NBC
by Tom Curry
March 26, 2013

In a historic argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might be hesitant to strike down such laws.

Following the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

(excerpted)
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/201...x-marriage?lite

The SCUS has no right to even be deciding whether to "allow" gay marriage or not. Over thirty states have said no. What makes nine people get to tell these states what to do?

The 14th does not appy to this issue, that is as stupid as those that claim it applies to illegals.

The whole thing is an attempt to rewrite the ductionary. What in hell does that have to do with the supreme court.

Zitat

---

The whole thing is an attempt to rewrite the dictionary. What in hell does that have to do with the supreme court.

---

About as much as the Supreme Court has to do with the Constitution.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #4

---

This is about prop 8. And I think any hesitation is good.

On several occasions, Kennedy and other justices said they were wary of ruling broadly in a way that would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #3

---

The 14th does not appy to this issue,...

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #5

---

Zitat

---

The whole thing is an attempt to rewrite the dictionary. What in hell does that have to do with the supreme court.

---

About as much as the Supreme Court has to do with the Constitution.

---

You do have a point.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #9

---

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #4

---

This is about prop 8. And I think any hesitation is good.

On several occasions, Kennedy and other justices said they were wary of ruling broadly in a way that would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

---

Again..it should be decided in a majority vote by the people. They voted against it so it doesn't make sense for the courts to overturn the will of the people.
It's like rolling dice. One court yes, another court no, when all the time the people have decided.

---

No. They voted for it, it was overturned by Calif Supreme Court and that's why it's in the US Supreme Court now. They should overturn the lower courts ruling, but liberals won't. Since they have no real moral compass they flounder on making a broad sweep of their "feelings" vs upholding the law.

---

I thought the people of California voted against gay marriage...twice. I must be behind on the many twists & turns it's taken in the courts.

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #12

---

I thought the people of California votes against gay marriage...twice. I must be behind on the many twists & turns it's taken in the courts.

---

A majority of the people in the South once supported slavery, and supported school, restaurant and restroom segregation.



Edit...I am sorry I messed up you post. Justme

Quote: Justme wrote in post #11

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #10

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #9

---

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #6

---

[quote=Justme|p25326]This is about prop 8. And I think any hesitation is good.

On several occasions, Kennedy and other justices said they were wary of ruling broadly in a way that would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

---

Again..it should be decided in a majority vote by the people. They voted against it so it doesn't make sense for the courts to overturn the will of the people.
It's like rolling dice. One court yes, another court no, when all the time the people have decided.

---

No. They voted for it, it was overturned by Calif Supreme Court and that's why it's in the US Supreme Court now. They should overturn the lower courts ruling, but liberals won't. Since they have no real moral compass they flounder on making a broad sweep of their "feelings" vs upholding the law.

---

Close, it was over turned by a local court, the supreme court of California ruled on the standing of those that appealed the case, since the state would not do their duty, the ninth would not hear it until the state court gave them standing, the ninth ruled in favor of the county court, now it is at the supreme court. Sort of convoluted route.

---