.

Sound Off: Supreme Court to Consider Same Sex Marriage Case Friday

The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to decide whether to hear an appeals case that would determine the legality of same sex marriage in California. What do you think it should do?

After years of legal wrangling, the U.S. Supreme Court could decide if same sex marriage is legal in California Friday.

The court will convene to decide whether to hear a case challenging Proposition 8, the amendment banning gay marriage in California. In February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the amendment unconstitutional, and Prop 8 proponents appealed the ruling. If the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the appeal, then the circuit court ruling would stand, and gay marriage could, once again, be legal in California. If the nation’s top court does take up the case, Californians would likely have to wait several months before a decision is made.

According to the court panel's ruling, the proposition's primary impact was to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

"It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of `marriage' to describe their relationships," according to the court's decision. "Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in child-rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples.

"Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard those liberties."

Opponents of same-sex marriage were equally strong in their words condemning the ruling at the time.

Proposition 8 supporter Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, blasted the ruling, calling it "unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system..."

"It's illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior,'' he said after the ruling. ``That's not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable.''

Do you think the Supreme Court should hear the case? Or should the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling be the final word on the matter, legalizing gay marriage in California? Tell us in comments.

—City News Service contributed to this report.

LBV Collins December 02, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Ahhh... Got it, TIL. (Though I don't think Obama's statement inferred he's Muslim because he clearly stated "...my Muslim faith.")
Carl Petersen III December 02, 2012 at 04:20 PM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151156086476275&set=a.180479986274.135777.177486166274&type=1&theater
Galactic Cannibal December 02, 2012 at 04:53 PM
JESUS is in the eye of the beholder.............. That's freaking me out dudes -n- dudettes.
5150 December 02, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Its not about the "Sex Acts", rather , the Sanctification of Marriage. Right on Roberto you got it right. LBV I agree with you too
Ron Selkovitch December 02, 2012 at 05:39 PM
S150, I think a definition would be in order here. What do you mean by; "Sanctification of Marriage" ?
Doug Curlee December 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM
the mere fact you're using the term "sanctification" points up the whole fallacy here.. marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, in which the state should have NO abiding interest.. if you think about it, ALL marriages that demand a license from the state are in fact civil unions, enforceable under law.. maybe we could end the controversy if we simply did away with the term "marriage", and called EVERYTHING a civil union.. doug
Gludenwald December 02, 2012 at 07:39 PM
Definitely the best course. If marriage were a religious institution only, not recognized by state or federal law, it would also fall under protection of the civil rights act, making discrimination against unioned but not married couples illegal.
trenchf00t December 02, 2012 at 09:02 PM
I married my wife so that I could easily share what I had with her and care for her even in death, without government theft. Otherwise, the institution has no meaning to me. If gays want to marry to do this for each other, I see no problem with it.
Libi Uremovic December 02, 2012 at 11:22 PM
some people marry for love ron, not just because they knocked her up...
Ron Selkovitch December 03, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Libi, I agree with your statement, but I don't understand how it responds to my request. What do you think 'Sanctification of Marriage' means?
Michael December 03, 2012 at 07:05 AM
..how can anything that ends up failing 50% of the time be considered sanctified ?
Dave Peter December 03, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Michael, you are right on. This marriage that the Right Wing of intolerance holds so sacred is so full of mistrust and cheating that no one in their right mind can call it "sanctified". Two, adult humans who want to connect their lives had better go in with eyes wide open and not worry what their neighbor is doing.
Tom Yarnall December 03, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Since they can't have children, will the homosexuals bring about the elimination of tax deductions for children? Based on the politically correct issues that are taking place today, it's probably the correct thing to do and the bleeding heart liberals will, most likely, bring it about. There is just no way to know how far the gay agenda will expand. Perhaps in the future everyone will declare they are homosexuals and then we will all be equal----------until we get under the bed sheets.
Dave Peter December 03, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Tom, what an endearing argument. Who said Homosexuals can bring about anything. They are a very small minority in America. Why are you calling for the elimination of tax deductions for children? Based on what politically correct issues are you talking about? As a matter of fact, what are you talking about? You make no sense.
