Translate this page

U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013
Issue 13, Volume 17.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

SAN DIEGO - For the second day, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on same-sex marriage, and much like yesterday's debate on California's Proposition 8, half of today's session on a federal marriage law dealt with procedural issues, according to a constitutional expert at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

Professor Marybeth Herald told City News Service the "very detailed and difficult arguments" over the federal Defense of Marriage Act went into whether the case should have been heard in the first place, whether there was an actual conflict between the parties -- since President Barack Obama's administration is not defending the law -- and whether Congress has power over the states to regulate marriage.

The last issue, brought up by Justice Anthony Kennedy, could prevent a five-justice majority opinion when the nation's high court announces its ruling sometime in June, Herald said.

She said that would mean the end of DOMA. On the other hand, such a decision would not result in states being required to allow same-sex marriage, and it wouldn't be strong enough to set a precedent, she said.

"Arguments are only a snapshot of how the (justices) are feeling," so the public shouldn't put too much stock into what they heard when projecting an eventual ruling, Herald said.

On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments over California's voter- approved Proposition 8, which limits marriage to being between a man and a woman. The initiative was overturned by a trial court, and that decision was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal.

The justices focused on much of their attention on whether supporters of the proposition had the necessary standing to bring an appeal to their court.

A ruling, also expected in June, that is based on the standing issue would only apply to California, according to Barbara Cox, a professor at California Western School of Law.



Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #1 | Thursday, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:32 pm
I'm much less concerned about the US Supreme Court's ultimate decision regarding Prop 8. Whether or not it's struck down by the Court or repealed via the ballot box, Prop 8's days are clearly numbered given the substantial change in public opinion here in California (as well as across the nation).

What's of more concern to me is the fate of DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act). The above article states that Professor Marybeth Harold stated "a decision would not result in states being required to allow same-sex marriage". That is true that states would not necessarily be required to issue same sex marriage licenses. But it is, however, my understanding that if DOMA is struck down citing the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, states that currently do not recognize same sex marriage would be required to recognize the marriage licenses of same sex couples issued by other states (as all states do currently the marriage licenses of straight couples issued out of state.)

Additionally, depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the federal government would no longer get to pick and choose which marriage licenses it was going to honor for federal rights and benefits (taxation, immigration, social security survivor's benefits, military spousal and bereavement benefits, rights against being forced to testify against a spouse pursuant to the 5th Amendment, etc., etc., etc.,). The federal government would have to honor every marriage license (straight or gay) issued by any state.
Comment Profile ImageLee
Comment #2 | Friday, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:29 am
Gay marriage is wrong . . . no matter what the Supreme Court rules or what laws are passed. Gay marriage is NOT marriage.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #3 | Friday, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:26 pm
regarding comment #2.


You absolutely have every right in this great country of ours to hold those beliefs, to live by them and try to convince others to do likewise. However, I feel that you simply don't have the right in a democratic and pluralistic society to expect that the government be used as the instrument to foist those beliefs onto others who feel differently by the withholding of a state issued civil license. If the government is going to issue a license that conveys very real rights, privileges and advantages to you and your family, I don't feel it is improper to expect the same rights, privileges and advantages for my own family under that same law.

As this process continues to move forward, I think more and more fair-minded Americans are coming to the realization that allowing freedom for people such as myself to make basic decisions about our own lives is only reasonable, even if they themselves personally disagree. As former Vice President Dick Cheney said about the issue of civil same sex marriage, "freedom means freedom for everyone". And on this I couldn't agree more.
Comment Profile ImageLee
Comment #4 | Friday, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:38 pm
To BonsallGayGuy #3.

The fallacy of gay marriage is simple. If 1,000 people each kill a person, does the 1,001st killing make it right, moral and just? The answer, of course, is no: killing is wrong no matter how many people do it. Same thing with homosexuality and gay marriage. Just because more and more people are turning gay and want equal marriage does in no way, shape or form mean that homosexuality and gay marriage ARE right.

They are not. Homosexuality and gay marriage will ALWAYS be wrong. Why? Because they are not normal and natural. A woman and a man doing the horizontal polka and getting married are normal.

You can argue all you want to the contrary but you are simply wrong, and always will be wrong.

Now, with ALL that said, don't worry, your side will win, and, I am sad to say, yes, you will soon have legal gay marriage in America. Great, terrific. I'll have, as I already do, a puke bag by my side.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #5 | Friday, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm

I absolutely support your right to manifest your visceral reactions to people like me in whatever non-violent way you please (it is after all, your stomach and your stomach contents). I would suggest however that you keep an adequate supply of bags on hand for the sake of your carpeting and upholstery as I do agree with your political analysis as to how this issue will ultimately play out over the ensuing years.

