Not if you are 'liberal' and worship at the altar of a 'supreme' court: "In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough." My Way News - California's top court legalizes gay marriage

More liberal, judge-created law. Whew

excon

Hello George:

Here's what you bigots on the right don't get. The court, of course, didn't create NEW law. It just legitimized the law that was already there.

What law is that you ask, with a right wing perplexed look upon your face????

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, I reply...... That's the one that gives everybody EQUAL rights...... To me, and to the supreme court, THAT means if YOU have the right to marry whom you choose to marry, so does everybody else.

OR, they could have just eliminated all the legal protections a married person has. That would do the same thing.

I truly don't understand why this is so difficult for you rightwingers. I mean you do believe in freedom, no????

excon

tomder55

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
George Washington's Farewell Address.

I have said this before ......because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause this is not a State issue any longer. The definition of marriage ultimately has to be decided at the Federal Level .....and indeed it is the DEFINITION of marriage that is at issues here ;nothing at all related to the 14th Amendment . In my view CUs cover all the 14th Amendment issues because legally there is no difference .

The case in question was not argued on 14th Amendment grounds it overturned a law that was approved by the people of California (one of the most liberal states ) by over 60%. Once they amend their constitution then the case will also proceed to the Federal level where I think this issue will ultimately be decided.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters.

BINGO

speechlesstx

The fourteenth amendment is about "equal application" of the laws, not "equality." Texas law allows marriage only between "a man and a woman" and it applies to everyone equally. No?

inthebox

What I don't understand is that the same people who scream "separation of church and state" want the state [judges] to rule on a religious institution.


If Chuck and Larry want to declare their love for each other in some ceremony, and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples do it via a legal law. Call it garriage or civil unions for all I care. I'm all for that.


If gay couples want to be recognized, heck yeah, but the state interfering with a religious institution is a whole different matter.

George_1950

Whoops! Here's another: Court: Gays cannot be automatically discharged - Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times
Who said 'majority rules'?

michealb

The problem is that marriage is now a government function. The government should get out of marriage. Then this whole issue goes away.

Fr_Chuck

I will let you know I don't care for Larry in "that way"

The real issue marriage is not and has never been a federal issue. marriage is a states right issue ( and I would even say that it should not even be that) But each state has the right to decide who can marry, they already differ by age, by being underage and pregnant and more, so there is no equal and same in any marriage law, except that the state has the rights to set them.
The same is with any law, different years punishment for same crimes and more.

But I would go further that even the states do not have a right to regulate the lawful status of a relationship. This has always been regulated though religion or customs of the local people.

tomder55

But Fr. as I mentioned it is indeed a Federal issue because of the 'Full Faith and Credit' Clause in the Constitution.
Art.4 Sec.1

Also are you saying that the raid on the cult in Texas was unfounded ? If a state can't regulate the status of relationships then you are opening up a whole new pandora's box.

tomder55

to illustrate the above see how NY State is responding to the prospect of NY residents getting married in California.
Governor: N.Y. to recognize out-of-state gay marriage | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This issue has to be ultimately resolved on a national level . A State by State approach is a failure and plays into the hands of those who would redefine marriage .