Poll: Supreme Court will nix gay marriage

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Jan 29, 2010 10:42 AM GMT

    Poll: Supreme Court will nix gay marriage

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/28/Poll-Supreme-Court-will-nix-gay-marriage/UPI-16701264727737/

    Don't these numbers look similar to interracial marraiges in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled on Loving V Virginia?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 29, 2010 11:28 AM GMT
    Unfortunately this is the way that I see this going
    There will be wins in some states and I think that Prop 8 might be defeated
    But the Conservative Stooges that are there on the Court now would NEVER let something like this pass under their watch
    It will be just another 5-4 ruling like all the rest

    And once again ..... Why ANYONE would vote for a republican when you are gay is beyond me
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 29, 2010 12:40 PM GMT
    The conservative Rhenquist Court approved sodomy, for heavens sake !

    I would bet money that we will win in Judge Vaughn Walker's Court (in California), and go on to win in the United States Supreme Court.

    The opposition simply has no reasonable argument to support denying us equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 12:51 PM GMT
    GQjock said the Conservative Stooges that are there on the Court now would NEVER let something like this pass


    You are forgetting Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark case that overturned all sodomy laws. The Court's ideological balance was the same then as it is now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 1:00 PM GMT
    Many court watchers believe that when this gets to SCOTUS, the attorneys will basically be trying to persuade Justice Kennedy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 1:04 PM GMT
    Haven't these people in the supreme court heard of a little thing called the tyranny of the majority???

    And the last time I checked I believe the definition of democracy is majority rule were laws are put in place to PROTECT MINORITY RIGHTS!
  • Mikeylikesit

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 29, 2010 1:13 PM GMT
    GQjock saidUnfortunately this is the way that I see this going
    There will be wins in some states and I think that Prop 8 might be defeated
    But the Conservative Stooges that are there on the Court now would NEVER let something like this pass under their watch
    It will be just another 5-4 ruling like all the rest

    And once again ..... Why ANYONE would vote for a republican when you are
    gay is beyond me


    There is more to politics than just a parties stand on gay marrage. In my book. that my least concern. I vote on an over all package not a shallow stand one thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 1:21 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidThe conservative Rhenquist Court approved sodomy, for heavens sake !

    I would bet money that we will win in Judge Vaughn Walker's Court (in California), and go on to win in the United States Supreme Court.

    The opposition simply has no reasonable argument to support denying us equal rights.


    Yes, the opposition does have a reasonable argument for denying us equal rights. It's reasonable to assume that, because they're Republicans, and conservatives, that they will not rule in our favor. The sounds pretty reasonable to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 1:39 PM GMT
    jprichva said wanting to be treated like an equal citizen when you pay equal taxes is just so vain and narcissistic of us


    What could be more vain and narcissistic than Nancy Pelosi's botox intake?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 2:02 PM GMT
    While I do believe most people are against marriage between same sex individuals, the sample size for this poll is far too small for it to be taken seriously.

    1,000 out of 305,529,237?
  • ArmwrestlerJi...

    Posts: 188

    Jan 29, 2010 2:10 PM GMT
    I had a discussion with my neighbor the other night that left him going "Hmmmmmm". He is very conservative, politically and otherwise and we were playing pool and I asked him "why should I have to pay school taxes"? He looked at me and said "what do you mean? We all have to pay school taxes". I replied, "well true, however, in the state of Texas I cannot legally get married and I cannot legally adopt a child. So how can you feel it is fair for me to have to pay for the schools that I could not possibly have a child attend"? Little things like this PISS me off and nobody really gets it.

    Personally I wish ALL marriages took place in a courthouse which would make all marriages equal, gay or straight. Then, if the party choose to have a church / religious wedding they can go right ahead if that will, in their mind, make them "more" married somehow (but we all know that piece of paper is what truly makes the marriage, not the vows, not the church, none of it).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 2:31 PM GMT
    articleThe online survey of a representative national sampling of 1,000 U.S. adults indicated...

    articleThe Angus Reid survey was conducted Jan. 12-13 and weighted to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult U.S. population.


    This sounds like a shit poll.

    First, online polls skew the results because people self-select and are further skewed because of .
    Second, the internet is a young man's place. So, they extrapolate underrepresented people they find, which increases the margin of error for those people and not others. Only two grannies responded? Inflate that number!

    But, the real issue here is, polls like this do not mean shit. What do Americans know about law, the constitution, or Sam Alito? How is marriage being discussed before the court? Some dude doesn't just walk in and asks the court to define marriage (the basic premise of the poll). There would be a very specific context to the question.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    The opposition simply has no reasonable argument to support denying us equal rights.


    That has never stopped Scalia and his cronies...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 3:48 PM GMT
    I believe that arrangements have already been made so that when this gets to the supremes they can toss it out saying the current p8 trial is invalid due to witness intimidation. Maggot Gagger has been planting those seeds like a farmer for the past couple of weeks. Clarence Thomas made an allusion to the privacy issue and prop 8 when he wrote his opinion of dissent on one factor of the recent supreme court decision to recognize corporations as persons. He was sending Maggot and Brian Brown the signal not to worry, that everything will be all sewn up after the CA decision comes down. NOM is hardly freaking out about the way things are going in Walker's courtroom, they're showing some mild displeasure but hardly lashing out the way they're known to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Webster666 said
    The opposition simply has no reasonable argument to support denying us equal rights.


    That has never stopped Scalia and his cronies...


