Gay marriage legal in all 50 states

[Landlord]

 

It always seemed to me something that the Supreme Court had to decide. We have this Constitution that supposedly grants equal protection to everybody under the law. Where states have decided to blatantly ignore this, they should have been met with a legal challenge, and they should have been smacked hard in the face with the 14th amendment. Which they have.

 

 

 

 

This isn't really about equal protection though, is it? This is about equal privileges that we have decided are rights. Rather than protection against negatives, this is addition of positives.

 

I'm not opposed to this by any means but I think it's a reaction to a stupid reality in the first place, rather than the best way for things to be.

[huKSer]

 

It's a great day in judicial activism. Move over Roe v Wade.

Roe vs Wade has, as of January this year, led to the death of 57,762,169 lives.

 

Notre Dame Joe forgot the sarcasm smilie?

[Micheal]

 

 

It's a great day in judicial activism. Move over Roe v Wade.

Roe vs Wade has, as of January this year, led to the death of 57,762,169 lives.

 

Notre Dame Joe forgot the sarcasm smilie?

 

Definitely a possibility! I am never able to tell sarcasm in texts

[zoogs]

 

It always seemed to me something that the Supreme Court had to decide. We have this Constitution that supposedly grants equal protection to everybody under the law. Where states have decided to blatantly ignore this, they should have been met with a legal challenge, and they should have been smacked hard in the face with the 14th amendment. Which they have.

This isn't really about equal protection though, is it? This is about equal privileges that we have decided are rights. Rather than protection against negatives, this is addition of positives.

 

What? This isn't the "addition" of gay marriage, it's the repudiation of States that have decided they are okay to constitutionally ban it.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd argue it is *exactly* protection against a negative.

 

The very laws which were challenged, were negatives (holy cow at that second sentence, by the way):

 

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Constitution_Section_15.11

The history of gay rights decisions in the Supreme Court has been about overcoming negatives. In spite of a Constitution ostensibly protecting the liberties of everyone, it seems we've been hard at work passing laws denying them to some:

 

Kennedy illustrates an excellent point about how the status of gays in America has changed in a short time. Even in 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia law criminalizing anal sex between consenting adults. In 2003, Kennedy had the opportunity to reverse that decision when he wrote the majority opinion striking down the sodomy law in Texas.

 

Then in 2013, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which had held that the federal government couldn't recognize same-sex marriage.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-kennedy-reveals-just-how-far-gays-have-come-in-a-short-time-2015-6

As an aside, here's the full majority opinion, which may be a worthy read.

 

As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects.

[Enhance]

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

[Scratchtown]

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

Amen.

 

I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it.

[Army_Allen]

You can't really say there are much bigger fish to fry if you're a gay couple who didn't have the opportunity to make your partner legally so and be afforded the same opportunities that a straight married couple have been afforded. It seems like a huge basic civil rights issue that should have been different ages ago.

[Army_Allen]

 

 

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

Amen.

 

I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it.

It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

Amen.

 

I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it.

It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages.

 

I agree, Army. Allowing two women or two men to marry each other has no bearing on my life, so I really don't have an opinion on it. If they want to express their love for each other, get married, and get the legal benefits from doing so, good for them.

[ColoradoHusk]

My question for the religious zealots is, which is worse, allowing homosexuals get married, or allowing the homosexuals get a divorce?

[Scratchtown]

 

 

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

Amen.

 

I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it.

It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages.

 

All I said is I didn't agree with it. Nothing else. Did I need to be questioned? I didn't even say as to why, just leave it alone, dude. Like I was doing.

 

It's over, done with, time to move on. Now that its a normal thing, we can stop talking about it.

[Bigred_inSD]

Anyone know when that pastor in Texas is supposed to set himself ablaze now that its legal?

[zoogs]

Did racism end with Brown v Board of Education?

[Landlord]

My question for the religious zealots is, which is worse, allowing homosexuals get married, or allowing the homosexuals get a divorce?

 

 

 

Neither would be considered real. Also the gay community really finds use of the word 'homosexual' to be derogatory, JFYI

[mrandyk]

The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

No kidding. So glad that this will no longer be a topic of debate or a platform for politics.