Today may be The Day for California!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California
from defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman.

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012-07-31-Proponents-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of (equal access to) their laws – in this case marriage law; the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Think of the 14th Amendment as an ‘out of bounds’ line, separating state and Federal realms. As long as a state remains ‘in bounds’ of the Constitution, it may fashion its laws and policies as it sees fit.

A state goes ‘out of bounds,’ however, when it violates equal protection doctrine, in this case denying same-sex couples equal access to California marriage law. The right to have equal access to the law is fundamental, guaranteed by the doctrine of substantive due process.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Romer, where the State of Colorado enacted Amendment 2, disallowing homosexuals from accessing anti-discrimination laws:

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. The absence of precedent for Amendment 2 is itself instructive; "[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision." Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37-38 (1928).

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense." The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' " Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[Si modo]

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of (equal access to) their laws – in this case marriage law; the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Think of the 14th Amendment as an ‘out of bounds’ line, separating state and Federal realms. As long as a state remains ‘in bounds’ of the Constitution, it may fashion its laws and policies as it sees fit.

A state goes ‘out of bounds,’ however, when it violates equal protection doctrine, in this case denying same-sex couples equal access to California marriage law. The right to have equal access to the law is fundamental, guaranteed by the doctrine of substantive due process.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Romer, where the State of Colorado enacted Amendment 2, disallowing homosexuals from accessing anti-discrimination laws:

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. The absence of precedent for Amendment 2 is itself instructive; "[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision." Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37-38 (1928).

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense." The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' " Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman. Federal law AND States' Constitutional rights.

Secondly, if you can get past that definition and if the 14th is the foundation of an argument, the standard of review will be strict scrutiny. That's not a trivial hurdle to leap, IF you can get past the definition.


Finally, don't expect anything broad from the SCOTUS.

I'm pretty sure the bullet isn't going to hit even near where many hope it will.



I'm just trying to be realistic, here. Personally, I don't give a shit about same sex couples. I don't think government should ever have been in the marriage business, but it is. In fact, I believe there are unintended consequences of these state amendments on defining marriage (as there almost always ARE with most laws and one of the reasons we need to limit government), but that would take us pretty far off topic. Unfortunately, the federal government stuck their nose in state issues....again....and the states are exercising their constitutional rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of (equal access to) their laws – in this case marriage law; the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Think of the 14th Amendment as an ‘out of bounds’ line, separating state and Federal realms. As long as a state remains ‘in bounds’ of the Constitution, it may fashion its laws and policies as it sees fit.

A state goes ‘out of bounds,’ however, when it violates equal protection doctrine, in this case denying same-sex couples equal access to California marriage law. The right to have equal access to the law is fundamental, guaranteed by the doctrine of substantive due process.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Romer, where the State of Colorado enacted Amendment 2, disallowing homosexuals from accessing anti-discrimination laws:

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. The absence of precedent for Amendment 2 is itself instructive; "[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision." Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37-38 (1928).

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense." The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' " Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman. Federal law AND States' Constitutional rights.

Secondly, if you can get past that definition and if the 14th is the foundation of an argument, the standard of review will be strict scrutiny. That's not a trivial hurdle to leap, IF you can get past the definition.


Finally, don't expect anything broad from the SCOTUS.

I'm pretty sure the bullet isn't going to hit even near where many hope it will.



I'm just trying to be realistic, here. Personally, I don't give a shit about same sex couples. I don't think government should ever have been in the marriage business, but it is. In fact, I believe there are unintended consequences of these state amendments on defining marriage (as there almost always ARE with most laws and one of the reasons we need to limit government), but that would take us pretty far off topic. Unfortunately, the federal government stuck their nose in state issues....again....and the states are exercising their constitutional rights.

It is a fact marriage is a fundamental right, the case law documenting this fact has been cited numerous times, you may search for it yourself.

And marriage is gender neutral, not defined as between a man and woman, as all the states abandoned the doctrine of coverture well over a generation ago.

The level of judicial review burden will be on the supporters of Prop 8, not those seeking access to marriage law. Both Romer and Lawrence established a heightened level of review – often referred to as ‘intermediate scrutiny with teeth’ which will likely compel the Court to affirm the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

Last, we have indeed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, which is very narrow and ‘California specific.’ It’s quite likely the Court won’t grant cert, and allow same-sex couples to marry again in California.

As for your last paragraph…

The states write the marriage laws, it’s consequently ridiculous to therefore state they should get out of the ‘marriage business,’ as the state courts are responsible for administering the contract law that is marriage.

The Federal government is not ‘interfering’ with state issues; it’s the states who sought out this fight by violating the rights of their citizens; leaving those citizens no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts, as is their First Amendment right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You bitched about Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas and Brown v Board of Ed too...didn't you? They affected all states...and state laws.

