Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to re-hear the Proposition 8 case, paving the way for it to head to the Supreme Court. And that’s indeed what’s happening. The Supreme Court will revisit California’s Proposition 8 as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in late March.

Many LGBT activists and supporters are thrilled at the news and hopeful about the eventual rulings:

But others are skeptical that same-sex marriage advocates will wind up with the victory they seek:

https://twitter.com/jstrevino/status/277146516790063104

https://twitter.com/jstrevino/status/277148022914306048

And some just want it all to be over with:

https://twitter.com/Juanldwfa/status/277155426620035073

All in good time. We’ll find out where the SCOTUS officially stands next summer.

  • kch50428

    Isn’t the 9th Circus the most overturned by SCOTUS? They should be careful about what it means for the SCOTUS to take on something from the 9th Circus.

    • Purple State

      The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned, yes, but they also hear the most cases, so it stands to reason.

  • Ten31

    Pretty sure they will hold that somehow it is a tax. Of course, my marriage of more than thirty years can be pretty taxing at times.

  • http://twitter.com/tcot_ne Northeast Patriot

    This is an easy one. Marriage is not in the constitution. Maybe another reading of the 10th Amendment is in order? States need to start taking these matter into their own hands.

  • kcvegas10

    I’m a gay guy, but I am also a conservative guy. DOMA should be upheld because it’s observing states in their right to choose to recognize gay marriage or not. Prop 8 should be upheld for the same reason. Let the states take it on themselves. If the residents of California want to vote on 8 again, this time to repeal it, then do it. Stop dragging this in front of the federal courts, they’re too powerful and too all encompassing as it is.

    • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

      With DOMA still on the books, even if you can get married in another state, you still can’t file joint taxes federally. You can’t be recognized across state lines.

  • Lord Foggybottom

    Government has no right subsidizing marriage, or telling anybody who they can and can not marry. Get government out of marriage and out of our lives!

    • BeyondPolls

      I am now torn between this and federalism. The Constitution gives no explicit right for the federal government to regulate marriage at all…

    • BeyondPolls

      I am now torn between this and federalism. The Constitution gives no explicit right for the federal government to regulate marriage at all…

  • Streetiebird

    Love shall overcome!

    • BeyondPolls

      Next comes incest and polygamy.

      • Purple State

        Nope. Those are illegal. Homosexuality isn’t.

        • BeyondPolls

          Homosexuality used to be illegal if you’ll recall. As we speak a case is being taken up to allow incest on the basis of the famous sodomy case.

          • Purple State

            Homosexuality wasn’t ever illegal. Sodomy was. When it was, it was also illegal for heterosexuals as well.

          • BeyondPolls

            Tell me the difference between homosexuality and sodomy. There isn’t one.

          • Purple State

            There’s as much difference between homosexuality and sodomy as there is between heterosexuality and sodomy.

          • BeyondPolls

            Explain.

          • Purple State

            Homosexuality is a particular identity of human sexuality, sodomy is a specific act that any identity of human sexuality can perform.

          • BeyondPolls

            They are both behaviors involving sexual activity between two members of the opposite sex. Big difference.
            Anyways, there is no way pro-homosexual people can argue that incest should be illegal.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Um…yes there is. Incest is illegal for a reason. And typically it involves rape of a minor. That’s really illegal. And as a gay man who champions my right to marry, I will gladly argue against incest being made legal.

          • BeyondPolls

            What about incest between two consensual adults? There’s no argument you can offer against it if you accept homosexuality.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Yes there is. It is illegal. Period. That is an argument against it.

          • BeyondPolls

            I thought ‘love’ should not be illegal. There’s no difference between same-gender relationships and incestuous relationships as long as they are both between consenting adults. It doesn’t effect you, so why are you concerned about the way people love each other?

          • NAY NAY

            Are you serious????? I know so many heterosexual couples that are involved in sodomy…..The Bible doesn’t cover that one does it? Convieniently left that one out…….

          • BeyondPolls

            What is the difference between homosexuality and sodomy?

          • Purple State

            You keep asking that.

