Why the GOP should continue to oppose gay marriage

[OKTexas]

No, you show me where the constitution forbids it. We have a right to do anything unless there is a compelling reason for the government to deny it.

See the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Email SCOTUS so it knows how to rule.

Why, they could care less what the Constitution says, when you can only get a 5-4 decision when the EPA violates statutory language, it can't be any more screwed up.

 

[Peach]

See the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Email SCOTUS so it knows how to rule.

Why, they could care less what the Constitution says, when you can only get a 5-4 decision when the EPA violates statutory language, it can't be any more screwed up.

A Federal agency "violating" statutory "language"? That NEVER occurs. And those shocked at gay Americans marrying must make sure they have their vapors ready, unless they can understand the term, BOYCOTT. Do not attend the weddings, do NOT send gifts, ignore anniversaries: STATEMENT made.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Your argument would not withstand scrutiny. There can be no doubt that that is how many people thought in the Fifties when Blacks were also trying to get their civil and human rights and people resisted that and wanted for Rosa Parks to continue sitting in the back of the bus. In essence, they threw Black people under the bus. We see basically the very same thing happening with GLBT citizens. The fact of the matter is that with people voting in states against Gay marriage and GLBT civil rights, a majority simply cannot be given the green light to vote against a minority when it comes to their civil and human rights. To allow for that is not just wrong but it shows great prejudice and discrimination since they most likely don't understand that Gays and Lesbians are Citizens of this country too who work, pay their taxes, worship in church, have children or adopt, and vote just like everyone else. That is why fair-minded judge after judge in all states across the country where citizens are challenging bans to Gay marriage are ruling that the bans, many of which were enacted through voter approval, are unconstitutional as it does not afford Gay American Citizens Equality with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To want to proceed with your penchant to marginalize Gay and Lesbian citizens just to exert an aire of prejudice and superiority over them is not only despicable and unacceptable but it is likewise Deplorable and Outrageous! That is why the GOP continues to lose in elections as the people of today are not buying the draconian excuses of the past Conservatives often use to justify their continued prejudice and discrimination against Gay people.

You're making a lot of accusations and stringing together several assumptions that don't quite add up, sir.

Wanting to maintain the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman isn't about maintaining a status quo that is quite specifically discriminatory to gays and lesbians. It's about saying the complementarity of the sexes is the unique reason for the social, cultural, and legal institution of marriage. The discontent of same-sex couples not being recognized is their reason for wanting it to change, but that doesn't mean the only reason some people don't want it to change is to maintain that same discontent. If that makes any sense.

Legally enshrining racism into the law, and doing away with such laws, is not the same thing as not wanting to change the age-old definition of marriage. I don't think we should lightly conclude that those who hold that view seek to enshrine bigotry and animus of sexual minorities into the law.

The reason judges keep striking down marriage laws is because they don't want to be seen as upholding some antiquated notion in the face of a tide of social change, which is sort of the point of this thread. They're reading the tea leaves and determining that it's inevitable, which is why they're using non-legal reasoning such as "the equal dignity of same-sex couples" and "marry the person they love" in their decisions.

And sir, You need go no farther than to read the following article, from top to bottom if you will please, concerning a member of your own political party and what he had to say about the very issues you are speaking about. He addresses them so well that little else needs to be said. By the way, for the most part that's very much what I had said earlier with regard to marriage equality and the comparison to Black civil rights, etc. It is great to learn of instances where a Liberal and a Conservative can think so much alike in their assessment of important issues.

Prominent Republican Lawyer Says Ted Cruz Sounds Like A Racist | ThinkProgress

 

[TheJedi]

Show me the constitutional right to be married, not invented by some lawyer.

No, you show me where the constitution forbids it. We have a right to do anything unless there is a compelling reason for the government to deny it.

See the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes and Civil Rights ARE delegated to the United States by the Constitution and therefore no law shall be made in any state that does not comply with the the laws set forth in the Constitution.

 

[Qball]

Think about it a little bit and get back to me when you have a legitimate point to make

No smart-ass, explain yourself. Liberals love to invoke words and phrases without engaging what they actually mean, which is probably why you punted on my very simple question. So again, I ask: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage.

The courts seem to have no problem deciding on it

It will cost you your "one man, one woman" argument

You had better come to grips with it

AGAIN: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage? Your punting on the question is telling...

 

[rightwinger]

No smart-ass, explain yourself. Liberals love to invoke words and phrases without engaging what they actually mean, which is probably why you punted on my very simple question. So again, I ask: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage.