    Ergo the Alito scoff. Up until the SCOTUS ruling, I had reasonably high respect for the institution. It appears that the accusations against the Bush administration of 'stacking the court' for political purposes was, in fact, a reasonable concern.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 4:02 PM GMT
    I will admit I am feeling a bit pessimistic myself, but it is important that we push forward. It is good to know the minds of those who sit in judgment of the laws .. hopefully the next generation will make it all irrelevant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 4:05 PM GMT
    Hopefully, if the supremes are engaging in any shenanigans with the prop 8 proponents, it will be exposed quickly and then the supremes can rely on the tender mercies of the american citizens instead of vice-versa.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidThe conservative Rhenquist Court approved sodomy, for heavens sake !


    The issue on that case was one of privacy. It only won over a conservative because of the fact that it pertained to a larger issue than the rights of gays. It could adversely affect the rights of straight couples as well. The overturning of sodomy laws was the result of the vote but not the intent of the ruling since the sodomy laws were contingent on breaking the laws of privacy, which in turn, affect everyone and not only gays.

    The marriage ruling will likely win in CA but loose in the Federal Supreme Court because it affects few other people other than gays.

    It is judges like Scalia that vote on their own moral superiority rather than the intent of the law in spite of the fact that he states the opposite. He takes the concept of the constitution and under the belief that he's following it to the letter, he's actually saying that he knows what the authors intended morally. It is only the liar that says and believes the statement "I never lie." Scalia believes that not only is he correct, but also that he could never be wrong. I should also note that that concept is not the sole realm of the republican. It's just that there are no liberals on the supreme court. The members who are moderate at best (e.g. Kennedy, Ginsberg) only appear liberal compared to the extreme right of judges like Scalia.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 29, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidI will admit I am feeling a bit pessimistic myself, but it is important that we push forward. It is good to know the minds of those who sit in judgment of the laws .. hopefully the next generation will make it all irrelevant.



    I think it's important to remain optimistic
  • DuggerPDX

    Posts: 386

    Jan 29, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    I think you might be surprised at the final votes. The Justices are there to interpret/uphold/defend the constitution and in their eyes it may be a very simple decision that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory regardless of their personal beliefs. Just a thought, but maybe I'm being a little too Polly-Anna about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 4:15 PM GMT
    GQjock saidAnd once again ..... Why ANYONE would vote for a republican when you are gay is beyond me
    Perhaps it's because the world does NOT revolve around just gay issues. A broader view includes evaluating ALL issues and thinking about society in general and NOT just a single issue or what's good for 'me'. Although I think it's pretty safe to say that the gay issue is a big issue for those of us here on this site and civil rights are certainly important in our society there remain other issues around the world where political affiliation may not defined your views or the side you chose to support. And I find it particularly offensive (and sad) when someone continually lumps an entire political party into one group based on a single issue. I know it's hard to believe that there might be gays concerned with other issues beside ones directly affecting only the gay community.

    As for the OPs referenced poll: I believe there is a chance that the Supreme Court will see past the conservative standings to the legality of discriminating. Time will tell.
  • Mikeylikesit

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 29, 2010 4:16 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    Mikeylikesit saidThere is more to politics than just a parties stand on gay marrage. In my book. that my least concern. I vote on an over all package not a shallow stand one thing.

    Right, because wanting to be treated like an equal citizen when you pay equal taxes is just so vain and narcissistic of us, when there's taxes to cut and health care to deny to people.


    I am being treated equally, I have no desire to get married, nor have children.

    As far as Health care, unfortunately it is unrealistic to think that we can provide free health care for everyone. So to say, limited resources and some people will just have to go without. Survival of the fittest & healthiest.How is has been since cave man days...LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2010 4:39 PM GMT
    DuggerPDX saidI think you might be surprised at the final votes. The Justices are there to interpret/uphold/defend the constitution and in their eyes it may be a very simple decision that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory regardless of their personal beliefs. Just a thought, but maybe I'm being a little too Polly-Anna about it.


    Except that SCOTUS indicates that the court is becoming an activist/advocacy court.

    Senator Tom Harkin's comments sum it up:

    "Talk about an activist Supreme Court -- they decided an issue that wasn't really even in front of them," Harkin said during a conference call with reporters. "In fact, the case that was in front of them, they decided the other way, but they reached into this other area and brought it out and made a decision on something that wasn't really in front of them. Now, what's the definition of an activist Supreme Court?"

    http://iowaindependent.com/26162/harkin-on-scotus-ruling-talk-about-an-activist-supreme-court
  • rock_e_horror

    Posts: 52

    Jan 29, 2010 4:55 PM GMT
    GQjock saidWhy ANYONE would vote for a republican when you are gay is beyond me


    The few gay men I have known who (admit) to being republican, say it's about "fiscal conservatism," and that civil rights are down the list of their concerns.

    Coincidentally... or perhaps not... they have also all been pretty deep in the closet.


  • rock_e_horror

    Posts: 52

    Jan 29, 2010 5:09 PM GMT
    Mikeylikesit said
    jprichva said
    Mikeylikesit said

    I am being treated equally, I have no desire to get married, nor have children.

    As far as Health care, unfortunately it is unrealistic to think that we can provide free health care for everyone. So to say, limited resources and some people will just have to go without. Survival of the fittest & healthiest.How is has been since cave man days...LOL


    You're confusing your own lack of desire for marriage with the fact that equal civil rights are DENIED to those who DO have the desire.

    As for "free health care," what's free about it? It costs 30% MORE for me to be covered under my partners health plan than it does a married heterosexual couple.