E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Beck Diefenbach / Reuters file
Gay marriage advocates cheer during a rally outside a federal courthouse in San Francisco moments before hearing that judges had struck down Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, on Feb. 7, 2012.
Backers of California's Proposition 8, intended to ban same-sex marriage in the state, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to take up their appeal after two lower federal courts found the measure unconstitutional.
The justices now face two gay rights issues: the Prop 8 appeal and two challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Voters in California approved Prop 8 in 2008, less than six months after the state’s Supreme Court approved same-sex marriage. The measure was immediately challenged.
A federal judge declared it unconstitutional in 2010, and a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in February that the ban discriminated against gays and lesbians. The full circuit declined to hear the appeal from Prop 8 supporters, though its ruling remains on hold until all legal avenues have been exhausted.
In urging the Supreme Court to hear their appeal, backers of the measure – which includes that Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal ministry -- said the nation was in the midst of a public debate about "the profoundly important question” of “whether the ancient and vital institution of marriage should be fundamentally redefined to include same-sex couples."
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
Proponents of Prop 8 stepped in to lead the court battle after California officials concluded the ban was unconstitutional and declined to defend it.
The federal appeals court wrongly concluded, the Prop 8 backers said in their petition Tuesday, that because California's domestic partnership law already gave same-sex couples the same legal rights that married couples have, all the measure did was take away their legal right to get marriage licenses.
Such a distinction, the appeals court determined, had no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians. The court also found that Prop 8 unconstitutionally took away a fundamental right that the state had previously guaranteed.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
"This reasoning calls into immediate question the marriage laws of Hawaii, Nevada, and Oregon, which extend to same-sex couples the incidents but not the designation of marriage," lawyers for the Prop 8 supporters argued in their Supreme Court filing.
The appeals court ruling "threatens to short-circuit further democratic deliberation regarding official recognition of same-sex marriage," they said.
Related stories:
- Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional
- Conservatives target Republicans who back gay marriage
- Same-sex couple fights to stop deportation, gay marriage ban
- Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
Separately, both the Obama administration and House Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton.
DOMA, as the law is known, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage -- even in states where it is legal -- thereby denying various benefits given to heterosexual couples.
Survey: Partisan divide over gay marriage widens
The Obama administration had stopped defending the law, concluding it was unconstitutional. It recently asked the Supreme Court to take up two of the DOMA cases – one originating in Massachusetts, the other in California -- after appeals courts struck the law down.
Neither case sought for justices to decide the fundamental question of whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. No Supreme Court action on whether to take up any of the cases, or all of them, is expected until the fall.
No same-sex marriages have been performed in California since Prop 8 was passed by voters.
Equality California, a LGBT advocacy group, said there was no need for the Supreme Court to review the case because the decision to strike down Prop 8 “rested on solid constitutional principles.”
"Two federal courts in this case have affirmed what we know to be true -- that Proposition 8 seriously infringes on the guarantee of equal protection and serves no legitimate state interest,” the group’s spokeswoman, Rebekah Orr, said in an email. “We look forward to a day in the near future when all loving, committed couples will have the freedom to commit their lives to one another in marriage and enjoy the security and protection that only marriage can provide."
NBC News’ Miranda Leitsinger contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Give us a break from ethanol, drought-hit livestock producers ask EPA
- Bedbugs, energy 'audits' among new top consumer headaches
- Poll: Views on gun laws unchanged after theater massacre
- Man shoots at police officer in dash-cam video
- Sergeant faces 30 days, demotion over soldier's suicide
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Don't let the original voting in California fool you - the pro-8 advertising campaign was every bit as dishonest as we're seeing from Romney at the moment. It would have failed miserably if they hadn't lied so much and preyed on peoples' fears. This amendment wouldn't stand a chance today, just a couple of years later.
Sonny
Are you saying that BLUE state California voters are stupid? They didn't know what the issue was?
Exactly what is Romney being dishonest about? Be specific!! While you're at it please list the things that we heard from Obama that were dishonest during his campaign 4 years ago.
Bring us together
Transparency
Close GITMO
Lobbyists
Open government meetings
etc...........
...Obama liberals just CAN'T STAND IT when things are done fairly, by popular vote. ...They would much rather have their King dictate policy to us all.
With regards to the government (local, state, and federal), ALL unions should be civil unions, and allowed for both heterosexual and homosexual couples with all couples being given equal rights. Then, if you want to get "married", that is between you and your church, and as a private institution, they can make their own rules allowing it, or disallowing it.
Gay marriage has no negative impact on anyone. None. It does allow people that are gay to have equal rights with straights, and that alone has no impact whatsoever on straight marriages. Everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want as long as its between two consenting adults. What's the problem?
getagrip
Civil rights based on race were subject to popular vote for generations and the majority repeatedly made the wrong choice. The Constitution is designed to prevent the majority from denying rights to the minority, but that obviously takes far too long in many cases. Your statement that majority vote is "fair" is only true sometimes ..... in other cases it is completely unfair.
@Kevin C is right on the money. From the standpoint of the government, all unions should simply be civil unions representing a civil contract. All civil partners should have the same rights regardless of whether they are the same sex or not. Marriage is a religious institution and the decisions about who should and should not be allowed to marry should be left with religious authorities. Keep the government out of this decision.
This basic principal is how polygamists have been allowed to have multiple spouses. Only one of them is their partner from the civil government sense, the rest are simply religious spouses under the tenets of their religion, but with no civil legal weight to those unions.
@ getagrip1
Civil rights shouldn't be put up to a popular vote
Loving v. Virginia was a decision in 1967 by the SCOTUS making laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional. Several states prior to this decision had selectively banned couples of different races from being able to marry...those too were decisions by the majority of their voters.
What rights would you like to have placed on the chopping block of public opinion next?
JS, people are not going to stop using the word marriage just because you claim it belongs to your religion. And would you really want to reduce the word to the need for an asterisk? "Oh, you're married? Which religion? Sorry, I don't accept that one."
well romney is the only chance we have to defeat the obama(hitler)regime.
Maalog
Congratulations on the most tasteless and unintelligent comment of the day!
Maalog
You comment is beyond tasteless; it is sick and, as don97524 says, is the most unintelligent comment of the day.
...@Seriously and @don, you have just proven my point. ...BTW, homosexuality is not a "race", even though you may long for it to be; it is a "lifestyle".
...Also, @Maalog is completely correct. ...Romney may not be the best alternative but ANYBODY IS BETTER THAN OBAMA. ...If we don't get Romney to de-throne King Obama, we will have to wait four more years, until Obama has COMPLETELY screwed America up. ...If that unfortunate time is allowed to pass, even "liberals" will be screaming for his head.
Don 975
Incorrect!
The constitution was crafted to The Constitution was to keep the federal government from dominating people's lives and prevent a simple majority from utterly dominating the minority in law making (ref Senate 60 vote cloture, 2/3's veto over-rides, 3/4 votes for Constitutional Amendments).
If you said same sex partnerships should be able to use the term "marriage", they would be looking at you like you had 3 heads!
If all equal rights issues were put up for popular vote there would be no equal rights in America. Most individual equal rights have been affirmed through legislation. Prop 8 is not about gay or straight it's all about individual freedom. If we deny one minority group equality then some day in the future whats to stop some small group of individuals proposing for example that it's now illegal to be of mixed race or left handed or ??????
I find it disturbing that the people that run around talking about "freedom" always seem to be the very same people that are more than willing to deny freedom to others.
getagrip-
Then heterosexuality is also a lifestyle and has no rights either?
No one is taking the rights of heterosexuals away. Grow up.
It is amazing how far this movement has come in the recent past. People are starting to really get it. Finally. If it keeps going at this rate, I imagine that in 10 years all traces of this flavor of bigotry will be removed from our governments. (including states) If we are lucky, it wont take that long.
DB Akron
The 60 vote cloture vote is not part of the Constitution. It is a Senate rule voted on by the Senate.
The Constitution guarantees equal rights and allows the Supreme Court to overrule laws that deny rights that were decided by the majority, whether that majority is in the legislature or by proposition voted by the electorate. You are the one who is incorrect (in addition to being on the wrong side of equal rights.)
Incorrect AND wrong ..... bad combination.
Big Al: Big thumbs up!
Well said, Don.
maalog
The worst part about your comment, is that you're a Cowgirls fan....hahahahaha...sucker!
DB,
Then why do you support government dictating who someone can love, do you really support a larger government who tells people who they can and can't enter a contract with?
getagrip1
Conservative lemmings can't stand it when their beliefs are challenged in court and they lose. They then like to blame President Obama for it, because everything is Obama's fault.