The courts seem to have no problem deciding on it

It will cost you your "one man, one woman" argument

You had better come to grips with it

AGAIN: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage? Your punting on the question is telling...

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, the states can regulate marriage, so long as they don't violate DP or EP in the process.

Restricting marriage to unions between one man and one woman does neither of those.

Sure does, but go ahead and email SCOTUS.

The orderlies are looking for you, diaper lord.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Gays don't bother me, I don't bother Gays, They live their life anyway they want, I live my life anyway I want. Everything works just fine too. If slipping on a couple of rings and saying "I Do" makes them feel better, then by all means, feel better. Isn't feeling good about yourself what this life is all about?

don't judge, be happy.

Hi Siete (El Seven!) That there could be more people who thought as brilliantly as you do on this issue the world would be a much better place! You are sure an Inspiration to all broad-minded people and no doubt even to those who are struggling to be! Thanks!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know that gay marriage now polls at 55% and whatnot, and some conservatives think in order to win another national election they have to turn the page on gay marriage.

Here's why that's not only not true, but a bad idea.

First of all, notice how there are two separate but parallel narratives with the push for gay marriage. The first one goes "it's only a matter of time until it's nationally legal, so opponents need to drop it because they're on the wrong side of history". The second one goes, "this is about equal rights and gays not being denied their constitutional rights". Hmm.

If it's inevitable and all the young people and smart people agree with it, why does it matter that we see it as a matter of equal rights? It has a majority of support. The people have spoken. They want gay marriage. What's with the need to be Right when you're so sure you're going to Win?

Or...

If it's about equal rights and constitutional rights, why does it matter if the people agree with it or not? If this is about the principles of the Bill of Rights and not denying certain classes of people their right to marry, who cares if it enjoys populist support? Right is right, right?

Methinks supporters are trying to create an aura of support while not placing much faith in either tactic.

Remember something: California voted twice in eight years to define marriage as a man and woman...and yet, it is now legal. In 1996, Congress passed DOMA with bipartisan support and over 2/3 of the states followed suit...and now many of them have legalized SSM and part of DOMA has been struck down.

Few states have shown through popular vote that they agree with same-sex marriage, if any. And yet, because of a few polls, it's now accepted that most Americans support same-sex marriage. What sense does that make?

I think it's clear that the mentality for most supporters entrenched in this fight is something like: If most Americans agree with gay marriage, great, we'll go with that. If not, we're perfectly fine Just Legalizing It Anyway.

And that's why the GOP needs to continue to oppose it. They need to tell the truth. Gay marriage supporters are fine using any means to get what they want, but most Americans have demonstrably shown they disagree with it. Using data without the anticipation of an actual vote to push a narrative shouldn't be just accepted as political wisdom. They need to stop being scared of being booed -- because the bottom line is gays and young people aren't going to vote for a Republican by any wide margin regardless what they say on these issues du jour (i.e. pot legalization, gay marriage, etc) -- and make a principled argument based on the truth.

Incorrect.

First, there's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there's only the marriage law as written by the states and administered in state courts. Marriage is a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” Romer v. Evans (1996).

This is settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and to ensure this Constitutional case law is applied consistently, the states must allow same-sex couples access to their marriage law.

This is the law as codified by the Constitution.

Politics is another matter altogether, of course, where republicans can either obey the Constitution and the rule of law, or ignore the rule of law and Constitution to seek some perceived partisan advantage.

But whatever republicans decide to do, the states and local jurisdictions will nonetheless be required to follow the law. Indeed, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

What's clear, therefore, is that those who advocate for the comprehensive civil liberties of all Americans, including gay Americans, understand the Constitution, its case law, and respect the rule of law.

 

[bripat9643]

I know that gay marriage now polls at 55% and whatnot, and some conservatives think in order to win another national election they have to turn the page on gay marriage.

Here's why that's not only not true, but a bad idea.

First of all, notice how there are two separate but parallel narratives with the push for gay marriage. The first one goes "it's only a matter of time until it's nationally legal, so opponents need to drop it because they're on the wrong side of history". The second one goes, "this is about equal rights and gays not being denied their constitutional rights". Hmm.

If it's inevitable and all the young people and smart people agree with it, why does it matter that we see it as a matter of equal rights? It has a majority of support. The people have spoken. They want gay marriage. What's with the need to be Right when you're so sure you're going to Win?

Or...