          • BeyondPolls

            That’s because I haven’t gotten a straight answer from anybody.

          • BeyondPolls

            They are both behaviors involving sexual activity between two members of the opposite sex. Big difference.
            Anyways, there is no way pro-homosexual people can argue that incest should be illegal.

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        The slippery slope argument has long been discredited. If that is the case, why haven’t the countries and states that have allowed marriage equality had polygamy and incest made legal? Please don’t lie. It cheapens your argument.

        • BeyondPolls

          How has it been discredited? We’ll start there.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            By the many states and countries that have allowed marriage equality. None of the things that you are so afraid of have come to pass. Therefore, discredited. Also, remember that incest and polygamy are both illegal. I doubt they are going to be made legal any time soon. Homosexuality is not illegal.

          • BeyondPolls

            Incest can happen between two consenting people who love each other. How could you deny them of that right?

    • BeyondPolls

      Next comes incest and polygamy.

  • Streetiebird

    Love shall overcome!

  • Lady_Clare

    Government can make civil unions the equal of marriage in every legal way, and gays can have the rights they say they want. But from the gays I’ve talked to, they don’t want the same rights under a different name, so it’s not about “rights” at all. It’s about co-opting a Biblical institution by people who don’t believe in Biblical morality. “Boo” God, but demand to be married in a church….

    • Purple State

      The civil marriage certificate has nothing to do with the Bible. It’s a legal document issued by the county clerk, not a priest.

      • Lady_Clare

        I know that. My point was that in my experience, the gay marriage proponents that I’ve talked with don’t want a civil union, even if it came with all the rights that a marriage comes with, guaranteed by the government. Why does the ceremony have to be performed by a priest, if the rights would be guaranteed to be the same?

        • Purple State

          No ceremony by a priest is required to get a marriage license.

          Also, the rights afforded by a civil union can’t be guaranteed to be the same as a marriage without it just being a marriage. That’s the only way to guarantee equality.

          • Lady_Clare

            I do believe that they could write a laws guaranteeing equality of civil unions. I also believe that would not be enough, because it’s not down to equal rights.

          • Purple State

            Separate isn’t equal.

          • Lady_Clare

            Civil unions that had the exact same taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting (etc.) rights as married people have, with penalties for discrimination, would be equal.

            So it isn’t about “rights” at all. It’s about being able to call what you have by the same name your great, great, great grandmother called what she had with your great, great, great grandfather back in the 1800’s. There is a difference between something being equal and being the same.

          • Purple State

            The point is the legal rights and protections are attached to the term “marriage.” At insurance companies, banks, hospitals — all the institutions and corporations who would be honoring those rights. It would be up to THEIR discretion to honor civil unions in exactly the same way. The only way to guarantee equality is for it all to actually be the same.

          • Lady_Clare

            You’re not listening. If you make it a law that all civil unions would require all institutions and corporations to honor all rights available to married couples, then the issue would only be that of RIGHTS. I keep saying that, and you keep going back to how you have to have marriage even if civil unions WERE in every way equal to marriage at insurance companies, banks, hospitals — all the institutions and corporations who would be honoring those rights — or they would be open to prosecution under law.

            Obviously, it’s not about rights, then.

            I didn’t know you were so old that your great, great, great grandmother would have been married back in 1850. Never mind the part about totally avoiding my point. I’ve already said, you’re not listening.

            I do get your point, though — nothing less than co-opting marriage will do. Which actually was my point. Thanks for helping me make it.

            You have a great evening!

          • Purple State

            I am listening. I’m just disagreeing. You’re saying “just make civil unions absolutely equal to marriage.” I’m saying (as are legal analysts) “that’s not possible” because the honoring of the civil union isn’t up to lawmakers. It’s up to institutions, agencies and corporations. We already know from history too that separate isn’t equal.

            Also, let’s look at the example of North Carolina this year in their primary election. Even though same-sex marriage was already illegal, the voters banned civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples as well. So it actually is completely about rights — the anti-equality side proves it. They don’t want gays to have anything resembling those rights — even civil unions.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Bravo!