Tom Yarnall December 04, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Don't be a sucker Peter. I was just pointing out how outrageous these kind of conversations can get. Can't wait until this thread ends and something more interesting comes under discussion. How about discussing what this entertaining, non political guy has to say? http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929
TVOR December 04, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Nothing like a new drug to uncover latent tendencies!
Michael December 04, 2012 at 06:42 AM
.......gay people adopt.....you think they don't take deductions for their children ? Last time I checked lesbians were able to give birth also......and why would "bleeding heart liberals take away child deductions. Seems to me the heartless GOP would take those credits away.....after all the Republican slogan is "love the fetus, hate the child".........
Michael December 04, 2012 at 06:45 AM
......yeah....no thanks.....Horowitz is a conservative hack.......why would you say he is non-political ?
Carl Petersen III December 04, 2012 at 04:55 PM
The article is very specific that the drug did not "turn" him gay, but increased his urges.
Tom Yarnall December 04, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Michael, I said that so you would watch it, but you, apparently, are just like all extremists on the Patch, right or left. You are so closed minded you are not willing to listen to any argument unless it fits your ideology from the start. How about using your brain to suggest ways to get us out of the Fiscal Cliff situation. For example, how about giving a corporation a tax break for ever new hire? If they create 5% more jobs reduce their tax rate by 5%. The taxes paid by the new hires would offset the reduced corporate reduction. I am not smart enough to figure out all the variables, but at least it may get the extremist like you and those on the right talking about sensible things instead of just throwing insults at each other.
Michael December 04, 2012 at 06:17 PM
........if you had been honest about the video....I probably would have watched it.....but you weren't so I didn't............I was all in favor a couple years ago to let the Bush tax cuts expire and to give tax breaks to those that actually did create jobs.........and I have no ideology nor am I an extremist...........and you sir seem to be the name caller.......just recently suggesting Peter is a sucker.........and worse in the past........and you want solutions ? I think we should raise the top tax rates and close all the loopholes and deductions as well as spending cuts and possibly raising the SS age a bit instead of cutting benefits........ending corporate and agricultural subsidies.........
Michael December 04, 2012 at 06:23 PM
and isn't that really the difference between the two parties......your side is trying to trick me into thinking your way and my side is trying to fight injustice and people don't like to be told they aren't wearing clothes......now do they ?
Tom Yarnall December 04, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Michael, how illogical you are. First you said you would not watch the video because the producer was David Horowitz and later, after I told you I lied to try to get you to watch it, you said you did not watch it because I was dis honest. If you have the ability to look into the future why not spend your time in Vegas betting the roulette wheel? How juvenile.
Michael December 04, 2012 at 08:45 PM
I just stated Horowitz was a conservative hack, I didn't say that was the reason I didn't watch it...........I'll tell you what though,....convince me honestly, and I'll watch it.....
Tom Yarnall December 04, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Michael, do you feel good about being so dis ingenious? My last word
Michael December 04, 2012 at 10:24 PM
....I know about Horowitz.....I've seen him on FoxNews......he's one of their so-called experts and goes on when he's plugging a book
Tom Yarnall December 04, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Michael, I know I said last word, but let me say the speaker is not Horowitz. He could be a Horowitz protege, so you probably should not poison your brain by watching it.
Carl Petersen III December 05, 2012 at 06:24 PM
While you were way off on labeling this guy as "non-political," you were totally correct about him being entertaining. The solution to the Republicans' electoral crisis is for them to go more conservative? I hope that they follow his recommendation.
mumemmy December 13, 2012 at 08:07 AM
holle dear Nice to meet you My name is miss helen. am a young girl I was impressed when i saw your profile today and i will like to establish a long lasting relationship with you. In addition, i will like you to reply me through my e-mail address(helenabirity@yahoo.com) so that i will give you my picture of you to know whom i am, please i will like to tell you how much interested i am in knowing more about you, i think we can start from here and share our feelings together as one. please contact me back with my mail address Thanks waiting to hear from you dear.yours new friend (helenabirity@yahoo.com)
LBV Collins December 13, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Woo-hoo!! FINALLY!! A young girl...who is impressed with my profile! AND... she's willing to give me her picture! SAHWEET!! (I wonder if she's from Nigeria?) Wait... who's "profile" is she talking about? There are a over 170 comments on here... and dozens of people commenting! So is she into me, or another guy? Oh hell... is she even into guys? (There's lots of women on here. too.) Damn, this is confusing. Guess I'll just ignore this "young girl's" offer and continue my wonderful life with my wonderful wife.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something