You bitched about Loving v Virginia

You want to make another bet?

If you did not bitch about Loving v. Virginia, that just proves you are a hypocrite. Because that court case made states allow inter-racial marriage. I guess you're not THAT much of an advocate of states rights after all. Color me surprised.

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My marriage is completely legal. You are welcome to try to make it not legal...if you are too stupid to know the Constitution.....and again you attack my legal family.

No you are not married. move your ass to North Carolina and find out if your married.
And where in the Constitution does it give gays a right to marry?

I am married. Legally AND religiously. And no thanks of North Carolina. I don't care for places that are as backwards as some third world country like Iran, or Sudan, or Indonesia.

If your marriage is not recognized by a majority of STATES it is not a recognized marriage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Likely because there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, as written by a given state, where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have the right to avail themselves of that law.

Well bod seems to think she has one.

Legal in the state of California. We are not a third-world kind of state where it's ok to marry in the family tho.

Stop lying

Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

 

[MeBelle]

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage - ABC News

*Prop 8 was not a 'state right'. Prop 8 (and Prop 22) needed to be about changing the State of Cali's Constitution.
Regardless, in the eyes of the state of Cali, you are still legally recognized and receive the same benefits allowed to married couples and couples living together (I forget the acronym right now)as being married, but only in Cali.

"...it has been more than four years since those five months in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal."

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

*Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008.
California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

*Prop 8, in effect, overturned the Cali Supreme Court decision because the court had no right in its attempt to change the state's constitution.

*DOMA

Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 was unconstitutional...
President Barack Obama's 2008 political platform endorsed the repeal of DOMA

Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. As of 2012, five of those cases are awaiting a response for review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) controls most employee benefits provided by private employers, DOMA prevents most employers in the private sector from providing health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite-sex spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation.

Following the end of the U.S. military's ban on service by open gays and lesbians, "Don't ask, don't tell," in September 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that DOMA limited the military's ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same-sex marriages as their peers in opposite-sex marriages received, notably health benefits. Same-sex spouses of military personnel are denied the same access to military bases, legal counseling, and housing allowances provided to different-sex spouses

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Supreme Court could still act Monday in a number of ways. Even if it granted the case, it could issue an opinion narrowly tailored to California and, thus, avoid the broader question regarding a fundamental right to same sex marriage. It could decline to take up the appeal, which would mean gay marriages could resume in California.

*Only tailored to the State of Cali. It doesn't address Federal laws on Gay marriage.

*************
*The case of gay marriage needs to be dealt with at the Federal level.
A handful of states recognize gay marriage, but if you cross those state lines, one's State sanctioned marriage is moot.

Give your Congressmen and Obama a call and demand that gay marriage become a Federal law, if you choose. That is the only way to solve this social issue.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, so is today the day?
Yesterday wasnt the day, nor was Friday, so is it today?

 

[WorldWatcher]

*Prop 8, in effect, overturned the Cali Supreme Court decision because the court had no right in its attempt to change the state's constitution.

Technical correction...

The California Supreme Court did not change the Constitution of the State of California in re:Marriage, the CSC upheld the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution which superceded discriminatory statutory laws.

Prop 8 changed the California Constitution to allowing gender based discrimination in the realm of Civil Marriage. They (supporters of Prop 8) then removed the State Constitutional legal basis for the re:Marriage decision.


>>>>

 

[Si modo]

The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of (equal access to) their laws – in this case marriage law; the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Think of the 14th Amendment as an ‘out of bounds’ line, separating state and Federal realms. As long as a state remains ‘in bounds’ of the Constitution, it may fashion its laws and policies as it sees fit.

A state goes ‘out of bounds,’ however, when it violates equal protection doctrine, in this case denying same-sex couples equal access to California marriage law. The right to have equal access to the law is fundamental, guaranteed by the doctrine of substantive due process.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Romer, where the State of Colorado enacted Amendment 2, disallowing homosexuals from accessing anti-discrimination laws:

IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman. Federal law AND States' Constitutional rights.

Secondly, if you can get past that definition and if the 14th is the foundation of an argument, the standard of review will be strict scrutiny. That's not a trivial hurdle to leap, IF you can get past the definition.


Finally, don't expect anything broad from the SCOTUS.

I'm pretty sure the bullet isn't going to hit even near where many hope it will.



I'm just trying to be realistic, here. Personally, I don't give a shit about same sex couples. I don't think government should ever have been in the marriage business, but it is. In fact, I believe there are unintended consequences of these state amendments on defining marriage (as there almost always ARE with most laws and one of the reasons we need to limit government), but that would take us pretty far off topic. Unfortunately, the federal government stuck their nose in state issues....again....and the states are exercising their constitutional rights.

