Comments on: A look at the petition to the Supreme Court in Sevcik v. Sandoval http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval Sun, 26 May 2013 07:59:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Equality On Trial » Nevada Assembly approves marriage equality ballot amendment http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-341187 Equality On Trial » Nevada Assembly approves marriage equality ballot amendment Fri, 24 May 2013 15:03:06 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-341187 [...] out of California, which also falls under the Ninth Circuit.  The Sevcik case has also been appealed–unsuccessfully, so far–directly to the Supreme Court by the Coalition for the [...]

]]> By: Equality On Trial » Nevada anti-gay marriage group files final reply brief at Supreme Court; case distributed for March 15 conference http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-322561 Equality On Trial » Nevada anti-gay marriage group files final reply brief at Supreme Court; case distributed for March 15 conference Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:48:20 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-322561 [...] of Marriage, the group who led the effort to pass Nevada’s anti-gay marriage initiative, had filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case before judgment at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [...]

]]> By: Leo http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317561 Leo Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:23:19 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317561 I think you missed the point of my comment, which was to show the hypocrisy in the petitioners' arguments: arguing in the lower court that SCOTUS has already resolved the issue in 1972, then turning around and telling SCOTUS it should hurry up and resolve it now.

]]> By: Mike in Baltimore http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317560 Mike in Baltimore Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:28 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317560 And 'Baker v Nelson' was in 1972, which means it was decided 40 years ago, not 20.

Even more indication that you and/or the petitioners have no platform on which to argue the case, that is except a platform of bigotry and animus.

]]> By: Mike in Baltimore http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317445 Mike in Baltimore Sun, 09 Dec 2012 02:35:52 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317445 Actually, no.

In DC, the officiant says "By the power vested in me by the District of Columbia. . . ."

And in non-states (American Somoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.) they don't have a state/province to refer to.

But the point is correct. No officiant is allowed to officiate at marriages unless they have the civil authority to do so (some directly, some indirectly). given to them by a law or laws.

]]> By: SHOES THROWER http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317383 SHOES THROWER Sat, 08 Dec 2012 02:51:24 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317383 With the grant of petitions for DOMA and Prop. 8, there is less reason for SCOTUS to take the case.

]]> By: grod http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317229 grod Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:11:44 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317229 Straight Dave, agree. Do not all officiants say "by the power vested in me by the state/province of ………, I pronounce you ……” ?

]]> By: InPlainSight http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317227 InPlainSight Fri, 07 Dec 2012 19:23:22 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317227 Not everyone fits into the gender binary. Gender Queer is a thing. Sex =/= Gender. What you are thinking about is Sex.

]]> By: Straight Dave http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317221 Straight Dave Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:46:22 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317221 Civil marriage?
Yep, you betcha!
That's the whole point.
That's the only thing we are arguing about.
All religious references are simply a distraction, completely irrelevant.

Civil marriage is religionless. Bingo.

]]> By: Lymis http://equalityontrial.com/2012/12/06/a-look-at-the-petition-to-the-supreme-court-in-sevcik-v-sandoval/#comment-317216 Lymis Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:49:46 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=22210#comment-317216 Currently, some couples get married by Catholic priests. Some get married by Jewish rabbis. Some get married by secular authorities. Some get married by Protestant ministers, and so on.

Does that make marriage "religionless?"

]]>