Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Kaak]

Okay, regardless of which side of the issue you are on... Why is this at the supreme court? Why shouldn't it be a decision at the state level? If the state you are in has rules you don't like, move!

[Hauldren Collider]

There are a lot of idiots that think the actual text of the constitution is irrelevant to the law.

[snoopy369]

Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil rights cases, which this is. Honestly, the 1996 House made this a federal issue; prior to DOMA, it probably would've been left alone at the state level. But DOMA made it clear that the Christian Right felt it needed to be a federal level issue, and once they did that they lost the moral ability to argue the other way.

[Kaak]

ah, yeah... forgot about that whole DOMA thing. I actually feel the same way about it. The great thing about living in a country with 50 states is that you can pick the one that fits you best - or at least provides that which is best aligned with your priorities.

[-Jrabbit]

So it's Clinton's fault.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, marriage has always been federal jurisdiction. At least so long as the common law has been in place in the US.

[Hauldren Collider]

So it's Clinton's fault.

I love how he says now that DOMA is unconstitutional. Which means he violated his oath of office when he signed it. But hey, he's no stranger to perjury.

[snoopy369]

Setting aside the argument over whether it's constitutionally relevant, which I think is highly debatable and not really soluble - the constitution is flexible enough (for good reason) to be contorted into whatever you want, largely, excepting a few really big issues - I think it's appropriate to take this into the federal realm at this time.

Historically, issues of civil rights and general ethical principle have become federal issues once they reached maturity. They stayed as state level issues until then; Slavery, Women's rights, Jim Crow, etc. were all state issues until the issue was sufficiently 'decided' in the public eye that it was largely absurd to argue against them in the majority of the country. However, once that tipping point was reached, the issues were decided once and for all at the federal level. Most of the issues were decided by acts of Congress, or constitutional amendments; in my opinion that would also be the best way to approach gay marriage (as it makes it clear once and for all, being the one solution that brooks no constitutional argument).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure we could pass an amendment to grant women the vote in 2013, not to mention supporting gay marriage The country is simply too divided and too used to voting along party lines. We might well be able to pass the amendment in 3/4 of the states, but it likely would not make it through Congress (and the non-congress route is much more difficult and time consuming, particularly if state governments in even highly supportive states choose to use delaying tactics).

Congress also is unlikely to pass any measures any time soon; while an uneqivocal majority support gay marriage, that majority is not distributed sufficiently to convince entrenched politicians. And, unfortunately, even very intelligent and otherwise forward-thinking people still oppose it on religious grounds - either out of reflexive fear of losing power once they lose one of their platform positions for the last two decades, or from fear their religion will be coerced into changing its own beliefs or policies (an unfounded one; perhaps over time various religions will choose to change their stances out of respect to their own populations' mindset changing, but very few supporters of gay rights would even consider forcing religions to perform them - or want to.)

That leaves the Court. The SCOTUS has taken a more aggressive stance on perceived moral issues in the last fifty years; perhaps the civil rights era reminded it that not only did Court action help pave the way for the rest of the changes, but it could have made a difference much earlier. Still, whether it is Brown vs. Board or Roe vs. Wade, the Court has chosen to interpret issues of civil rights fairly broadly. I think it's unfortunate that Court decisions, made by nine unelected jurists, rather than congressional acts or amendments, must come down to accomplish this change; but I'm not convinced there is a better way, short of starting over again on our governmental system.

The Court does have the responsibility to ensure our laws are fair and just, not only constitutional; the Court is, after all, the only check on the tyranny of the majority in our democracy. If the Christian majority in southern states chooses to restrict the rights of the very small minority of gay and lesbian citizens of that state, who else will at this point come to their defense? The Court exists for this purpose, among others. It is not reasonable to tell people they must move - uproot themselves, leave their friends and family, and find a new job and a new house and a new life in another state, simply because they wish to live as other people do. You could have made - and many did make - that same argument in 1964, that black people could simply move to Chicago or another integrated location if they wished to participate fully in this country. It stands no more relevant today than it did fifty years ago. If it is the general opinion that the right to marry, regardless of sexuality or gender, is a basic civil right, then it must be a basic civil right _everywhere_.

[snoopy369]

ah, yeah... forgot about that whole DOMA thing. I actually feel the same way about it. The great thing about living in a country with 50 states is that you can pick the one that fits you best - or at least provides that which is best aligned with your priorities.

Certainly not the way I feel about it. I was simply making it clear that anyone who argues DOMA is constitutional is not permitted to argue the other way around on the Court's jurisdiction over Prop 8. (If you wish to argue DOMA should fall and Prop 8 be left alone, that's fine. I disagree with you, but at least you're not being internally inconsistent.)

[snoopy369]

I love how he says now that DOMA is unconstitutional. Which means he violated his oath of office when he signed it. But hey, he's no stranger to perjury.

What? He said he changed his mind on it, not that he felt _then_ that it was unconstitutional. Clinton has plenty of things you can complain about, why not pick something real?

[Hauldren Collider]

Snoopys attitude is dumb and how we get abortions (ha ha ha) like roe and right to privacy.

[Jon Miller]

I love how he says now that DOMA is unconstitutional. Which means he violated his oath of office when he signed it. But hey, he's no stranger to perjury.

Did he say that he thought it was unconstitutional at the time?

Your statement is stupid.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I love how he says now that DOMA is unconstitutional. Which means he violated his oath of office when he signed it. But hey, he's no stranger to perjury.

Did he say that he thought it was unconstitutional at the time?

Your statement is stupid.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

The constitution has not changed since he signed it.

[Jon Miller]

But most peoples thinking about gay marriage has changed...

JM