It is a fact marriage is a fundamental right, the case law documenting this fact has been cited numerous times, you may search for it yourself.

And marriage is gender neutral, not defined as between a man and woman, as all the states abandoned the doctrine of coverture well over a generation ago.

The level of judicial review burden will be on the supporters of Prop 8, not those seeking access to marriage law. Both Romer and Lawrence established a heightened level of review – often referred to as ‘intermediate scrutiny with teeth’ which will likely compel the Court to affirm the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

Last, we have indeed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, which is very narrow and ‘California specific.’ It’s quite likely the Court won’t grant cert, and allow same-sex couples to marry again in California.

As for your last paragraph…

The states write the marriage laws, it’s consequently ridiculous to therefore state they should get out of the ‘marriage business,’ as the state courts are responsible for administering the contract law that is marriage.

The Federal government is not ‘interfering’ with state issues; it’s the states who sought out this fight by violating the rights of their citizens; leaving those citizens no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts, as is their First Amendment right.

I suggest you reread the case law as to what specifically is the right when it comes to marriage..

And, this standard will be strict scrutiny. Good luck, but I'm comfortable being realistic.

 

[PredFan]

And btw, gays have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. No more, no less. What they want is a new right, a right that no one now has. I don't have a problem giving it to them but just to keep the record straight.

 

[bodecea]

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California
from defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman.

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012-07-31-Proponents-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The fundamental right to civil marriage...that is provided to opposite gender couples....as you well know.

 

[bodecea]

You want to make another bet?

If you did not bitch about Loving v. Virginia, that just proves you are a hypocrite. Because that court case made states allow inter-racial marriage. I guess you're not THAT much of an advocate of states rights after all. Color me surprised.

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

 

[bodecea]

And btw, gays have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. No more, no less. What they want is a new right, a right that no one now has. I don't have a problem giving it to them but just to keep the record straight.

You remind me of the old story I used to pull out:

After WWII ended, a Soviet soldier and an American soldier met in a bar in what was left of Berlin and their talk led to comparing their forms of government. The American said, "We have freedom of speech in America! I can call President Truman a son of a bitch and I will not be arrested or punished in any way!" The Soviet soldier smiled and said, "We too have freedom of speech in the Soviet Union. I can call President Truman a son of a bitch and I too will not be arrested or punished! It is the same thing, comrade!"

 

[Si modo]

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The fundamental right to civil marriage...that is provided to opposite gender couples....as you well know.

Where is this fundamental right to same sex marriage? As I said to the other poster, I suggest you reread the case law as to what SPECIFICALLY is described as a fundamental right.

 

[Si modo]

If you did not bitch about Loving v. Virginia, that just proves you are a hypocrite. Because that court case made states allow inter-racial marriage. I guess you're not THAT much of an advocate of states rights after all. Color me surprised.

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

Actually, he is not being a hypocrite. I think the misunderstanding between you two is due to your misinterpretation of what specifically Loving said about marriage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you did not bitch about Loving v. Virginia, that just proves you are a hypocrite. Because that court case made states allow inter-racial marriage. I guess you're not THAT much of an advocate of states rights after all. Color me surprised.

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

oh I get it you thinks the races shouldN'T mix marry.

 

[bodecea]

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?

The fundamental right to civil marriage...that is provided to opposite gender couples....as you well know.

Where is this fundamental right to same sex marriage? As I said to the other poster, I suggest you reread the case law as to what SPECIFICALLY is described as a fundamental right.

Fundamental right to marriage...with no specifying gay or straight. Have you seen the Supreme Court's ruling on Loving v. Virginia where they state that (which makes it precedence)?


Let me link and quote the passage for you...

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and in the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

 

[bodecea]

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

oh I get it you thinks the races should mix marry.

Why not? And states cannot make laws prohibiting those of separate races or nationalities or religions from obtaining civil marriage licenses. The federal courts have struck down any such forbidding law. States rights does not trump civil rights.

 

[Si modo]

The fundamental right to civil marriage...that is provided to opposite gender couples....as you well know.

Where is this fundamental right to same sex marriage? As I said to the other poster, I suggest you reread the case law as to what SPECIFICALLY is described as a fundamental right.

Fundamental right to marriage...with no specifying gay or straight. Have you seen the Supreme Court's ruling on Loving v. Virginia where they state that (which makes it precedence)?


Let me link and quote the passage for you...

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and in the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Right. As same-sex marriage is not quite "fundamental to our very existence and survival", it doesn't really classify as a fundamental right.