I bet if Romney could find a way to outsource gay marriage to another country, make $$ for doing it, and get a tax credit, he and the conservative lemmings would be all for it!
getagrip1
The problem with proposition 8, like DOMA, is that they both take away from a group of people certain fundamental rights and treat that same group of people differently when there is no extremely compelling state interest in doing so. Like preventing people of different races from being married, these laws serve no purpose.
They do not preserve heterosexual marriage, the divorce rate with heterosexual marriages is about 50%.
Heterosexual marriages do not help children. There are more children abused in heterosexual marriages than ever before.
You can't ask us to look at history, because historically, men married multiple women, same thing applies to a religious look at marriage.
There is no valid reason for denying marriage to same sex couples, other than a hatred of people who are different than you. Get over it and let people be happy. Just because you are full of hate does not mean that you have to spread it to everyone else.
So when the GOP helped to vote the health care program into law, it was fair for them to drag it into the Supreme Court? And it was unfair when the Supreme Court found the health care program was, in fact, legal? The right wing lunatic fringe has a damned warped and twisted sense of fairness.
1st State's rights is an issue here... no matter the "method" the state voted and got what the state wanted... a judge should not be able to "overturn" it as long as it does NOT violate federal law... nor supersede federal law.. Prop 8 (no matter how you view it) does neither.
2nd. LeGiBiT Issue as a "race" issue: Race can be identified by sight, so can gender, Age is subjective but generally be estimated by sight. THAT is the bases for Bigotry. These are atributes that we are born with. Now If some one is Gay That is a lifestyle... (even if your born that way). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a society to be ALL GAY... But like it or not it is for Heterosexuals.... simple not complicated. Being Gay is NOT illegal.
That piece of paper (marriage license) may be a "moral" victory or maybe you desire the tax benefit but it is only important to heterosexuals... On the religious side its a sin to "be together" outside of marriage... and most Gays (the statistics bare this out) are "happy" just living together many don't "seek:" marriage just want to be able to.. The Bible is clear (New Testament not Old) Jesus defined marriage as 1 man 1 woman. and the desire to make marriage "equal" is not the reason for marriage.
Boyscouts said "No to Gays" for the EXACT same reason a All girls club would say "No to Men" The LeGiBiT agenda is less about equality and more about "MY WAY" one final point.
The Left love to talk about the Top 1%. The day Pres. Obama came out to support same sex unions... The LeGiBiT community poured MILLIONS to his campaign. Chuck Todd of this network said: "Gay money has replaced WallStreet money". And by my count Obama has attended 3 Gay fundraisers. Who is really in the 1%?
rofl, a repressed minority finally stands up for their constitutional rights, and folks like Flame try to turn themselves into the poor persecutees.
"1st State's rights is an issue here..."
Right out of the gates you are wrong. The question of states rights was established when the South lost the Civil War. You guys failed. Get over it.
LOL, since when did bold lettering make the content of someone's post correct?
Anyway, getagrip1
The point of mentioning Loving v. Virginia was to note that states had put (what amounted to) a civil right up for popular vote and the vast majority of their voters supported the ban of interracial marriages. Hence why, as my first sentence in my first post eluded to, the rights of a minority should not be put up for popular vote.
Flame77_7
1st States Rights is NOT the issue here. If it was, why did the federal government feel compelled to pass DOMA at the national level? States once had laws that prevented african americans from marrying whites. That was 'once' a state right in Virginia. There is also over 1000 federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples. Homosexuals cannot qualify for those benefits. That is discrimination and taxation without full representation.
2nd. Yes, its true that being gay is not like your race or sex. However, if two individuals of the same sex apply for a marriage license, it would be labeled as a 'gay marriage'. So there is clearly an identifier here. We also have people who come out of the closet and are denied their basic civil rights, because heterosexuals use their religious beliefs. That is pure bigotry.
That piece of paper is NOT just some moral victory. Did it ever occur to you that if two individuals are in love, that's why they get married? The bible has NO place in our secular laws. Last time I checked, God is NOT mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. Christianity is not the official religion of the United states, and GOD does not guaranteeing our civil rights. The laws of this country do that. Last time I checked, our government officials take an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the BIBLE.
The heterosexual agenda is we want to protect our rights to discriminate against homosexuals, because they do not subscribe to our beliefs. The US Military does not discriminate against gays/lesbians, why should the Boy Scouts? Last time I checked, the Boy Scouts do not put themselves on the battlefield to defend our freedom.
The right love to defend the top 1%. They will use it as part of their presidential campaign as a way to obtain FUNDING from religious right organization, and POUR MILLIONS into the candidate that they feel will influence our secular laws with their religious beliefs. Amazing how you righties ignore the flood of campaign donations that come to the other side of the house.
Now, having said that, how does homosexual marriage personally impact you?
Well Tasty, it's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
I think you've got your groups a little blurred.
The Neocons (i.e. "the 1%") have the funds but not the voting power. They rely on the Religious Right (i.e. Sociocons, AKA sociopath-zealots) to support their agenda. The 1%'ers are FAAAAAAR from the "Moral Right" and I highly doubt they would like to be held under the thumb of "family values"...they just need the votes, and people who cannot do math in their head and or have serious religious delusions are the perfect suckers to support agendas that actually go against their own economic well being so long as the candidate(s) is first vetted for their belief in the correct fairy tales and the candidate subsequently supports the premise of implementing Christian-Sharia law.
It's a 3-legged stool. The Neocons supply the money and the connections, the Religious Right supply the manpower...It worked great for Emperor Constantine...just paint a big red cross on your shields and you'll have the loyalty of the plebeians.
Aquarius, you obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
@ ErinNJ
Indeed, which is one of the primary reasons that the SCOTUS has avoided reviewing the constitutionality arguments against DOMA, Prop8, etc etc etc. It would force their hand to make a decision, and if they reverted back to the decision of the appellate(s), DOMA would be nullified anyway
...so they've obfuscated entirely
Majority rule killed Socrates.
If you where asking for the term marriage to be stricken from government and civil union as a replacement. I would agree.
But that simply isn't what your asking for. You want them to not be seen in the same light as you.
Our countries corner stone is a document called the constitution which isn't based on anyone's paricular flavor of a bible. If you hold marriage so dear to your religion then the separation should take place. Get ur head right.
If marriage is religious than it has no place in government.
Well hell, let’s just make it so any two persons can show up at church, the justice of the peace or wherever people want to show up and get married. Doesn’t much matter if it happens to be cousins, brothers and sisters, wife and son, a couple of uncles. You name it, anything goes, it isn’t right that we should interfere with the rights of two people in love to get married. They aren’t hurting anyone and should be afforded the same benefits of any other fun loving couple. Any argument that I have heard and seen thus far could apply to this twisted scenario. Does it sound a bit far fetched or completely f ed up. Lets keep going on our current path and we might see this insanity before the Supreme Court faster than we think.
Hi Get a Grip,
One question, if being gay is a "life style choice" then what about being tall, left handed, red haired, very smart, hearing or visually challenged, or having perfect pitch? are all of these also "Life style choice"s?
I don't think so, but I might agree if you said that following a religion was a "life style choice".
I believe even Jesus would believe with that.
Markmo,
We should also have a law stating your wife cannot strap one on and take you from behind. (wasn't meant as a personal attack)
We should also outlaw the stinky pinky.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, strictly penis in vagina.
The bible goes way beyond marriage being between a man and a woman.
To choose (preach) to fight gay rights but to conveniently forget to include the rest of scripture is a sin, mighty big one at that.
I am divorced and should be stoned to death. What say you?
Close the schools send all children to your church for proper education. We love pastors daughters the hate they have for their fathers. Oh we know it isn't about us. :)
maalog
Maalog, when you try to compare Obama to an oppressive ex-dictator, could you at least try to pick someone from the same side of the political spectrum? Like Stalin or Mao?
Comparing Obama to Hitler is like calling someone a virgin-slut.
Don, I certainly find getagrip's remarks an exorcise in angry paranoia.
But with regards to the parallels you draw between race-based civil rights laws and gender-based laws on marriage, I disagree.
As I understand it, the constitution requires that any law apply equally to all citizens, and not differently based upon some arbitrary or superficial difference, such as that of race, or ethnicity. But gender, unlike race, is neither an artificial or arbitrary difference between two people. Our marriage laws, although varying somewhat from state to state, already differentiate in terms of what unions can or cannot be recognized as a legal marriage. It is done on the basis of age, on the basis of the degree of relation between the individuals, and, in many states, on the basis of gender.
None of these distinctions are arbitrary. Some may need to be adjusted. For instance the age of consent (for marriage) is 14 in South Carolina and Iowa, which seems too young to me. In many other states, it is 16. In a few, it is 18. In which of these states are those under 18, or under 16, being denied their constitutional rights?
It may not make sense today to restrict the legal institution of marriage to heterosexual couples. But extending it to other configurations of consenting adults should be decided by popular vote, not by judicial fiat.
Well, that is my opinion, and no doubt, sometime around the November elections, the Supreme Court will render their opinion, which will render mine, and many others, moot. On one point I probably agree with getagrip: the Obama administration [and the Romney campaign staff] will be watching this case with interest.
MDB123, I have to say yours is one of the most nonsensical posts I have read here tonight. As far as what say I to your being stoned to death for divorce, I say the same to you I say to most of the ignorant Bible haters, "Get out of the Old Testament if you want to argue Christianity." You sound like you have already been stoned. Go to bed and sleep it off; maybe tomorrow you will be able to make more sense.
I believe in Jesus. That's where the grass meets the pavement for me. You can believe in your old or new testaments however you would like. God will judge me not you nor will you stand for me at judgement time.
You couldn't just of said nonsense you had to write nonsensical. Cracks me up!
Do you feel intellectually superior?
Jesus died for our past and future sins! Your religion is irrelevant. Leave Jesus alone.
I feel like this first thread is like a game of telephone that has gone horribly wrong. The article is about the possibility of Prop 8 going to the highest court in the land and I see election politics, religion, a lot of nonsense posts, trolling.
lol.
After the backers of homosexual marriage win their cause, maybe they could work on lowering the age of consent to about five years of age. Why stop perversion at homosexuality?
MDB123
.
I believe you meant "were" , not "where". No one is asking for that.....because it's stupid. It would cost millions, take years, and serve no useful purpose at all except to cater to bigots.
I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be seen in the same light as my marriage. Marriage (in our current culture) is primarily a public, loving commitment between two non-related, consenting adults.
It's not based on a bible at all. It's based on things like freedom, fairness, and equality...things you certainly won't find in the bible.
Religion has nothing to do with marriage. I've been married forever...and religion wasn't invited. Some people opt for religious ceremonies...just like some people opt for flowers or cake....but it's just part of the show, it has nothing to do with the actual legality of the marriage.
No worries then...because it isn't religious. No religion has the power to legally marry anyone, only the state has that right. You can get some religious dude to perform the ceremony for you if you want....but they have no more power (or ownership) over marriage than the Las Vegas Elvis impersonator that you could choose to perform it instead.
Maybe you should stop focusing on homosexuality and focus on your obvious hard-on for little kids. After all, you're the only one obsessing over pedophilia.
dman
Your point is worth arguing, but I still believe the comparison to civil rights is apt. For example, one civil right that was won was allowing interracial marriage. Age requirements do indeed vary from state to state, but none of those people are denied the right to wed ..... they need only wait until they are adults. Marriage equality is about the rights of consenting adults being denied by majority rule, and the majority in those cases is wrong whether it is a legislative majority or popular vote.
dirtydog200
The "perversion" is entirely in your mind. The "lowering of the age of consent" is found only in Southern states where the opposition to marriage equality is highest. Why do so many white heterosexuals in the Old South support only same-sex, same race, same religion marriage, but condone marrying children?
Not kidding,
I couldn't agree with you more or less :)
Were and where are a handicap for me along with coma's. Who says there must be a coma, I read the same thing coma or no coma.
Proper English was always my least favorite subject.
.
Einstein
Don, first, thank-you for arguing the question on its merits, and not responding with some blanket statement, which just repeats previous claims without advancing the argument.
But with regard to civil rights decisions and how they relate to the question same gender marriages, I would say there is this very real difference. Race is a superficial differentiation between two people and should never be used to determine the application of any law. Gender, however is a very real difference between two people and we use it today in a variety of ways to determine how people are treated in our society, such as in gender specific restrooms.
dman
I find it interesting that you would criticize my comparison of marriage equality with civil rights, then you compare it to the rest room issue. I still think my analogy works better.
Don, you are missing the central point that I am making: race, unlike gender is an false differentiation between two people. Laws forbidding (or ignoring) same sex marriages are no more a violation of anybody's Constitutional rights than are gender-based rest rooms.
Both laws are based upon real distinctions between two people, not something which is arbitrary or superficial. Both differentiations may make sense to some people, or one or the other, or neither. But either way, changes should not be accomplished by judicial fiat, but through popular vote, as expressed through elections or referendums.
Second question: if one argues that two men or two women have a constitutional right to marry, how can one argue that other configurations of consenting adults, such as two men and one woman, or two women and one man do not have the same rights under the constitution?
Once one comes to the position that non-traditional (and same sex marriages are non-traditional in our society) must be recognized under law, where does one draw the line. To whom do you deny their "Constitutional Rights", and on what basis? Your personal repugnance for their life style? That sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by the religious right against same sex marriages.
Also, by making an [in my view] unjustified end run around the legislative process to achieve a perhaps laudable end, one weakens both the Constitution and peoples faith in their governmental institutions. I think that people could live with the legalization gay marriage if it were done through legislation, but when it is done through judicial decision it leaves a backwash of anger and mistrust which is very destructive to our society.
This may be my last post on this subject tonight, not because I do not enjoy debating the subject, but because typing "Constitutional" over and over again is hurting my hands.
Later Don.
dman
Citizens have rights granted under the Constitution ..... equal treatment under the law. Typically these rights are denied only because the citizens has done something to warrant denial of rights, for example when convicted felons are denied their right to vote. However, in this case homosexuals are denied their right to enter into a legal agreement with another consenting adult not because they did anything wrong, but because the majority has decided that they do not approve of the adult with whom the citizen wishes to engage with in civil union.
Your second question is absurd and the answer was already answered in the heterosexual marriage case when polygamy was outlawed.
You wish to maintain the "traditional." So did slaveowners. So did men who wished to exclude women's suffrage. "Tradition" sometimes is wrong. Equal rights, however, is right.
Damn it. You are going to make me spell Constitution a few more times tonight.
True, but not universally or without exception. As I pointed out, we do provide for different treatment under the law where a real and intrinsic difference exists between groups of citizens. Gender-specific restrooms are considered constitutionally allowable, as are gender-specific schools. But racially segregated restrooms, schools, etc. are not. In an other context we apply the law differently with respect to the age of individuals. An 18-year-old is a fully qualified adult in his or her ability to vote, marry, join the army [and put his life at risk], and enter into legal contracts. Yet in many states, he or she cannot walk into a bar and order a drink. As many 18 to 20-year-olds will tell you this often seems unfair. Yet, to date such laws have not been challenged on a constitutional basis because age is considered a real and intrinsic difference between two people.
You are aware that the same body of marriage law which you claim renders the idea of group marriage absurd, is also that which outlaws, or as you put it, answers the question of same sex marriage. 20 years ago, each concept was completely unthinkable, at least in mainstream political circles.
First off, I'm not arguing for or against the recognition of same sex marriages. I am arguing that the constitution is mute on the subject, and to attempt reason otherwise is unsupportable, and damaging to our political institutions.
Secondly, as you may be aware, neither the end of slavery, nor women suffrage were achieved by a judicial decision, but by specific amendments to our Constitution. In fact, for purposes of taxation and representation, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the constitution specifically states that black slaves were to be counted as equal to 3 fifths of a free, white person:
The constitution does not pretend to provide perfect justice for all citizens. It is a legal framework, within which the citizens may base their laws. Not all these laws will make perfect sense. But just because a law is nonsensical does not make it unconstitutional.
FAQ about gays and gay marriage:
“Marriage is meant to be a heavenly union and to procreate and have children. If gays can’t have kids and they aren’t religious why do they need to get married?”
I know right! Would you believe that there are heterosexual couples who aren’t religious or will have kids and still get married? Why do they need to be married? Insurance purposes, visitation rights, a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo? Please! If you define marriage as a religious act and to make babies then I full endorse that ALL couples, regardless of sexual orientation, shouldn’t be allowed to get state marriage licenses unless they are part of religious institution or are gonna make/ adopt kids. There’s no need! Those heterosexuals won’t mind being denied getting married on those grounds right?
“Marriage is a sacred and allowing gays to get married will ruin it.”
Kim Kardashian. Britney Spears. Gold Diggers. Single mothers who have children and never get married. Divorces. Heterosexual couples who never get married at all. Marriage has been in decline LONG before the gays have tried ruining it. How about ya’ll start campaigning against people who get divorced, women who have children out of wedlock and criticize those couples who never get married at all! I’m guessing it’s too tall of a mountain to climb? Then let’s pick on the minority and feel like we are saving some part of marriage!
“If you legalize state approved gay marriage they will force the churches to accept it.”
Odd, by denying gay marriage on religious grounds you are trying to force those who are not religious to conform to your ideals of life. Most of the gay people I know don’t want to change the churches, they want the churches to leave them alone. What will actually happen is that future generations will look at churches and ask them what the big deal was and why can’t my friend/ relative/ teammate be allowed the same things I am? That’s when you’ll feel pressure to change. Of course, if you are a religious employer and try to deny a gay/ nonbeliever employee secular coverage and rights like health coverage on the grounds that you do not approve state gay marriage, that becomes a legal issue where the big bad government could choke you.
“This will ruin the traditional family if gays can get married and raise kids. The children will be scarred or will never understand what a real family is.”
I love bringing this up all the time. Children, born to unwed single mothers, will also not know a traditional family. Where is all the commotion over them? I can assure you, even if every single gay couple who got married in Washington state adopted 20 kids, they will not even be close to catching up with single mothers. What about people like my former college roommate who was bumped around in the foster care system and is dysfunctional to this day from never knowing any kind of steady family? What about kids taken away from birth parents and placed with grandparents or a single aunt/ uncle/ cousin/ older siblings? Not traditional! You honestly expect me to believe that gay couples will be just as or more so damaging to kids than single moms? What will you do about those cretins who think it’s a good idea to my gay person or couple be god parents to their kids? You want laws against that?
“You all have the exact same rights in a civil union as you do in a marriage, why the hell do you need to call it a marriage?”
So by that logic if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we’ll call it a goose because a gay duck is much worse than a straight duck? Sounds like separate but equal- THAT worked out really well in the past! Once again, start yelling at heterosexuals who abuse and neglect marriage, THEN I’ll start taking you seriously when you claim marriage is sacred.
“Kids raised by homosexuals are going to become gay themselves.”
Yes, and heterosexuals never make gay kids. All those stories of gay kids being raised by religious families and going to a camp to be “fixed” are actually all lies. Because only gays can influence people to be gay. Or maybe they influence them to be accepting of what they are. I dunno. We need a “Gay camp” to try and turn kids gay and see how that works!
“Gay marriage will cause a population decline because gays can’t make children”
^ That was a serious statement from someone. You see, a heterosexual couple can have more than one child to compensate. Having gay marriage will not randomly turn 50% of the population gay and cause a population crash. Japan and Russia are not having population issues due to gays. If you ever read comments from the citizens, they often site a difficult environment to raise children and access to birth control as the primary reasons they don’t have kids. Also, gays can adopt- you know, all the babies who should be born according to the pro-lifers and be put up for adoption? Gays are part of the solution!
“Homosexual sex acts are against god and nature, sex is meant to be between a man and a woman.”
As a heterosexual female, I COULDN’T AGREE MORE! Can you believe that gay men engage in anal sex and oral sex? Can you believe that heterosexual males want ME to engage in anal sex and oral sex?? NO! That is not how it’s supposed to work. Pole in the PROPER hole guys! God says so. There is no excuse that if sex acts shared between homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, then BOTH should be wrong. Ground zero for your fight against sexual deviancy will be fraternities and sororities. I’ll take your argument seriously as soon as you start condemning heterosexuals for engaging in sex acts that homosexuals do.
“God is going to be angry and punish America like Sodom and Gommorrah for calling civil unions marriage!”
Let’s see, Conneticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and maybe Washington State if it isn’t voted down by public vote have granted same sex marriage state licenses. As someone who has been monitoring disaster all across the USA, I find it odd they haven’t had that many disasters considering the grievous sin that they have committed.
I mean, compare it to the South. Droughts, Wildfires, floods, storms, tornadoes, hurricanes- if God was punishing the USA for same sex marriages....why are there more problems in the places that embrace DOMA? I kinda think it would make more sense to punish the non-believing sinners than God’s followers.
Unless God being omnipotent and all knowing, decided to enact his wrath on a non-linear time scale. So maybe 9/11 was punishment for the future passing of Gay marriage in New York State?
Also wasn’t there something in the bible about God no longer enacting direct power over the earth and leaving matters to the humans? I haven’t read it so I could be wrong.
“The return of Jesus Christ is nigh and you must repent for defending the homosexuals he will condemn because it’s in the bible that gays are a abomination!”
Ok, so I don’t read the bible, but everyone one keeps telling me that nobody knows exactly when or why Jesus will return to set everyone straight?
And I have to admit, I am kinda confused about the return of Christ. You see, there were two world wars that brought in the systematic extermination of innocent people, the Black Plague that wiped out most of the European populations at some point, endless smaller wars since Jesus’s death along with dozens of other diseases that have and continue to kill people.
......Why is Jesus going to return now, after not showing up for all of the terrible events that happened in human history? Are you saying...gay marriage is worse than the Holocaust?
You know what, I kinda do hope Jesus returns. I need to chat with him about his priorities. As godless sinner doomed to hell, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Will satan know the answer when I move into my apartment by the sulphur springs?
“You should care about God, the Bible and Jesus even though you don’t believe in them!!!!”
Fair statement. As Americans, we should also care about Muslims and Islam in America, since they are a religion who believes in God. So why do people not want them to build Mosques and Islamic schools when we have churches and Christian based schools?
Sorry guys, but expecting someone to live by your book who doesn’t believe in it is unrealistic. We have to obey the Constitution, laws that serve everyone and not just who is a saved soul according to whatever religious document they follow. Arguing God, Jesus and the bible against someone who doesn’t care and won’t follow it isn’t going to work. Telling a gay person they are disgusting because a book says so won’t make them care about your point of view when they don’t follow your book.
Normally I don’t answer religious based questions, but they come up so frequently I thought I’d humor all of the true believers so I don’t have to answer over and over.
“Being gay is a choice, they can become heterosexuals if they wanted to!”
Yep, it’s totally a choice. All those gays who get raped and beaten in Africa by the conservative society there absolutely wanted that. Iranians who get hung for gay sexual acts wanted that too- because who would want to be gay in places like that if it was a choice? All those teens who went into special “correctional” programs to change their sexuality and didn’t change or killed themselves clearly didn’t want to be straight! If sexuality was a light switch you can turn on and off then I’d be gay for a few weeks after a break up with a guy. I guess I’m gay for gay marriage! Har har!
“What’s next? Legalizing polygamy? Letting people have sex with animals? Letting teachers have sex with kids, it’s all the same!!”
There’s a thing called “consent”. The reason we have statutory rape laws, all sex with children is considered rape and having sex with animals is illegal is because kids and animals do not have maturity or understanding to actually consent to sex. Legalizing gay marriage will not change the inability of kids, teens and animals to consent to sex and all of this WILL REMAIN ILLEGAL. What will change is that the government cannot deny two consenting adults to get married. As for polygamy, our neighbors up north (Canada) had their polygamy colonies try to justify polygamy because gay marriage was approved, and it didn’t work. If you don’t like polygamy, how about about actually enforcing the law and breaking up the FLDS.
“Gays are going to be attracted to kids of the same sex and you risk molestation if you give them kids to foster/ adopt.”
Homosexuality and pedophillia are not the same. If they were, so would be heterosexuality and pedophillia, because adults can molest kids of the opposite gender just as they can molest kids of the same gender. I guess you think that since a dude likes other men he must like prepubescent boys? Oddly enough, I like men but not male children. Hell I’m 27 and 25 is too young for me.
“Why do you care about Gay marriage- you’re straight and it will never affect you!”
Why do you care so much about gay marriage? You are apparently all straight and it will never affect you! I guess whites during the civil rights era had no need to care about discrimination of blacks, I shouldn’t care about the horrors of factory farming because I’m not a farm animal, I shouldn’t care about the crime in my area because it doesn’t affect me. I care because I care about other people and living things. That’s why I care about gay marriage.
I don't believe in your god, gods, goddesses, or whatever you call them. So explain to me why you feel that you have the constitutional right to use your specific flavour of religion to set social policy in the United States of America? I seemed to have missed that part of the constitution...... oh wait, it's because IT IS NOT THERE. Perhaps we should allow a different large religion in the US to make the laws. I am sure you would support Sharia law yes? If not why?
PS: most of your cut and paste list makes no logical sense. You continually compare adults having relations with non adults. Perhaps your list would make some (a little, any?) sense if you compared consenting adults in each case.
Inadaze, great comments, sound reasoning. Unfortunately, it won't influence any of those people that are dead set on denying gays their civil rights.
D,
He is arguing for gay marriage.
Seriously you wrote that much? Not saying i agree or disagree with you but seriously get a life bro.
On a lighter note, it's very sad that this issue will be the sole issue gay and lesbian voters consider when picking a candidate for the upcoming election. Very bad for our country. Conservatives dont realize that by fighting this battle they are in fact sealing Romney's fate as the next republican loser.
NOBAMNEY 2012
My Bad - saw that list on another site posted by a fundy and jumped the gun.
Inadaze......................I am awed and amazed at your insight, wisdom and ability to see bull @!$%# for what it is. Me doth think someone protests too loudly - perhaps to smoke screen their own fears and insecurities?
@ Inadaze
I appreciate that you've pre-emptively addressed most of the popular arguments that the simpletons use to justify discriminating against homosexuals, but I think that you missed the mark by making it so utterly huge of a post that most people don't bother reading the whole thing, except the captions, which upon first glance, makes it appear as though you are one of the nutters that post bible quotes in bold trying to justify a point ^_^
@ D Russell
I was totally about to fall into the same trap until I carefully read the first unbolded paragraph...but OMG the guy's post could have been a few short bullets.
Here's the abridged edition
There...that's all that was needed
CommonS3nc3
I won't be voting just for Obama because he supports Gay Marriage. Obama is leaving the decisions on gay marriage up to the states. He will not introduce legislation to make it national. HE will leave it to the Supreme Court where it should be.
Obama is clearly the right choice for this country right now. It beats voting for some flip flop twit that has no economic plan, 'doesn't care about poor people (in his own words), can't release his taxes, and is a complete embarrassment on the world stage.
Brillient!
I read the whole thing. Liked it a lot. That's how I know it was written by a WOMAN, not a guy.
Making intelligent arguments for human rights sounds like a decent way to spend online time to me. Thx, Inadaze.
I do enjoy the hypocrisy that you would make a blatantly sexist comment while supporting someone's argument against bigotry.
Your post is indeed excellent! My two wives and I applaud your logic, passion, and fully agree. We are consenting adults with no children anymore, and while our relationship is not for everyone, it works for us. We love each other, and unlike the gay community, who may want legal status, we simply want to be left alone.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Inadaze, you are genuinely one of the most brilliant, well-read, level-headed posters I have ever seen on this website. That very post puts everything into a nice perspective, even though it's highly likely it'll be missed, or even outright ignored for it's size. I read it all, I loved it, I want to have babies with it, but I can't tell if I want the babies to be Nouns or Verbs...
Inadaze - Wow! I mean, just, Wow! I can usually put together a coherent sentence, but I am absolutely bowled over. Seldom have I ever had the pleasure of reading something that was simultaneously as insightful and humorous as your post. I suppose it is true that some folks, those with the attention span of a grapefruit, cannot focus long enough to read the whole post, but some of us who like to wrap our brains around sociopolitical issues that really matter think your post borders on genius. Thank you so very much for sharing it with us!
Fighting the inevitable tide of history. I'm yet to here one rational argument..not biblical..how is gay marriage going to hurt my hetero marriage. Have at it.
I fully support the right of homosexuals to be as miserable as the rest of us.
romanm - some people think that Obama is going to require you to marry someone of the same sex right after he takes all your guns away.
"I fully support the right of homosexuals to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Excellent!
@Jim, do I at least get to pick which dude I have to marry? I hope I don't have to marry my fat, hairy, beer swilling golf buddy Tom. I will miss my wife, tho.
ERROR - The author said that "The Obama administration had stopped defending the law, concluding it was constitutional." They stopped defending the law because they believed that is was unconstitutional. That little "un" in front of the word makes a big difference.
Now the point I want to make about the article is that I can not understand how a group (Fundamentalist Christians) who have the highest divorce rate of almost any identifiable group in the country (fact - look it up) and are led by people the likes of Newt and Cheney can possibly think that they have any credibility defending the sanctity of US marriages. They are on the wrong side of history. It is like when you see a PBS documentary on segregation showing angry people (encouraged by ministers) yelling at black kids just trying to go to a school of their choice and you think "how horrible" - that will be you in the future - you will star in your own documentary, and people will again say "how horrible". You are on the wrong side of history.
I don't think that Cheney is in this particular fight...
Thanks for pointing out that error. You beat me to it. Also, this just in:
U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa Bryant, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled on Tuesday that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
DOMA, Bryant ruled “fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny.” From the ruling:
Actually it is his job to support and defend the Constitution, and DOMA is unconstitutional so he is actually doing his job. You should read the constitution sometime, its pretty cool how WE ALL have the SAME rights regardless of gender, race, or anything...
@ We the corporations?
I think that dennis14's copy is a little outdated...probably the 1867 edition is my guess
Not going to happen. You fail to understand the legal difference between enforcing a law and defending a law that has been challenged in court.
"Enforcing" means carrying out the terms of the law as written, and Obama is doing that - though in the case of DOMA, there isn't much to enforce other than refusing to allow joint tax filings for same sex couples.
"Defending" in this case means to support the law against a legal challenge, and no one - not Congress, not the President, not the Justice Dept,, not any individual - is required to defend any law against a legal challenge. Now, some may choose to do so, and some members of Congress have decided to file briefs in support of DOMA, but the Obama administration is not legally required to do so.
Grand jury or no Grand jury, you don't have a case, and any competent judge would throw out any such claim.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
aquarius_1958 = Copy + Paste
Thanks for the spamming
Why should we as a civilization change our social fabric to something other than what is biologically correct and structurally beneficial to the long term stabilization of the civilization or society? LGBT are biological abberations, the same as those with two heads or three thumbs or albinos. We should give special privelidges to those with two heads or three thumbs or albinos? Where is the benefit to civilization or societey? No, they are treated as though they have a condition that is not normal and if possible we assist them with corrective actions. No special treatment, no special rights, just a helping hand to get them fixed. Thats all they deserve. They are biological abnomalities. Not special cases that deserve special laws. If they want to have the same as those that are biological "norm", let them get "fixed" or let them all go to an island and make their own laws for their own civilization. They are not benefiting the current social contracts or fabric.
What are these "special privileges" that you speak of?
I like your first sentence.
tjr-704264
I would argue that the multiple of straight solo mothers are a great threat to the fabric of society. After all by your definition they are not providing a benefit to society. Talk about a drain on society! So i guess your rules would apply to them as well.
As for biological advantage of homosexuality well Jane Goodall pointed out in the Chimpanzee the young of a mother who's sister was in a lesbian relationship helped care for the child and was therefore more likely to survive to adult hood that mother's who had no such help.
I agree that LGBT and others should not be given special privileges or treated in a special way. They should also not be discriminated against. Thus, tjr-704264, by your reasoning, they should be allowed to be married.
tjr-
According to the APA: 'Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.' Homosexuality is found in many species, including dolphins and bonobos (the only other two mammals that have sex for reasons other than procreation).
How are equal rights special rights?
tjr, let's cut to the chase. Your expressed opinion on this subject is similar to the arguments made by the folks that supported Eugenics laws from the 1920's to 1970's here in the US. Yes, states were still sterilizing people in the 70's. Your argument is neither medically nor statistically sound.
The 2006 American Community Survey indicated that approximately 4.1% of all American respondents self-identified as gay. (source: http :// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Same-Sex-Couples-GLB-Pop-ACS-Oct-2006.pdf). When you compare this to the statistical fact that (natural) red heads make up approximately 4% of the population you either establish an acceptable level of population physical variance or decide that red heads are aberations also and clearly they are not.
Gayness is a normal condition that in n way threatens your personal functionality nor presents a threat to society. For you to presume that gay people are not entitled to the same equal applicability of and protection under the law as heteros are, but rather should go "get fixed" is a conclusion not based on facts and representative of a negative bias.
I will say that you are correct in that they do not deserve "special laws" and they are not asking for them. They are asking for and deserve the same laws as anyone else with no prejudice based on sexual orientation.
But people with two heads or three thumbs or albinos have long been allowed to get married, as long as they were opposite sex. All sorts of "biological aberrations" are allowed to marry. In fact, the only "biological aberration" that could be a hindrance to marriage is being comatose, as it's impossible to give consent or communicate "I Do" when unconscious.
So you can't logically deny gay marriage on the "biological aberration" theory. More importantly, homosexuality isn't really a "biological aberration", it's just a normal variation of human behavior.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
I think that the Prop 8 defenders are confusing marriage with matrimony. One is a civil ceremony and the other is a religious ceremony. Either way, it's none of my business, or anyone else's, what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of the home.
They're not...they are very well aware of the difference. The #1 goal of groups like these is to blur the line of separation of church and state. Prop 8 is just one of many such goals
There's also:
It's not that these groups cannot identify the difference, they don't want there to BE a difference.
Seriously, your 5 points sound almost like the United States was for almost 200 years AFTER the Constitution. The Constitution hasn't changed, only a whole different way of interpreting it.
InADaze you covered about all of it! Kudos! One other thing to mention would be that marriage and religion actually have nothing to do with each other. To get married you must:
1) Get a license at the government courthouse
2) If you are not religious you can get married at the same courthouse where you got your license. A government official, a Judge, will handle the proceedings. You may, as an OPTION, choose to have your marriage take place in a church.
Finally to get a divorce (which oddly, religious groups seem to approve) you have to go back to that same old government courthouse to get it taken care of.
Now please tell me more about how the religious folks OWN marriage.
ON the divorce front I would have more respect for the anti marriage equality people if they also with the same fever and panic put up votes in November to ban divorce.
How can people who WANT to get marriage be destroying the definition and tradition of marriage yet people who marry and trample over marriage by getting divorced NOT be destroying the tradition of marriage.
I think its called hypocrisy.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Not to worry, gay folks. TURNCOAT ROBERTS will be happy to cast the deciding vote.
Is he now considered the new liberal justice? How quickly you turn on your own.
Justices do not "belong" to liberals or conservatives, so they can't be turncoats.
That depends on who you ask. It seems that as soon as one justice chooses to lean one way or the other, then they are deemed "liberal activist" or "conservative activist".
imnotlost
So you would rather the judges tow the party line than vote after a careful consideration of the law and the Constitution? I think that says it all.
Well at least imnotlost is being consistent, probably supports politicians that sellout the good of the country to score points for their political party, makes sense then to be upset at justice appointments that don't follow the same mantra.
Don't worry imnotlost, Justice Roberts still supports what truly counts in the GOP, corporate personhood and the assurance of nearly anonymous political donations. Appealing to your religious-convictions are just the bait they lure you in with ^_^
I think these right wing religious wackos are going to rue the day that they ever appealed to the USSC. If the legal arguments go the way state arguments went, gay marriage may well be upheld, for the same reasons that previous laws were upheld.
The only way states have been able to ban gay marriage is thru constitutional ammendment. Prior to these battles, no state constitution defined marriage at all. The founders never dreamed this issue would come up. But ALL state constitutions have clauses that mandate equal protection under the law. Therefore, when states passed laws banning gay marriage, the various state supreme courts struck them down for that very reason.... it violated the equal protection clause.
Subsequently, states started passing constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Only then were they able to ban same sex marriage.
Well, guess what?? The US Constitution does NOT define marriage either! But it DOES have the equal protection clause. If the US Supreme court takes the case, chances are they will uphold gay marriage because banning it, would violate the equal protection clause of the US constitution!! That will have the effect of rendering state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage null and void. The reason is that no state may pass any legislation, law etc that violates the US constitution! That would make gay marriage legal across the country, in every state. Better these people to have left sleeping dogs lie.
Absent a constitutional amendment, neither the state nor the federal government may ban gay marriage without violating the equal protection clause. A ban would only be valid if and only if the US Constitution were amended to 1) define marriage between one man and one woman , and 2) ban same sex marriage. THAT is not going to happen.
Anyone in this country may hold whatever religious view they wish. That is America. But, at the end of the day, marriage is a state matter and religions have nothing to say about it. So, please stop trying to ram your religious doctrine down other people's throats!! Gay marriage is no business of anyone else except the parties involved. Im no lawyer but that is my take. I wish the right wing would stay out of people's lives! That is truly getting "government off our backs! ( said Ronald Reagan)
PS-- Countries all over the world now allow same sex marriage.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Ahhh, a constitutional ammendment would need to overturn equal protection under the law in order to ban gay marriage. I hope America would not want to go there.
I agree. They've made a number of really bad strategic errors, not the least of which was appealing the Prop h8 ruling. Worse than that though was the creation of DOMA in the first place - had they not done that, it likely would have remained a state issue for much longer, just like mixed-race marriage. They've unwittingly federalized the issue.
FACT:The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples.These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to.
Civil Unions only protect some of these rights, but not all of them. So for those on this board saying these concepts are equal (Civil Union = Marriage) and thus 'good enough' you are factually incorrect.
Civil unions would be fine for all, as long as they had the same benefits.
But really, marriage occurred before religion and it will occur after religion.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Gove, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
"...marriage occurred before religion and it will occur after religion." Can you give me dates or even periods to substantiate this claim? Or is this another of the frequent unverifiable generalities I keep reading on here to back up your claims?
aquarious...but states SHALL NOT pass any law that violates the US constitution!! BAsically, what you said institutes that state could restarted segregation ( tho MS seem to have done it). If it is about civil rights, the Federal government DOES ahve jurisdiction!
Judges don't believe in democracy. California voters voted against same sex marriage twice. One judge overturned it. Where's the democracy in this? People don't want this. This isn't about human rights. This is about pervert rights. Same sex marriage is ridiculous. It serves no purpose whatsoever.
Judges are part of the democratic process. They correct laws that have been enacted that violate the state and federal constitutional rights of citizens.
Why is it difficult to understand that marriage is a union between a man and a woman? Any deviation from this definition is perversion.
Zack, NEWS FLASH for you - You might need to sit down when I tell you this but - AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! It was set up as a constitutional republic (although it acts more like an oligopoly/plutocracy right now but that's another issue). What this means Zack is that the US constitution is the deciding factor is such disputes NOT MAJORITY RULES. Were you passing notes to girls in history/politics class? Come on, you can tell us......
kokoodan, we understand that you believe that. We simply disagree.
What kokooday doesn't understand is that perversion is legal. But there is a law in Texas against back door sex. Just remember that it you are ever in Texas.
I think they execute you for that in Texas.
Folks, this is constitutional law 101.
States cannot overrule the federal constitution (the parts that apply to the states, that is. The third amendment and the right to a jury trial have not yet been incorporated, for example). Prop 8 was shot down because it violates the 14th amendment. The voters of California cannot overrule the federal constitution by a simple vote.
For a conservative example see McDonald v. Chicago.
Jack, you cant vote in a law that is illegal!!! NO STATE can re-institute segregation by referendum, no matter how large the margin is. The fact is that a state banning same sex marriage violates the equal protection clause unless marriage is defined in in the state constitution as between one man and one woman! And unless you are planning a same sex marraige, it has NOTHING to do with YOU! If you have a religious objection.... FINE! But marriage is a civil matter!
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Ironically, the same Texas law which criminalized gay sex also legalized bestiality. The former was overturned by SCOTUS, but the latter part still stands.
There's a reason the sheep are scared in Texas.
Wasting more time on the inevitable I see. Just pass it already so it can be one less thing that divides the country. The places where it's legal show zero negative impact. The places where it's legal have seen a boost to their economies ($259 million in NY alone).
The fight is never going to die until it's passed. The sooner it gets passed, the sooner people who oppose it can quit worrying about getting things shoved down their throats. Take that last sentence as you will.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Not that I really give two shakes one way or the other about marriage, but part of this anti-gay marriage debate confuses me.
Seems to me that the basic argument is that it goes against tradition and God's will. But so does divorce doesn't it? Traditionally I seem to remember something in most vows about "until death do you part". Shouldn't these same folks battling against same sex marriage also be working to outlaw divorce? Shouldn't these churches and ministers refuse to conduct ceremonies for those who have divorced.
Seems to me that they're quite willing to turn their backs on tradition when it suits their own personal needs and agendas.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
WELL SAID, Joh2175!!
But, that is different. How? Anyone can manufacture coping and defense mechanisms.
The U.S politicians have two sets of rules, theirs and the ones that we the citizens have to obey.
It seems "Christians" have a double set of rules too. Whatever, is convenient at the time.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Comment # 16 deleted for grenade trolling and using gay slurs.
Maalog, you are suspended for a week for violating rules # 1 and # 5 of the Code of Honor.
Once again the tyranny of a tiny minority tries to impose its perverted acts on the lawful, democratic majority.
So are you saying that the majority should always be able to deny rights to minorities?
Amadeus42, Were you in passing notes in Zacks history class too? The US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. What that means (and you would know if you were not passing notes) is that the constitution always rules - not majority rules.
clue for you - the majority of americans support gay marriage. So you are right..the minority of gay haters is trying to impose their restriction of civil rights on others. how sad.
No..."a tiny minority" wants the equal rights guaranteed to them under the constitution...nothing more....and certainly nothing less.
...@Amedeus, you are correct. ...Actually, that's what led to our independance from the tyranny of the British Imperialists.
getagrip - I can't believe that you and Zack and Amedeus were all in the same history class! Imagine that! Amedeus is NOT CORRECT although you may wish it so. The Constitution (not majority rule) is the law of the land. There would be no debate on that issue if you had read the Constitution - and not been passing notes in history class. :)
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
While I was Active Duty in the U.S. Armed forces there were military members who "got married"so that they did not have to deal with the bigotry and biased while living in barracks that were seperated from the other sex. These individuals recieved (both of them) off post housing allowance and meal money because they were "married" in the eyes of the military.
It's about time for people to recognize that this is NOT an issue to be debated! It is an issue that needs to be settled! It does NOT matter whether they are the same sex or different sexes, if you want to live together as a couple and love each other, so be it! WHO AM I OR ANYONE ELSE TO TELL SOMEONE THAT THE WAY THEY LIVE THEIR LIFE IS WRONG!
It's time to STOP throwing stones!!!!
It's just biologically wrong.
thrilla-
Do you take medications? These are biologically wrong...
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Letting gay and lesbian people get married won't change your life one bit.
Stop acting like it will suddenly stop people from being gay or lesbian, which is what this is really about.
How do you know it won't change our lives one bit? Time will tell, time will tell.
How do you know it won't change our lives one bit? Time will tell, time will tell.
Because the 'institution' of heterosexual marriage leads to divorce 50 percent of the time and the world isn't ending now is it?
It will change our lives forever - for the better. Life will go on, equality will be in action, and most importantly, this issue will be over and done with and there won't be any more LGBT issues to address because we will all be equal.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
What's so hard to understand about equality and its place in America? We WILL have equality for all our citizens whatever the cost!!!!
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Why are these two posts on here so many times?! Driving me crazy!!!
Ban that freak stuff for good!
yes, and ban peanutt butter and fluff sandwiches too! and hockey! true americans like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and baseball!
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Couldn't agree with you more!!! Who needs religion these days anyways?!
I have a simple question, how exactly does two CONSENTING ADULTS wanting to share their lives together harm anyone?
Maalog
my god when are you sick people(gays and lesbians)going to live by the bible?gay is sick and morally wrong.
Umm you do understand that the bible and all religious texts were written by humans not God, right? You do understand that by living by the bible you are in fact letting humans dictate to you how to live your life right?
Morlack,
I do not understand your post. Are your comments the fist line or the last portion? If it is the last portion, you probably do not understand or have knowledge of the Bible you are speaking of. The Bible as we know it is a conglomeration of letters, and writings dating back to the time of the Greek civilization. Many of stories in the text are similar to other text in content. After the first century as the Apostles traveled far from where Jesus was killed people started to write narratives of cosmic adventures call Apocalyptic.
As late as the 10th century, the Roman Empire had collapsed and the Holy Roman Church was just one of many Churches evolving.But since the Romans still had some military power they were able to exert force to opponents. This was called the Dark Ages for a good reason. The Jewish or Hebrew Old testament was the foundation for all of the surviving religions since it provided a means to control massive numbers of people. The premise of believe or die a horrible death is a pretty strong argument. The law of Moses is 5 books of the old ttestament including Leviticus. The Hebrews had a strong military/police force that intimidated and carried out the laws of Jews. But the true believers could also kill people in the name of God simply with an accusation. This hateful mandated persecution of people is still alive and well today and is clearly visible in the Middle East as is seen by the honor killings where a Father and mother kills their daughter for having western ideas. Or the Husband killing his wife as a crowd cheers "God's Will". I would venture to say that Religious marriage was a way for the priest to earn their living as in performing dozens of other ceremonies like blessing a farm for a good harvest.
It is insulting that the civil right of any group should be put up for popular vote. These issues always have been advanced by court decision. Otherwise we would still have "separate but equal" schools in many states.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
I love the fact that the people who say conservatives tried to block civil rights in the past by popular vote have no clue that it was the democratic party that fought
FOR slavery,Against civil rights for all,and even the good ol KKK was a democrat cult.How soon we forget or never even learn.Dont forget that planned parenthood was started by an advocate for the democrats also to keep colored people from having babies,remember they gave hillary an award for her work with PP.
parties change over time. In the 1800s, for example, the republicans were the liberals of their time. In the early 1900s, southern democrats were conservatives. Which is why when LBJ pushed civil rights in the 1960s, the dems lost the south.
convservatives are convservatives, no matter what political party they are.
You are correct, the Dixie Democrats were the worst racists and it was a Republican Lincoln who set the slaves free. The problem is not one of party but of morality and constitutionality. It is currently the Republicans who are against gay marriage - so they must be opposed on this issue. Those Republicans who are OK with gay marriage need to lead their party back to their constitutionalist roots rather that the NeoCon/Fundamentalism seen in today's Republican Party.
Oh so if you dont like what your party stands for say they switched(evolved) ok I get it now.
lol, no, parties change over time, its a fact. As anyone who knows anything about political history would understand.
sadly, that doesn't appear to include you. :)
sbile-
They did switch. Just like the Republicans of 10 years ago(prior to the Tea Party) had different views than they do now. If you don't like fact, just ignore it, I get it now.
You must one of thems people that believe crickets and june bugs were created by GOD and not conjured up by ol' chuck darwin an eon or 2 ago. Evoluting dems are much better than you non-evolutinites.
SBILEM, Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN you STUDENT OF 'HISTORY'!!
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
How many times do homophobic bigots have to be told that using their homophobic bigotry to deny others rights is unconstitutional before they begin to grasp it? What part of "unconstitutional" don't you dim bulbs understand?
Ummm, I support traditional marriage, and I am not a homophobe (well, maybe a little), and I am definitely not a bigot.
socorny-
Do you speak about the repulsiveness of divorce? Do you scorn those who are divorced? If not, then you cannot be for traditional marriage.
Holy Matrimony is different from marriage. Marriage is regulated by the state, whereas Matrimony is regulated by the church. We will give you matrimony, but let us (everyone married by the state or regulated by the state) have marriage.
socorny1: Yes, you are. By your own admission, and in spite of an attempt at denial. Just because you refuse to recognize doesn't mean it doesn't exisit.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
Right.....you're not a bigot, you just think you deserve special legal rights and that gays should be 2nd-class citizens.
You're totally not a bigot.
socorny1 - By your own statement you give the evidence to refute your claim that you are not a bigot. Do you really wish to advocate discrimination, and then be regarded as something other than a bigot? You state that you support traditional marriage, and by that I assume you mean that you oppose extending to homosexual couples the same rights as those extended to heterosexual couples, and yet you expect to be regarded as fair, unbiased, and in short, not a bigot. Sorry, but your statement is self-contradictory.
For the record...In Order for the HIGH COURT to back a Gay marriage bann..They would have to back discrimination..and in order to back discrimination they would have to repleal about eighty or so previous desisions going bach about fifty or sixty years...To the SEPARATE BUT EQUAL time in Americas past..If we Ban gays from marriage we totaly separate our Nation from the The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights...If ALL MEN ARE INDEED CREATED EQUAL..Then enough is said on the matter...Straight people are NOT MORE equal that Gays...if straight people can enjoy the legal and socieal benefits of Marriage then..so can Gay couples...
Either you are for the Law Of THE LAND..or you are not...you can't have it both ways...Some rather Conservitve element of American society want to Ban Gays from Marriage because they are gay ..Yet in same breath allow people there Constitutional right to buy Assult weapons..They want it both ways..In essance these ULTRA CONSERVITIVES ARE BI-AMERICAN...Meaning they only want the thoes rights under the Constitution to be for THEM....and they can Withhold other RIGHTS Based upon there self indulgent MORALITY..and or WHIM...
Theres is the Morality based upon FEAR...and loathing...There FEAR draws them into the GUN STORE to buy assult weapons..there loathing is for people......NOT LIKE THEM..A dangerous and hostile combination..But that pretty much defines...THE CONSERVITIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA....Unless of course your WHITE...RICH....AND LOVE NORQUIST AND HIS PARTNER..CARL ROVE..I think they make a lovely couple....
...@Colorado, so it sounds like you don't like those two REGISTERED DEMOCRATS, Holmes and Zimmerman being allowed to buy guns, eh? ...LMAO!!! ...Get a grip!!!!!
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
It's sad that, after all the equality issues we've had to deal with (race and women's rights are 2 big ones) we have to fight the same battle over marriage
Same-sex marriage is constitutional. Period. These anti-gay laws are all religiously-based and by their nature illegal. There is supposed to be a separation of church and State, and this separation goes both ways. The government is not supposed to get involved in religion (which also means no tax breaks) and religion is not supposed to get involved in government
Illegal is illegal
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
The 14th AMENDMENT IS NOT PART of the Bill of Rights, is it ERINNJ???
The BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE 1st 10 AMENDMENTS ERINNJ, not the 14th!
That doesn't matter, Aquarius; the 14th Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights is -- and the Supreme Court used that 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, pretty much nullifying the 10th Amendment. THAT is what "Incorporation Doctrine" means.
Do you EVER do any research?
I don't think he does Erin. Apparently, he is like a lot of religious righties... they want to 'pick and choose' what parts we are supposed to follow.
@Its about time n ErringNJ.........
OK.... "over educated lefties" I assume that in your eyes there is no difference between race and gender. Now Inter-racial couples are based on race (as the name implies) thats why a "blind man" could see that it is wrong to discriminate because of race.... what about gender. A poster earlier made the example of male and female restrooms.... Now I have a daughter (grown) but when she was a baby.. Mom not around and I was out about town and she needed to be changed... tell me which bathroom I should go in... is there a difference... how about this... would you trust your 16 y/o (an adult in some states) with a bunch a boys (regardless of age) unsupervised?
How are all these things and the article related? It is tied thusly: Gender is a difference... it is not discriminatory to define marriage that is UNIVERSALLY recognized. The Gay agenda wants "exclusionary" rights "specific to them. It isn't "traditional marriage" but "same sex", "civil union", "marriage equality". Gay is not a Race.... and as to my previous post... It is NOT illegal to be Gay but you cannot in any way "force" acceptance. Gay is not a Race. No one , Not Chick Fil'a , DOMA, The Church, The ARMY, Boy Scouts, or prop 8 is discriminating against BEING Gay. Nothing I Said NOTHING is discriminating against anyone being Gay. The "rules" defining marriage is talking about traditional... if you want to hop in the bed with the same sex... go ahead.. hey Join the ARMY... do what you want.. but marriage can (and is) defined by the states (rightly so) Do you think I agree with those states that allow Gay marriage... NO but I DO agree with states right to do so... and marriage is not a "civil right" it is a contract between (a man and a woman) not just for love but to identify the roles of the individual.... Man and Wife.
You guys are the same ones that will quote John 3:16 Then Hear the same Jesus say marriage is between 1man 1woman and YOU guys will call Jesus and ALL religions BIGOTS because God doesn't agree with you?...... Please... I can be ANTI GAY(lifestyle) and not anti Gay(people) it is easy. I've hired a gay person to work because he was qualified... not because he/she was gay/straight. States rights IS in the Constitution The interracial issue in Virginia was found Unconstitutional because it was based on RACE not anything else... because.... GAY is NOT a RACE...
This isn't about gender...it's about orientation. All men can marry....all women can marry....there is no GENDER inequality in the right to marry....there is ORIENTATION inequality because some people think they should dictate WHO others marry.
Yes, it is if it excludes some people for reasons that have nothing to do with societal harm.
Nor is there any "universal" definition of marriage. More countries in the world allow polygamy than don't. Many already allow same sex marriage and many more are about to. Some places allow arranged marriages or marriages between infants or closely related relatives.
No...they don't. They want everyone to have the right to marry the non-related consenting adult of their choice. There is nothing exclusionary about that. I'm always amazed at how people who know they are in the wrong simply say the opposite of what is true...so they can feel right. The only exclusionary ones are the ones trying to exclude gays from getting married. Their marriages do not exclude anyone else from doing whatever the hell they want.
So what? Who is harmed by marriage equality?
No one is trying to. No one cares if you "accept" reality or not. The reality is that there is no reason to withhold the rights of marriage to same sex partners. Whether you accept that or not, is entirely up to you.
So you keep saying. Orientation is still something we are born with....like race or height or eye color.
Really? They are just discriminating against the people who are gay....and not discriminating against the people who aren't.
You can say it all you want....but it's still not true. Gays can't marry in most states, they couldn't serve in the military at all in the past, and then could be fired if discovered, they can't join the boy scouts, their right to marry was taken away from them by prop 8 and DOMA says their legal marriages will not be recognized by the federal government. All for no other reason, than that they are gay. That is discrimination. On every front.
.
.Ok...so you don't approve of same sex marriage....you have that right. You don't have the right to prevent same sex couples from marrying....simply because you disapprove If there is benefit to them (and there is) and no harm to others (and there isn't) then there is no legal or constitutional reason to withhold it. Your disapproval just isn't a good enough reason....lucky for you...or those of us who disapprove of you could start taking away your rights.
They are called bigots for being bigots....there are lots of religious people who support equality...they aren't bigots. Those that do not...are. That's pretty much the definition of a bigot....someone who thinks some minority should have different (and not better) rules or laws....just because they are different.
Please... I can be ANTI GAY(lifestyle) and not anti Gay(people)
What is a gay lifestyle? They have the same lifestyle as everyone else. How is it possible to be against their lifestyle when it's the same as yours or mine? They have a different orientation than most people, but that's no one else's business.
Whoopie. Plantation owners had people working for them that they didn't think too highly of too. That hardly qualifies you for any humanitarian awards. I'm curious how you know the sexual orientation of your employee's though. Or why you would even care...if it wasn't a issue. Is he ok working for someone who doesn't think he deserves the right to marry the person he loves?
So what? There is simply no valid reason to withhold marriage rights from a minority based on orientation. It was wrong when we did it based on race...and it's wrong to do it based on orientation. They aren't the same thing, but they are both wrong.
The mens' room, just like many other men I have seen doing the same thing (as well as women who take their male children into ladies' room to change them; what's the difference?).
Stupid analogy.
Actually, I do have a 16-year-old daughter, and I trust HER -- but not the boys. Pack mentality tends to set in.
That's the only thing you got correct. Denying gays the right to marry can also be viewed as gender or sexual discrimination, since they are being denied the right based on the relative genders of the two people involved.
WRONG, as NotKidding explained so eloquently above. The demand is the EVERY PERSON be allowed to marry the consenting adult of his/her choosing, regardless of gender -- which would apply equally to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals.
YOU don't own the word "marriage". And the Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal".
No one is trying to "force acceptance" on anyone. Gays don't care about the acceptance of dumb bigots; they just want equal treatment under the law.
In the first place, CFA donates millions of dollars to organizations that are actively lobbying for laws that promote discrimination (and a few of those organizations are known anti-gay hate groups). And when you are denied entry, membership, or any other civil right simply for being gay, THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.
Marriage may be "defined by the states," but NO state can enact any law that violates the US Constitution, and despite your claim to the contrary, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment -- and their word trumps your pathetic rantings.
I NEVER quote John 3:16, because I do not believe in fairy tales.
So you're not just a bigot, you're a hypocritical, two-faced bigot.
Look up Incorporation Doctrine. States have rights, but the Constitution and its tenets apply to ALL states, and NO state can violate the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land.
And yet, the Supreme Court found Loving applied in 14 other cases having nothing to do with race, and it has been applied to every anti-gay marriage law challenge (including DOMA and Prop H8) that has been brought in federal court -- and you dumb bigots keep LOSING.
At least we can all agree on equal rights for straight white Christian men. It's everybody else that is the problem.
I am straight but the reason I support same sex marriage is because if I were a female, I would be a lesbian for sure.
White Christian men will be a minority soon.
Then we can vote away all their civil rights (for you teabirthers, "civil rights" are those rights in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which cannot be negated by popular vote. If you try, the courts will strike it down as a violation of the constitution. The civil rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are collectively known as "freedom".
Now you know where your political slogan came from, and what it actually means.
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Still quoting from that outdated 1992 exploratory study, Aquarius?
http://case.edu/lgbt/safezone/truth.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/safezone/Facts.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/aglbc/ally.htm
http://www.sabes.org/resources/publications/brightideas/vol9/b3myth.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
You obviously know nothing about the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, too. Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, no state can deny equal treatment to homosexuals -- that includes marriage. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO state law or constitution supersedes the US Constitution.
And as Justice Scalia has said, you cannot apply the 14th amendment to issues of gender or marriage
Justice Scalia also said:
Perry v. Brown
Thank you for shutting him up with facts, Erin.
The BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE 1st 10 AMENDMENTS, NOT the 14th MIKE VL u tool.
Where is the Fed Govt GIVEN the right to have ANY say in marriage? Since our FOUNDING, it's been a STATE ISSUE, hasn't IT??
Why can't homosexuals give BLOOD?? Why did the NIH say homosexuals are 11:1 MORE likely to be pedophiles??
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Federal Govt can RULE on the definition of MARRIAGE??
It's the 10th amendment that GUARANTEES that the rights NOT specifically reserved to the Fed Govt, BELONG to the STATES and the PEOPLE. So voting on MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE, a STATE DOMAIN, then HAS the RIGHT to create laws GOVERNING MARRIAGE, and can DEFER TO THE PEOPLE to vote on things via propositions. Here it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
@ aquarius_1958
yeah...states rights...about that.
The federal government has the overwhelming say as the law of the land, and deliberately discriminatory laws are inevitably going to be thrown out for violating some fundamental part of the constitution, most likely in this case the "equal protections clause". It has happened to sodomy laws, it has happened to interracial marriage, and it's why states cannot selectively ban/support things like women's suffrage or a poll tax.
But you're so predisposed there really isn't much value in debating with you...continue whining at your leisure ^_^