Comment Profile ImageWow Lee!
Comment #6 | Saturday, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:07 am
"more and more people are turning gay" I almost fell off my chair laughing! What planet do you live on where folks elect to make the choice to "turn gay"?

I'm a 53 year old heterosexual and have a wonderful wife and children. I do believe that civil unions are basic government contracts with MAJOR economic and personal impacts that should be afforded to those that desire same-sex marriage as well.

DOMA has always puzzled me as I have never felt threatened by what someone else chooses to do with their loved ones. I must be missing something. Can you please enlighten us as to how your relationship has been directly affected by those that desire same-sex marriage?
Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #7 | Monday, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:27 am
Why the heck does our politically correct gubmint think we need to have this crud shoved down our throats every day? Every stinking day. It's what, maybe 5% of the overall populus that really want to be married to another person of he same sex? What's the huge deal? I mean, if that's all it is, a handful of people that want this, to heck with them. They shouldn't be trying to change society to accept thier perverted lifestyle. Just take your civil arrangement that allows you the same benefit as a normal couple would have and go live and be happy. The pc crowd has no right to insist that the rest of the people accept it. We don't have to. I won't. Any same sex marriage is just a sick sham in my opinion, and perverts the normal definition of marriage. Period. Go away, live your life, be happy with what you have and leave the rest of us alone to live ours the way we want to without having this kind of pc crud shoved down our throats.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #8 | Monday, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:01 am
A lot of what is written below I found in an article on WND. I did paste much of it directly from the article itself. But, you need to read it to know what has really happening in our communities and schools about this gender identity and same sex marriage stuff. It will blow your mind what these people are doing!!!

Picture this … your 7-year-old daughter comes home from school in tears, explaining she’s afraid to go to the bathroom at school because a boy comes in while she’s there. Outraged, you call the school to demand an explanation. You’re told that your daughter is telling the truth, but because the boy says he wants to be a girl, officials’ hands are tied.

“It’s the law.”

According to the Pacific Justice Institute, this and many other scenarios may become reality if two new far-reaching “gender identity” bills pass the California Legislature.

PJI has launched a new site,, to bring attention to Senate Bill 323 and Assembly Bill 1266 – two bills which push an activist gender-identity agenda.

SB 323 was introduced in the California Legislature by Sen. Ricadro Lara, D-Long Beach, in mid February. The legislation would eliminate key tax exemptions for the Boy Scouts of America if the organization were to not accept “gender identity” and homosexuality.

But PJI notes that the threat of loss of tax exemption isn’t just posed to the Boy Scouts of America, but would directly affect numerous youth organizations including 4-H, Little League and the Special Olympics.

PJI attorneys interpreted the legislation to require potentially all youth sports in California to allow children of any gender to participate in any sports team or activity in order to remain tax-exempt as an organization.

‘Moreover, SB 323 would negatively affect at least one area of tax exemptions for private religious schools and higher education, and could potentially have a highly coercive effect on these institutions,” the site notes.

Just days after SB 323 was introduced, AB 1266 was introduced into the California State Assembly by Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. The legislation requires that elementary, middle and high school students be allowed to fully participate on sports teams of the opposite sex, and access opposite sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and other “facilities,” based on the student’s chosen “gender-identity.”

PJI calls the bill radical and believes that it will erupt in controversy once more parents become aware of it.

“This bill seeks to impose radical ‘gender identity’ mandates on K-12 public schools to a degree that most parents would find shocking,” reads a PJI statement.

“While this legislation has been largely underreported to date, we fully expect it will spark a national controversy in the next few weeks,” a release from PJI stated.

WND recently reported a coalition has been formed to oppose a proposed change to the iconic Boy Scout organization’s century-old policy that would allow openly homosexual members.

The coalition, which includes scoutmasters and Eagle Scouts, vows to “keep sex and politics out of Scouting” through rallies, petitions and appearances at Boy Scouts of America meetings ahead of the National Council’s vote in May.

The new coalition says its members “affirm Scouting’s timeless values and will work to keep open homosexuality out of the Boy Scouts.”

It wants to “influence the resolution committee, the BSA voting delegates and the general public regarding the legal, social, political and financial implications of changing the membership policy.”

