"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

Supreme Court should act on gay marriage
http://us.cnn.com/2014/10/10/opinion/brazile-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Brazile is right. The United States Supreme Court is slow at making an actual ruling concerning same-sex marriage. It seems like it is more about politics for them than ruling on the Constitutional matter concerning marriage equality. SCOTUS, however, has brought same-sex marriage to many states through their rulings and that is a very good thing. But having just some states legalize same-sex marriage without having ALL 50 states make marriages legal and ruling that states must accept the marriages done in another state as well exemplifies the need for greater involvement by the Supreme Court. There are many Gay and Lesbian families who are suffering due to their state not offering benefits that they and their spouses should receive that their Heterosexual counterparts receive. That is very hurtful to those families and that situation seriously needs to be rectified by the high court for parity.

 

I think we already know how this majority will rule, but notions that politics either are not a part of the process or should not be, are naive and inconsistent with the process by which the courts are funded and staffed. All those checks and balances we learned about, were in place for the judicial branch so that they would only drift so far off the reservation before they are driven back. It is a political branch that nominates judicial appointments and a political branch that handles the purse strings. This go- slow process has actually ended up being exactly the opposite. The speed at which huge swaths of this country have altered their policies is astounding.

I say they keep doing what they are doing, until they know an opening is likely to open up in the next session and expedite the final case.

 

While we're waiting to see how the fight for equality plays out in the courts, the Obama administration is doing all that it can do to move things along. Can you imagine if a Willard was president now?

 

The ruling I'd love to see is that they'd find in favor of leaving it to the states.

Which is where it should go.

 

Keep dreaming. The US constitution is the supreme law of the land, and most states will not uphold it when it comes to civil rights. Therefore the federal courts must kick ass

 

Wow, you guys really don't give a flying fig about states rights, don't you?

The only thing you guys really value is people's conformity to your soulless morality.

Why is your morality so superior that we have no other choice in the world tbut to obey it unquestionably?

And why don't you guys ever give a direct answer to those questions?

The Tenth Amendment says that anything not covered by the Constitution must be delegated to the right of the state.

Therefore, you guys are basically ignoring this bypass the Constitution in favor of imposing your beliefs on to people.

If you guys truly valued the constitution you wouldn't bypass the tenth amendment.

But you guys want a tyranny, so.

The constitution is only a means to shore up your beliefs so you can impose them on to people.

So you'll use it any dirty rotten way you can.

 

Marriage falls under the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

States are free to define marriage, as long as it is within constitutional bounds. Banning same sex couples is unconstitutional.

 

It's really amazing how little you understand about the constitution and how things work. It like you think we are still under the Articles of Confederation. The anti federalists lost the argument at the constitutional convention, and they lost again following the civil war with the passage of the 14th amendment. They also lost in 1803 when judicial review was established. States rights and the 10th amendment are not absolute . States rights are to be exercised within the framework of the entire constitution and states my not violate due process or equal protection under the law.

You speak of tyranny but you are the one advocating tyranny. Granting rights to gays costs you nothing-it takes nothing from you- so crying tyranny is rather idiotic and pathetic. As far as imposing morality on you, I don't give a rats hind parts what morality you chose to live by- just don't think that you can tell others how they should live. My morality is in fact superior because I'm will to let you believe as you wish and live according to those beliefs. You are not willing to do the same for others. To claim that anyone is imposing their beliefs on you, while you seek to control others and deny them rights that you enjoy is just stupid.

I live in a state where same sex marriage has been legal for a year now. There are a lot of traditional and religious people here. No one is bemoaning the loss of their religious freedom or claiming that anyone is imposing anything on them. There day after marriage equality came to NJ, most people didn't even notice. Life just went on, and it was a little better for gay people, and other lost nothing. So what the hell are you talking about?

 

But marriage is and always has been State controlled. You just want a more authoritarian central control, which is typical for progressives.

 

we tried that with inter-racial marriage... didn't work out so well

when you get married in one state, it should be valid in ALL states


.

 

On that I don't disagree with.

But personally I'd like the government to get out of marriage all together.

That would go a long way to solving this nonsense.

And in some ways we still have segregation anyway, so really, what has desegreation accomplished?

It hasn't ended racism or bigotry has it?

I think the only thing it accomplished was just renaming it.

There is still a lot of racism and bigotry in America, and in truth, it is not just one side doing it to another.

And I'd also love to see this "uou hurt me so I'll hurt you" nonsense go away for good.

But marriage is not the same thing as racism.

 

You should educate yourself on the subject of states rights as well as the limits of states right, then come back and discuss it intelligently. You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

No, dear. . .it is those States who insist in treating people differently based on sex that are showing how tyrannical they are by imposing DOMA and refusing equal right under the law to some!

People who advocate for gay rights are advocating for LESS government interference in marriage. . . NOT MORE!

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC QUOTE AND REPLY>>>

 

Then you should educate yourself on the Federal Constitution and what it says about States rights.

 

Come on! Why are you trying to convince us that you are an idiot. Read the freaking Constitution! Read the 14th Amendment. Read some case law. Read some of the recent opinions on same sex marriage. You can read can't you?

 

And you're demanding of soulless conformity to you is any different how?

It's just another form of tyranny.


You don't seem to know that the Constitution was meant to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

But what do you care as long as you get to hurt lots of people who don't think like you, right?

 

It's simple. . .if you THINK!

DOMA LIMITED the freedom for gay people to marry the person they love. The legal right to gay marriage REMOVEs THAT LIMITATION, it doesn't FORCE ANYONE to marry a person of the same sex. . .it just INCREASE the number of people who can marry the person they love, whether same or opposite sex!

If you are heterosexual. . .great. . .marry a person of the opposite sex!
NO ONE is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex!

Duh!

 

Dorry but marriage is for a man and a woman only. Anything else is degenerate and unnatural.

DUH!

 

Not any more.

 

It's state controlled, within constitutional bounds.

That's why interracial and same sex bans have been struck down. They violate the 14th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

It says states rights are subject to constitutional provisions.

 

Its no use. They have blinders on and their heads are stuck in quicksand

 

Well, like Roe v Wade, decided on very shaky constitutional grounds and an act of liberal court activism, yes it could be forced on the States by another liberal activist court but other than that, marriage is not in the Federal Constitution at all.

 

Duh ... nice appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice, no real relevance of course.

 

It's conservstive judges that keep overturning the bans. Not just liberals.

 

You do realize that DOMA has been defeated permanently, right?