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            When we had drinking fountains for black people and ones for white people, even if they were exactly the same fountain, the fact that they had to have their own fountain made it unequal. Does that finally answer your question?

          • NAY NAY

            You are assuming that people think your civil rights are being violated. Most black folk take umberage at gay people scuttling under the cloak of civil rights, when black folk own that part of histoire, because they defined it and they own it. Gay people need to come up with another term for the right to say that they can be civilly unionized. Don’t get me wrong, I support civil unions and gay marriage, and I am throwing in the other side’s opinion….if I hear another gay person that says they can’t get married right now, I will scream. You can. You can find a minister and get hitched. You can then go to a lawyer and draw up documents to protect each other legally. That story above about the relatives coming and taking evertything was ILLEGAL and he should have called the police.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            The judges ruled in favor of the family. It was in Texas. The police escorted the family into his home and helped them carry things out.

            And tell the NAACP or Ms. Loving of Loving v Virginia that our struggles aren’t the same. They both support marriage equality.

          • Purple State

            The point is the legal rights and protections are attached to the term “marriage.” At insurance companies, banks, hospitals — all the institutions and corporations who would be honoring those rights. It would be up to THEIR discretion to honor civil unions in exactly the same way. The only way to guarantee equality is for it all to actually be the same.

          • Purple State

            Also, speaking of the 1800s, for most of that century, African-Americans — slaves — needed their owners to permit them to marry each other. They couldn’t marry whites, of course, until 100 years later, circa 1970. So I’m not sure the marriage laws of the 1800s are exemplary of what equality should look like in America today.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            You can keep repeating the same old tired argument all you want. My marriage has nothing to do with you or your religion.

          • NAY NAY

            That is what most peeps don’t understand: it is about individual rights and not religion.

          • Lady_Clare

            Civil unions that had the exact same taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting (etc.) rights as married people have, with penalties for discrimination, would be equal.

            So it isn’t about “rights” at all. It’s about being able to call what you have by the same name your great, great, great grandmother called what she had with your great, great, great grandfather back in the 1800’s. There is a difference between something being equal and being the same.

          • Purple State

            Separate isn’t equal.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Here is a story for you. I have a friend who was with his partner for 10 years. The partner had been disowned by his family because he was gay. He got sick. My friend cared for him until he died. His family never even visited him. Even though they had set up a will that gave everything to my friend, the family, because they were blood relatives and my friend was merely a “friend” who had legal rights to their shared belongings, were allowed to go into their shared home and take whatever they wanted. They took every photograph, Christmas ornament, piece of clothing, and furniture. When my friend tried to stop them, they would simply say, “do you have a receipt that proves that this is yours and not his?” And if he couldn’t prove that he bought it on his own, they took it. Had they been married, this would not have been allowed. It was an insult to them both.

          • NAY NAY

            In most southern states there is a condition called “Common Law” marriage, which is a state of people being in a relationship for 8 years or more, have children, and live like a married couple but they do not have a marriage license…you are automatically put in this legal category, to help if the relationship breaks up and is treated like divorce….gay people should concede the term marriage and make up another term like civil union. People support that, but marriage is heterosexual term, because of the bearing and rearing of children. Gay Marriage, Polyamory, Polygamay, etc. are alll “alternative” marriages. The separate but equal clause in the different SCOTUS cases do not refer to gay people, but for black folk in the decision of voting and attending school. Separate but Equal does not apply to gay peeps, because it just doesn’t state anything about anyone other than the individual not being descriminated against for race specifically.

          • Lady_Clare

            I do believe that they could write a laws guaranteeing equality of civil unions. I also believe that would not be enough, because it’s not down to equal rights.

        • Purple State

          No ceremony by a priest is required to get a marriage license.

          Also, the rights afforded by a civil union can’t be guaranteed to be the same as a marriage without it just being a marriage. That’s the only way to guarantee equality.

      • Lady_Clare

        I know that. My point was that in my experience, the gay marriage proponents that I’ve talked with don’t want a civil union, even if it came with all the rights that a marriage comes with, guaranteed by the government. Why does the ceremony have to be performed by a priest, if the rights would be guaranteed to be the same?

