Comments on: Opening Brief in Supreme Court Gay Marriage Case

By: Lizzie

Lizzie — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:39:25 +0000

B-K……. You throw out Canon Law, single out ONE religion, when in fact there are plenty of religions that abide by it. The differance between Sharia law and Canon Law is that one is stricktly religious and the other IS the government.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:43:49 +0000

BEN: “Oh, then you’re gonna love some of that Sharia Law stuff that is trying to gain a foothold in this country.” – - – How is that any different from Canon Law in the Roman Catholic Church and some of the Protestand denominations that also have Canon Law. Christian judges have been giving consideration to Canon Law standards/guidlines in civil cases for hundreds of years. What is the difference?

By: ben

ben — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:28:45 +0000

Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 22, 2013, 11:22 pm ” Oh, and one of the most important property rights the state was interested in regulating was men owning their wife and children because, up until fairly recently in western civilization, wives and children were the property of the husband/father.”
.
Oh, then you’re gonna love some of that Sharia Law stuff that is trying to gain a foothold in this country.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:27:29 +0000

BEN: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – - – So what? That right under the 10th Amendment CANNOT override the responsibility the states and the people have under Article VI Clause 2 which EXPLICITLY says the U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. NOT the whims of state voters. NOT the whims of legislative bodies. NOT the whims of state Constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land – PERIOD. Therefore no laws can violate the U.S. Constitution – period.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:22:46 +0000

LESLIE: “This distinction is rooted in a basic biological fact that goes to the heart of the state’s interest in regulating marriage: the unique capacity of intimate relationships between men and women to create new life.” – - – Wow, you really don’t know anything about history. Historically the state’s interest in regulating marriage has mostly been about regulating PROPERTY rights and especially INHERITANCE rights. People never had any problems procreating regardless of their marriage status. Oh, and one of the most important property rights the state was interested in regulating was men owning their wife and children because, up until fairly recently in western civilization, wives and children were the property of the husband/father.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:12:51 +0000

Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 22, 2013, 11:05 pm ” I guess Mr. Cooper has never bothered to read Article VI Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution which rather explicitly states that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and thus NOT the whims of the voters in a state.”
.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:05:00 +0000

“‘By adopting Proposition 8,’ Charles Cooper, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, writes, ‘the People of California demonstrated their belief that this matter is best resolved by the People themselves, not by their courts. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the People of California — or any State — from making this choice. To the contrary, it leaves them free to do what they are doing — debating this controversial issue and seeking to resolve it in a way that will best serve their families, their children, and, ultimately their society as a whole.’” – - – I guess Mr. Cooper has never bothered to read Article VI Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution which rather explicitly states that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and thus NOT the whims of the voters in a state. While state voters do indeed have a right to some latititude for making decisions, they still have a greater responsibility to make laws that DO NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.

By: stanJames

stanJames — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:10:34 +0000

There has never been a law in the USA that requires people to procreate or even to procroeate.

There have been many laws that prevented procreation by people who could. EG in MD only xtian ministers could do a marriage cereemony until 1864. Blacks couldnt marry until 1867. Inter – racial marriage was banned at one time in 41 states and even when these laws were finally squashed. there were 13 states will inter-racial bans

These people opposing gay marriage are in general the same religious cultures that created the rotten laws that are gone.

Dont like gay marriage dont have one and dont atend one. These bad people are on the wrong side of history and their ideas will end up in the trash pile of the past

By: Leslie

Leslie — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:03:50 +0000

“The age-old definition of marriage distinguishes between relationships of a man and a woman and all other types of relationships, including same-sex relationships. This distinction is rooted in a basic biological fact that goes to the heart of the state’s interest in regulating marriage: the unique capacity of intimate relationships between men and women to create new life.”

Change “age-old” to “old-age.” What distinction can the state draw, what interests does the state have, when an elderly straight couple marry? It is no different than an elderly gay couple.

So they are arguing for the state to say: Young, straight? You can marry. Young, gay? You cannot. Old, straight or gay, we don’t care.

Mr Cooper in the brief: “That definition has prevailed for all but 142 days of California’s 162 year history”

Sorry, Mr. Cooper. California did not put into any law a gender requirement, or distinction for marriage until July 1976 – after gay couples asked to get married.

I can’t believe this clown is going to argue before the Supreme Court.