Comments on: A Prop 8 Supreme Court decision: The possible outcomes

By: Jay Jonson

Jay Jonson — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:54:29 +0000

Maybe, but the one I worry about now is Kennedy himself. The dissent he wrote in the Obamacare case is as crazy and radical as decisions and dissents written by Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

By: Jay Jonson

Jay Jonson — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:51:42 +0000

This was NOT the case in Louisiana, where the "Christian academies" and Catholic parochial schools thrive, while the public schools are dreadful.

By: Straight Dave

Straight Dave — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:20:46 +0000

From a state's perspective, that is pretty much the only difference – at least as things stand today due to DOMA. However, once DOMA falls, a state will knowingly be sending its citizens out into the world with a second-class badge, thus exposing them to all the disadvantages you cite. That's why dumping DOMA is so critical. It changes the whole balance of costs and benefits.

By: Mike in Baltimore

Mike in Baltimore — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:54:01 +0000

Virginia did provide for private 'academies' after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the mid-1960s, and left the public schools for the 'coloreds'. Eventually, the parents found that the public schools provided a much more than adequate education, and the vast majority of private 'academies' gradually went out of existence.

Now, some of the best high schools in the nation are the public high schools in Northern Virginia (and certain counties in Maryland, Montgomery and Howard among them).

By: Mike in Baltimore

Mike in Baltimore — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:48:42 +0000

Except it is not just "withholding only the title of 'married.' "

The GAO has found at least 1138 Federal laws and regulations that withhold benefits to same gender married couples that are allowed to married heterosexuals (through December 31, 2003).

Things like same gender married couples not being able to file joint Federal tax returns; same gender married couples being denied the ability to add their spouse to Federal health insurance policies; same gender married couples being unable to name their spouse as 'surviving' for Social Security purposes; same gender married couples being unable to move to ANY of the 50 states, plus territories, districts, etc., and still be considered 'married' in each and every one of them; same gender married couples being able to get VA benefits, PX privileges, based on the military status of one member of the married couple (unlike heterosexual couples); etc., etc., etc. (such as Federal estate taxes owed, or not).

It is MUCH more than "withholding only the title of 'married.' "

By: Str8Grandmother

Str8Grandmother — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:31:44 +0000

The only reason that they have strongly put forth and they have done it consistently is the "De-Institutionalization" of Marriage. That is what they are calling their rational reason. Remember Cooper stating in the Oral Arguments to Rehinhardt/Hawkins/Smith that they never have claimed that same gender civil marriage hurts any persons marriage, it hurts the "Institution of Marriage." But exactly how, they don't know and cannot define.

By: steven

steven — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 01:55:13 +0000

Very interesting comment by Justice Roberts–

Responding to a question about his summer plans, Roberts quipped that he thought his planned trip to Malta to teach a class was a “good idea.”

He delivered the joke Friday at a federal court conference at a posh Pennsylvania resort.

Roberts declined to answer a question about the landmark opinion issued Thursday. But he says he hopes the court will be remembered for “protecting equal justice under the law."

“protecting equal justice under the law." is very interesting—————–

http://www.freep.com/article/20120629/NEWS07/1206…

By: MightyAcorn

MightyAcorn — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:30:27 +0000

Right, and the Kern County Clerk's office announced it was not going to perform any weddings anymore after the CASC granted same-sex marriage rights in 2008. The County claimed they quit due to the expense, but the reason was later proven to be religiously-fueled animus.

The very next day Kern County was hit by a massive wildfire. Maybe if they had more integrated swimming pools in Kern that wouldn't have happened.

By: MFargo

MFargo — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:56:17 +0000

Thanks, Katheen.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:47:12 +0000

Should add.. that's not to say that SCOTUS couldn't decide that the 9th Circuit misapplied the CASC's ruling as it relates to federal law (though I don't see that as a strong possibility). But SCOTUS has no authority to tell the CASC how to interpret the state's constitution.