Others cited by the pro-family as being on a radical sex agenda include:

SB 543, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement.”
ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination.’” The definition of “hate” includes peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.
SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children are taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco in the month of May.
SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old.
AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.
SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as fifth grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”
AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.
AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

I ask you, after reading all of this, don't you see there is a full court press to indoctrinate and intimidate our children without our knowledge or consent, and against the Christian values and rights of many millions of parents trying to teach and reenforce Christian values in our children? Do you?
Comment Profile ImageLee
Comment #9 | Monday, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:46 am
I believe that homosexuality is wrong.
I believe that gay marriage is wrong.
I believe that a gay "couple" "having" or adopting a child/children is wrong.
I believe that a homosexual person is psychologically challenged and belongs in a mental institution.
I believe that any heterosexual person supporting homosexuality, gay marriage and a gay "couple's" right to "have" or adopt a child/children is psychologically challenged and belongs in a mental institution.
Comment Profile ImagePink
Comment #10 | Monday, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:37 am
I believe that we are all created in the image of God. I believe that God sent His only son Jesus Christ to die for our sins that we might all be saved by His grace because, due to our worldly nature, we are all sinners, heterosexual or homosexual, none of us are perfect. I believe that only God knows our heart and that I am not able to make a judgement on anyone else. "Those among you without sin, cast the first stone" (Jesus).
Comment Profile Imagefreedomofspeech
Comment #11 | Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:10 am
Thanks for sharing Realitychecker. Some of those congressional bills are pretty crazy. Why would ANYONE- gay or straight; think that it's ok for kids to be taught to admire ANYTHING ABOUT A SICK PEDOPHILE in school!! That is not freaking "art" people, that's called perpetuating child abuse in our society!!!

I know plenty of gay people, and they DEFINITELY DO NOT SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA!! And they would certainly never want child rapists/abusers "art" to be forced down innocent kids' throats!!!

I think some of the "anti-discrimination bills" are going way too far. I don't have a problem with any gay people, but I WILL NOT ALLOW a boy- to go in my little girl's restroom. Sorry- nope not going to happen on my watch. That's just inviting (trouble/crimes) to happen to our girls. And last time I checked, gays still preferred their own gender's bathroom facilities.

I think some of these senate bills are trying to address the condition of hermaphrodites. There are 6 types of hermaphroditia in humans. Not long ago women who gave birth to babies that were hermaphrodites, were pressured to "pick a gender" for their newborns. Surgery would "fix" an infant born with male and female sex organs. Sadly many parents "picked" the wrong gender, so many children suffered/felt like they were born in the (wrong body/gender.) Many doctors have stated that a parent shouldn't pick a gender for their hermaphrodite newborn baby. They said, "It always good to wait at least til the child is 6 yrs. old, before doing gender assignment surgery." By that time, it will be evident which gender the (child actually is.)

Anybody remember the story of the Black Dahlia in the 1930's?? She (Black Dahlia) was a beautiful woman and a rising star. Only problem was, she was a hermaphrodite. From outward appearances, she was a pretty young lady. Until the night a man who was attracted to her, discovered she had male parts. He brutally tortured, beat, and mutilated her. It was perhaps one of the goriest murders of the century. So I think that is what these radical bills are trying to prevent. Just saying...
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #12 | Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:15 pm
'Reality Checker' includes a whole range of legislation (BTW-none of which has anything whatsoever to do with marriage equality) going back to 1999 and guess what, the sun still manages to rise in the east and set in the west.
I wonder if 'Reality Checker' has ever bothered to read any of the legislation that purports to be of such existential threat to him? (I know I haven't. In fact, I haven't even heard about most of these laws/proposed laws. I work for a living). Perhaps if he did, he wouldn't need to resort to copy and paste jobs from some other source and he'd be able to present some cogent argument precisely addressing their merits or lack thereof. Who/what is WND exactly? I've never heard of it before.

One thing though that 'Reality Checker' should try to keep clearly in mind is that our public schools are just that, public. If you dislike lesbian or gay students or teachers that is your right but you have no right to expect them to hide themselves from view in order to accommodate your prejudices, religiously based or otherwise. Additionally, if you would like a religious (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc) educational experience/indoctrination of your child then I might suggest that an alternative private religious school might be more suitable to your needs.

And then we have Lee who just simply feels that anyone who disagrees with him (gay or straight) should simply be arrested and forcibly institutionalized. It sounds like Lee and Joseph Stalin would have a lot in common.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.


Add your Comment


Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.


The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its' policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.

RSS FeedFacebookTwitter

Advertisement for Stellar Solar


Most Commented

Reach Local Customers

The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 1588 S. Mission Rd. Suite 200, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2015
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds