All men are created equal? Separation of church and state? No laws made with religious intent? What gives people the right to masquerade behind religion in such a purpose that takes away other people's liberties? Isn't that one of the things this country was established to avoid? I don't get the debate here. Signed - happily married, straight man.
That is the impression I am getting is that a ruling in these two cases will be narrow and focus on states' rights. I am not bothered by that as the courts aren't necessarily in the lead regarding this movement. Several states have through the democratic and legislative process already approved gay marriage. Even if Prop 8 stands I suspect another proposition will come along to defeat it. As I said in the other thread it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal and accepted throughout the US.
Except Utah. I'm not hating at all -- just pointing to the facts that a lot of Mormon money streamed out of Utah to fund Prop 8 in the first place and now the same stream helps fund the defense of Prop 8.
Utah might be the last to go but I predict even in Utah within a decade or so gay marriage will be legal.
This is a good point. With no solid definition, marriage will end up meaning anything you want it to mean. Gays do not like this type of comparison, but who's the say what will be acceptable 5 years, 10 years, 20 years in the future. If some movie star wants to marry their daughter and it becomes the latest fad, will we have to extend rights to this type of love???? Afterall, love is a civil right
Yes comparing the love between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is the same as love between a man and a child or a man and a farm animal. One is a victimless act and the other isn't. There is a victim when an adult has sexual relations with a child. One party is being take advantage of.
It just amazes me how people seem to think that they can tell others what they can and can't do. Our country was founded on freedom of choices and freedom of persecution for those that have different beliefs. Like I said before, separation of church and state. Those that hide behind the veil of religion, using it to mask their homophobia are just comical, ironic idiots. Look what's happening within your own church... Idiocracy at its finest.
Kennedy sided with the progressives. Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions.
Prop 8 is out. The Court ruled that it had no standing which effectively means that only California gets gay marriage. Disappointing but not surprising.
Supported by Scalia and Roberts; opposed by Sotomayor. It was just a ruling on standing - citizen didn't have a right to defend the state law if the state doesn't participate.
Its disappointing but its the correct ruling. You can't just have a group of citizens decide to defend the government. At the very least you need an actual part of the government (like Congress in the DOMA case) to defend it.
Agreed - I think this makes sense, and I don't think the court was ever going to create a national guarantee of same-sex marriage. I think this court tries their best not to make extreme rulings on these issues. It does seem to continue and potentially accelerate the gay rights movement - it's only a matter of time at this point.
Technically the DOMA ruling has much wider implications. Now the Federal government has to provide the same benefits to married same sex couples of states that legally allow for it. Once again, my stance on this is quite simple. I do believe that gay's deserve the right to have equal rights and liberties under the constitution, but I just dont want my church to be the ones that performs such marraiges/unions; they should have the courts do so for them. But like all things, once marriage happens, so do all the associated problems with it. Imagine our kids/grandkids having the chance at having 4 or more fathers, or 4 or more mothers as parents. (B/C divorce will inevitably also happen in gay unions)
And your church won't have to if they don't want to. Just like your church doesn't have to marry every heterosexual couple that walks through the door if they choose not to.
But it won't be your church... it'll be their church. And if First Baptist or St. Mary Magdalene Catholic Church suddenly decides to perform gay marriages, you can switch to another.
Certainly, yes. I was referring to the Prop 8 decision only; DOMA is a much bigger decision in that it immediately has an impact on benefits. No one, anywhere, has proposed that churches have to marry anyone in particular. Some Catholic Churches won't even marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic. No one has complained about that. Why are the problems associated with this? Divorce already happens with regular marriages and kids have multiple moms and dads.
I don't like procedural rulings like these. I get them, but I don't like them. In this case I really don't like it. No decision at all on whether Prop 8 was legal or not, just saying that people don't have the right to defend it in court. So weird. The People of a state enact a ballot measure. A court says they violated the Constitution. The state government refuses to defend it to the SC so the people, who enacted it to begin with, defend it to the SC and get tossed out on jurisdiction grounds. Honestly, while it is a win for gay rights in California procedurally, it's a loss for government by the people. I would have preferred them strike it down as unconstitutional then for them to simply say that citizens have no standing.
I'm really not sure, but a lack of a parental guidance in the lives of a young child growing up in homes of broken parents have already shown detrimental consequences. These problems could be just as bad or worse for children growing up in households without a maternal or paternal guide. I'd think it would be more confusing for such a child that is effected by it.
