God bless Connecticut.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

I haven't read the opinion, but that is how they should have reasoned it.

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't think this is a civil rights issue. I don't think that people have a right to get governmental support for any relationship that they choose.

Now, I do think that homosexual relationships should get governmental support. But it isn't because anyone getting into a relationship deserves governmental support, but rather that the things that homosexual relationships provide (are for the most part) exactly the things that the government wants which is why it supports heterosexual (traditional) relationships.

JM

Gays and lesbians who are couples are denied more than one thousand rights and privileges that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

This is why equal marriage protection is a compelling CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Wrong, that is not saying there is a right to marriage. That is saying that blacks and marry blacks and whites can marry whites but blacks and marry whites is discrimination.

I haven't read the opinion, but that is how they should have reasoned it.

JM

I quoted the majority opinion for you before in which they explicitly said marriage is a right:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

You can fantasize all you want about what you think the SCOTUS should have ruled, but they clearly said marriage is a right.

Long live the 14th amendment.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Wrong, that is not saying there is a right to marriage. That is saying that blacks and marry blacks and whites can marry whites but blacks and marry whites is discrimination.

I haven't read the opinion, but that is how they should have reasoned it.

JM

The problem with your analysis is that the Constitution does not say "Thou shall not discriminate," it says "Thou shall grant everyone equal rights under the law."

[Dinner]

More states moving into the 21st century.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about when the Supreme Court struck down a ban on miscegenation?

Damn activist judges!

[MrFun]

Yeah, I wonder if those who deride judges for being "activists" today denounce the rulings judges made in favor of civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s?