    • Purple State

      The civil marriage certificate has nothing to do with the Bible. It’s a legal document issued by the county clerk, not a priest.

    • GTFOBigGovt

      Ahhh but if government were not involved in the “biblical institution” to begin with you’d have a point. Well, except for all the billions of people around the world who don’t follow the bible but another type of religion but I get your point. Even though I have a hunch you’re not willing to award other religions any standing in your moral judgement. (error, BTW).

      Now that you cannot ever separate the institution of marriage from government (for example: taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting etc…. you can’t unring the bell.

      Another unintended consequence of big government dictating how citizens get to live their lives. IF “marriage” were simply a religion institution, things would be MUCH more simple.

      • Lady_Clare

        Why couldn’t you separate the institution of marriage from government? Just make civil unions the equal of marriage and see which the gay marriage proponents demand? If they say, “Okay. Thanks. That’s all we wanted,” then the taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting etc. would have really been the issue. I suspect marriage by a member of the clergy would still be demanded, given the conversations I’ve had. If so, the argument isn’t about “rights.” That was my point.

        And what I’m saying holds true be it any kind of religious ceremony. Could they demand to be married in a Mosque? Would the Imam have to comply and allow the ceremony to take place, even though Muslims have religious convictions against homosexuality?

        • Purple State

          In all the states where same-sex marriage is currently legal, all churches have legal exception, even Christian ones. In all of the advocacy I’ve heard for marriage equality, I’ve never heard demands for religious ceremonies. Just marriage licenses.

        • Purple State

          In all the states where same-sex marriage is currently legal, all churches have legal exception, even Christian ones. In all of the advocacy I’ve heard for marriage equality, I’ve never heard demands for religious ceremonies. Just marriage licenses.

        • GTFOBigGovt

          What are you talking about? How are you going to separate marriage from government? Change ALL THE tax laws, parenting and family law, property law, estate planning, etc like I already said? Not have ANY government marriage? You’re dreaming.

          I don’t even understand the rest of your point, except you don’t want LGBT people to want to be MARRIED and they do. It’s a difference of “opinion”. The fact that you say “just” make civil unions the equal of marriage…shows you don’t understand the issue or willfully haven’t tried.

          Is that something like “just make ‘negro’ schools the equal of white schools”?

          And why are you going on and on about Mosque marriages. Nobody is asking RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS to change their policies at the Supreme Court, just the GOVERNMENT.

          You’re talking in circles.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          No one is demanding “marriage by a member of the clergy.” That is a lie. Please use a search engine of your choice and search on the internet for “separate but equal” and you will find that our courts ruled that separate accommodations for one group, even if they are exactly the same, are intrinsically not equal. Remember white water fountains and black water fountains? Please educate yourself on how our government works. No one is trying to do anything to you. Your life will not change if I am allowed to marry. No one is forcing anything on you. Lying only makes your argument look foolish.

          • NAY NAY

            Even if militant gays got their way and demanded churches marry them, it would never survive a Federal Court or the first ammendment at SCOTUS. Even if it were made law to try and crush “the homophobic” religious, nobody would adhere to it and gay people would find themselves on the other end of some serious pre-Stonewall days’ beatings. I think that what Calianne above is scared of, isn’t legalizing gay marriage, but she is well aware of the hateful and vile leftist gays who call everyone homophobes that disagree with their position because their religious texts and traditions don’t recognize relationships that don’t produce chillens in the normal, biological way.

        • NAY NAY

          You cannot force a minister to marry a gay couple, because they are protected under the first ammendment of not only religion, but that of free association. Nobody can be forced to marry anyone outsid the law. Religion is outside the law.

      • Lady_Clare

        Why couldn’t you separate the institution of marriage from government? Just make civil unions the equal of marriage and see which the gay marriage proponents demand? If they say, “Okay. Thanks. That’s all we wanted,” then the taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting etc. would have really been the issue. I suspect marriage by a member of the clergy would still be demanded, given the conversations I’ve had. If so, the argument isn’t about “rights.” That was my point.

