Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.

Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.

"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," said Roberts, writing for the court.

He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't.

Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they "will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time," Roberts said.

The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.

Same-sex marriages are also legal in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.

link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I blame Al Gore for this.

[Susita 175]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Always amused by people who actually want government to recognize their marriage. Lame at best.

Abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone if we're going to do this thing through government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Always amused by people who actually want government to recognize their marriage. Lame at best.

Abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone if we're going to do this thing through government.

For what reason?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Always amused by people who actually want government to recognize their marriage. Lame at best.

Abolish marriage and have civil unions for everyone if we're going to do this thing through government.

As it stands, there are certain benefits the government bestows specifically on married people. What you call it at the end of the day matters rather little, the equality is what actually matters.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

As it stands, there are certain benefits the government bestows specifically on married people. What you call it at the end of the day matters rather little, the equality is what actually matters.

The system isn't 'unequal' right now, no matter how you look at it. Atleast in definition terms of marriage...

Society changes over times/dictates how things are done based on the general consensus on morality.

Personally I don't think polygamy should be illegal or anything that takes place between consenting adults, but the fact of the matter is, society has its own biases based on the current morality threshold.

I was not uncommon a little over a century ago for a 35 year old man to marry a 14/15 year old woman. Now days through time and morality changes, that is completely seen as something absurd and ugly all together.

As soon as the morality please chill out, then things will get relaxed with the whole 'gay' agenda.

My only point is, is that government should take no part in marriage at all (as it's not a governmental institution anyway), and only agree to honor personal contracts/wishes of individuals, no matter whom they choose to marry of consenting age.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My only point is, is that government should take no part in marriage at all (as it's not a governmental institution anyway), and only agree to honor personal contracts/wishes of individuals, no matter whom they choose to marry of consenting age.

I'd have no problem with that approach.

[Danno 1,228]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.

Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.

"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," said Roberts, writing for the court.

He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't.

Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they "will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time," Roberts said.

The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.

Same-sex marriages are also legal in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.

link

IF this turns out to be a victory (in the long term) I would say, -it's about time the alternative-marriage gang had something they could call a victory.

Being mindful of course, this was another example were "THe People" would not have voted for it if given the chance but a few political hacks voted for it any way.

In fact, lets take a look at how the American people feel about this issue by how they vote to protect what a marriage means.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

IF this turns out to be a victory (in the long term) I would say, -it's about time the alternative-marriage gang had something they could call a victory.

Being mindful of course, this was another example were "THe People" would not have voted for it if given the chance but a few political hacks voted for it any way.

In fact, lets take a look at how the American people feel about this issue by how they vote to protect what a marriage means.

Banning interracial marriage was also once popular just 40 years ago. Thank God the Constitution protects the rights of the minority as well.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Banning interracial marriage was also once popular just 40 years ago. Thank God the Constitution protects the rights of the minority as well.

this.

Though 'marriage' doesn't discriminate as I said... only the 'exemptions' for couples do...

Marriage can be between a man and a woman only, the benefits cannot in government.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Banning interracial marriage was also once popular just 40 years ago. Thank God the Constitution protects the rights of the minority as well.

Comparisons of interracial marriage to gay marriage are unconvincing. The marriage of a woman and a man has a natural purpose of procreation, and is as it should be. Marriage between two men or two women is unnatural and an aboration. The left insists not only that most gays want gay marriage and that there are a large number of liberal gays in society. Neither claim is true.

[Danno 1,228]

Banning interracial marriage was also once popular just 40 years ago. Thank God the Constitution protects the rights of the minority as well.

Why don't you do us all a favor and list exactly who the minorities are that are to be protected because ya know Steve, even serial Killers are a minority.

So give us the list.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why don't you do us all a favor and list exactly who the minorities are that are to be protected because ya know Steve, even serial Killers are a minority.

So give us the list.

I'd like to see that list, too.

[Nagishkaw 510]

The Surprise Court....what a joke they've become.