stranger doesn't believe me, whatever will I do? Like I said before, I prefer to stick to the issues and not make personal attacks. Not believing what I say and demanding my friends come on to do your bidding is not why I am debating. Never mind, I'm not interested in debating with a person who wants to give kids the right to marry and have sex. We are miles apart on that, that's why I said good luck. That came from the link YOU provided, so you must believe that. Pretty ballsy stance if you ask me.
John B. Greet December 03, 2012 at 04:26 AM
Because the federal courts are already involved in the matter, the Supreme Court should hear the case and affirm the 9th Circuit. In truth, I think the best long-term resolution of this matter would be for our society to draw a clear distinction between secular and religious marriage, call *both* a marriage, and then fully recognize both types. In this way, those marrying for religious reasons can have their religious ceremonies and those marrying for non-religious reasons can have their secular ceremonies and both marriages can be fully recognized where government has any involvement whatsoever. Such a resolution would protect the right of our LGBT community to equal treatment and protection under the law without infringing upon the need many have for their religious solemnifications. Of course this resolution will not likely occur because it would require folks on both sides of the question to set aside their respective prejudices and agree that, where government is involved, the concept of "separate but equal" has had no legal standing in quite some time now.
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 07:41 AM
"@Shiripathi, You provided the link that cites the differences between domestic partnership and marriage. One of those differences is that marriage allows for minors to marry with the consent of their parent or guardian." Ah, thank you for acknowledging that there is a difference between marriage and domestic partnership. This is different from what you said earlier: "They already have the same rights in California! Ha! And it's not a marriage!" The purpose of citing that link (and it is my link only in the detail that I cited it, not wrote it) was to counter your absurd claim. The fact that marriage allows minors to marry is a red herring. If it is wrong, it is not wrong because gays want to marry. If it right, same thing. At least you now agree that gays do not have the same rights with domestic partnership as heterosexuals do with marriage
Shripathi Kamath December 03, 2012 at 07:48 AM
@Sitaphnie "I don't have to have a stake in anything to have an opinion. I can spout off and talk about anything I want, weather it affects me directly or not. It's called free speech, and if you don't agree with what I say, I can't help that. " More red herrings. I did not accuse of having an opinion. Nor did anyone deny you your right to free speech. Or your right to breath air. Or your right to say "Yatzhee" The point was that if you have NO stake, as you claimed, then your opposition to gays wanting to marry is based on... what? When you think that through, you'll understand why it reflects something about you. "Also, who are you?" I could be Batman. It does not matter "I'm supposed to bring my gay friends on here to debate with you?" Well, at least they can vouch for your credibility, and they'll debate me, only if they and I have a difference of opinion. My suspicion is that they'll not. "Oh right away, I'll get right on that, some stranger doesn't believe me, whatever will I do?" I suspect you'll do what you are doing right now. Throw more red herrings, and those gay friends of yours will never be speaking for themselves. Take care, I'll be laughing at you mourning the passage of gay marriage. 2018 would be the year. I hope your gay friends invite you to their wedding. You can tell them that they could have done just as well with domestic partnership.
Stephanie December 04, 2012 at 04:06 AM
@ Shiripathi, Perhaps you should laugh yourself right into the nearest "Hooked on Phonics" class since your reading and comprehension skills are way off. Also, were you speaking to me? If you were you spelled my name wrong. Like I said, don't post a link if you don't believe what it says. You look silly. But once again, I can have an opinion on anything I want. Who are you to tell me or anyone to be quiet? And if it is a topic that is on the ballot, I will say whatever I want on the subject, whenever and however I please. How dare you try to silence me or anyone who doesn't share your opinion. Whatever you say isn't going to shut me up, no matter what the subject.
Shripathi Kamath December 04, 2012 at 05:39 AM
@sitaphonie, Keep repeating that you have the freedom of speech to have an opinion,and maybe, just maybe, you can convince yourself that you did not rail against gays, and that too without having a stake in it. Found those gay friends of yours yet?
Stephanie December 04, 2012 at 08:36 AM
@Shirpathi, Sigh. I have plenty of gay friends and I could care less if you believe me. It's obvious you are sophomoric in your debating skills. I comment on the things you ask me to look at and you call it a red herring. Then you attack my credibility. I don't have to prove anything to you, besides, even if I did bring my gay friends to debate you, how would you know it was them? More importantly, they would find your debating and basic English comprehension skills comical. You don't want to be laughed at do you? Funny how you attack my credibility simply because I don't agree with you. Honestly, take a class in debating, you are clowning yourself. I told you before, I have no interest in making personal attacks and would like to debate the issue. But you attacking my credibility and asking me to bring my gay friends to your feet is plain stupid. Wait, I take that back, calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. Learn to debate the issues. Good luck with that phonics class.
Panglonymous December 04, 2012 at 07:16 PM
How come when da gheys have their parades they have to end them in front of your house? You don't see *me* ending *my* parades in front of *their* house. It seems like they have better rights than normal people and can get quite snotty if you suggest that it's so.
Shripathi Kamath December 04, 2012 at 07:56 PM
@Stonephony, "Sigh. I have plenty of gay friends and I could care less if you believe me." If you could care less, you should. Pretty sure those gay friends of yours are used to it "It's obvious you are sophomoric in your debating skills." Sez the one who introduces red herrings and now ad hominems! "I comment on the things you ask me to look at and you call it a red herring." Your "I've never understood why they want to be part of a group that has a 50% failure rate." was debated to the point where you ran. You do realize that you claimed that marriage and partnership bestow the **same** rights, and then to debunk that, I cited a link with many differences. That you dislike one of the differences does not stop making it a difference. That you choose to discuss why that is a "A Bad Difference" is a red herring. My citing a document that shows a difference or nine does not make that document my endorsement. "I don't have to prove anything to you, besides, even if I did bring my gay friends to debate you, how would you know it was them?" For that you'll have to first find them. "More importantly, they would find your debating and basic English comprehension skills comical. " Sez the one who announces that she "could care less if you believe me". "You don't want to be laughed at do you?" I love it when imaginary gay friends of yours commenting on my comprehension skills laugh. Let me know when you find those gay friends.
Shripathi Kamath December 04, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Bastards! And they get free chicken at Chick-fil-A.
Panglonymous December 04, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Huh. I hate-free chicken. It's a matter of principle. Pops taught me early on: There's no free lunch. Most normal people understand this. So they've got a way to go yet.
Stephanie December 06, 2012 at 07:32 AM
@Shiripatheticathy, If I have no credibility in your eyes, then neither does any one else on the internet. I find it laughable that you are demanding my gay friends show themselves to you. Who are you, the internet police? To simply have your reply be that you don't believe me is a tactic used when one has no response. If that's what you say, I just don't believe you!! What a cop out! My friends aren't debating you, I am. But since you can't handle it, you are making excuses. More than one of my gay friends has said that if they could marry, it would make them feel more accepted by society. Now, if you don't believe that you have not said why. Have you spoken to every single gay person in the state of California? Nope. Do you represent what every gay person in the state of California thinks and believes? Nope. But somehow you think you are the all knowing and represent what all gays think, right? Because my friends don't go with what you believe, I'm somehow not telling the truth? You forget they still want gay marriage, but for a reason that you disagree with. Plus, if those differences between marriage and domestic partnership bother you so much, go fight for what you want. And if you're gonna post a link, most people are going to assume you are endorsing what that link says. Don't play dumb on that one. Once again, learn to spell and go take that phonics class. You haven't questioned anyone else's credibility but mine. Obvious much? Haha!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something