        And what I’m saying holds true be it any kind of religious ceremony. Could they demand to be married in a Mosque? Would the Imam have to comply and allow the ceremony to take place, even though Muslims have religious convictions against homosexuality?

    • GTFOBigGovt

      Ahhh but if government were not involved in the “biblical institution” to begin with you’d have a point. Well, except for all the billions of people around the world who don’t follow the bible but another type of religion but I get your point. Even though I have a hunch you’re not willing to award other religions any standing in your moral judgement. (error, BTW).

      Now that you cannot ever separate the institution of marriage from government (for example: taxes, property ownership, estate disbursement, parenting etc…. you can’t unring the bell.

      Another unintended consequence of big government dictating how citizens get to live their lives. IF “marriage” were simply a religion institution, things would be MUCH more simple.

    • Maxwell

      Isn’t that what happened in Washington state? Civil Unions were legalised, with all the same rights as a marriage, but the LGBT community weren’t happy with it and wanted it to be called a marriage… yay run on sentences!

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        It’s not that we aren’t happy with it, it’s that legally our laws do not recognize separate marriages as equal.

    • Maxwell

      Isn’t that what happened in Washington state? Civil Unions were legalised, with all the same rights as a marriage, but the LGBT community weren’t happy with it and wanted it to be called a marriage… yay run on sentences!

    • GTFOBigGovt

      BTW if you claim “boo” God go watch the 6 hour Mormon Stories 3 part interview with Benji Schwimmer on uTube of the painful decade he spent trying to be a good Mormon because God was the most important thing in his life and watch the anguish he endured. Before you claim stereotypes on everyone. Or …lemme guess. Mormons aren’t “biblical”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L9gxhReIoc

    • Grumpa Grumpus

      @Caliane:
      Yep!
      It’s not “Love will overcome”, but revenge and mocking God.

      Most of those pushing this state openly that there is no God…
      …if they really belueved that, why mock him?

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        I believe in God. I just don’t take the Bible literally like you do. I also don’t think that hating gay people is the most important part of being “christian”

      • NAY NAY

        Nobody is mocking God. It is about individual’s associating with whom they wish and protecting themselves legally…..it is about free will.

    • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

      It’s not that we don’t want the marriage rights under the name civil unions. It’s the fact that court precedent says that separate is not equal. Having one marriage for gay people and another marriage for straight people, according to court precedent, automatically makes one superior and one inferior. Believe me, my marriage has nothing to do with your God.

      • NAY NAY

        But the separate but equal precedent only refers to the INDIVIDUAL not being prevented from doing something based on his RACE. The separate but equal court cases are not prerequisites for gay marriage, as gays are not a racial minority. It is clearly defined in Plessy vs. Ferguson and the Dred Scott Decision………race only. Not women or gays or polygamy, etc.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          Those cases very plainly stated that separate is not equal. They can be used in this case because they are both civil rights cases.

  • Lady_Clare

    Government can make civil unions the equal of marriage in every legal way, and gays can have the rights they say they want. But from the gays I’ve talked to, they don’t want the same rights under a different name, so it’s not about “rights” at all. It’s about co-opting a Biblical institution by people who don’t believe in Biblical morality. “Boo” God, but demand to be married in a church….

  • BeyondPolls

    SCOTUS needs to combine the cases, force the federal govt to recognize state’s rights, but absolutely never allow the fed to overturn what the people have already decided.

    • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

      They are two very different cases. One is about a state’s rights. And the other will decide if we are now going to let a majority define the rights of a minority.

      • BeyondPolls

        What ‘rights of a minority’?

  • BeyondPolls

    SCOTUS needs to combine the cases, force the federal govt to recognize state’s rights, but absolutely never allow the fed to overturn what the people have already decided.

  • NAY NAY

    I don’t know. John Roberts has a habit of calling something a tax that isn’t a tax, so I expect him to call Gay Marriage a tax and all gay folks will be taxed for getting married….Just Kidding….after the Obamacare ruling, it would not surprise me if John Roberts pulls something out of his ass and makes something up that won’t make anyone happy with the outcome.