If it's about equal rights and constitutional rights, why does it matter if the people agree with it or not? If this is about the principles of the Bill of Rights and not denying certain classes of people their right to marry, who cares if it enjoys populist support? Right is right, right?

Methinks supporters are trying to create an aura of support while not placing much faith in either tactic.

Remember something: California voted twice in eight years to define marriage as a man and woman...and yet, it is now legal. In 1996, Congress passed DOMA with bipartisan support and over 2/3 of the states followed suit...and now many of them have legalized SSM and part of DOMA has been struck down.

Few states have shown through popular vote that they agree with same-sex marriage, if any. And yet, because of a few polls, it's now accepted that most Americans support same-sex marriage. What sense does that make?

I think it's clear that the mentality for most supporters entrenched in this fight is something like: If most Americans agree with gay marriage, great, we'll go with that. If not, we're perfectly fine Just Legalizing It Anyway.

And that's why the GOP needs to continue to oppose it. They need to tell the truth. Gay marriage supporters are fine using any means to get what they want, but most Americans have demonstrably shown they disagree with it. Using data without the anticipation of an actual vote to push a narrative shouldn't be just accepted as political wisdom. They need to stop being scared of being booed -- because the bottom line is gays and young people aren't going to vote for a Republican by any wide margin regardless what they say on these issues du jour (i.e. pot legalization, gay marriage, etc) -- and make a principled argument based on the truth.

Incorrect.

First, there's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there's only the marriage law as written by the states and administered in state courts. Marriage is a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” Romer v. Evans (1996).

This is settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and to ensure this Constitutional case law is applied consistently, the states must allow same-sex couples access to their marriage law.

This is the law as codified by the Constitution.

Politics is another matter altogether, of course, where republicans can either obey the Constitution and the rule of law, or ignore the rule of law and Constitution to seek some perceived partisan advantage.

No it doesn't. That's the bottom line. You can claim that gays have an equal "right" to be married all you want, but your claim goes against logic. It's just a petulant whine.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No smart-ass, explain yourself. Liberals love to invoke words and phrases without engaging what they actually mean, which is probably why you punted on my very simple question. So again, I ask: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage.

The courts seem to have no problem deciding on it

It will cost you your "one man, one woman" argument

You had better come to grips with it

AGAIN: what does "equal protection" have to do with gay marriage? Your punting on the question is telling...

It has everything to do with the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law.

With regard to Utah's Amendment 3, for example, the measure was determined to be repugnant to the Constitution:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., *Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1*(1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law).*In these cases, the Court has held that the*Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two*interests are in conflict. See id. *at 7 (holding that a*state’s*power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here.*

Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That doesn't mean what you think it means. No one can deny someone a right with out a compelling reason. Not the federal government. Not the state government. Not the people.

It's up to the people of the States to decide if a reason is compelling, not the federal courts because the feds have no authority over marriage. No male or female is being discriminated against, they have the same rights as any male or female.

Incorrect.

See post #91.

 

[Qball]

And sir, You need go no farther than to read the following article, from top to bottom if you will please, concerning a member of your own political party and what he had to say about the very issues you are speaking about. He addresses them so well that little else needs to be said. By the way, for the most part that's very much what I had said earlier with regard to marriage equality and the comparison to Black civil rights, etc. It is great to learn of instances where a Liberal and a Conservative can think so much alike in their assessment of important issues.

Prominent Republican Lawyer Says Ted Cruz Sounds Like A Racist | ThinkProgress

I don't read links thrown at me, dude. It's nothing personal. I do see that it's from Ted Olson. His being a Republican doesn't make his summation of the issue any wiser. If anything, I think his involvement in the Prop 8 case was about personal glory than him seeing a valid constitutional argument.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's stupid to oppose it. Much alike pot!

 

[auditor0007]

I know that gay marriage now polls at 55% and whatnot, and some conservatives think in order to win another national election they have to turn the page on gay marriage.

Here's why that's not only not true, but a bad idea.

First of all, notice how there are two separate but parallel narratives with the push for gay marriage. The first one goes "it's only a matter of time until it's nationally legal, so opponents need to drop it because they're on the wrong side of history". The second one goes, "this is about equal rights and gays not being denied their constitutional rights". Hmm.

If it's inevitable and all the young people and smart people agree with it, why does it matter that we see it as a matter of equal rights? It has a majority of support. The people have spoken. They want gay marriage. What's with the need to be Right when you're so sure you're going to Win?

Or...

If it's about equal rights and constitutional rights, why does it matter if the people agree with it or not? If this is about the principles of the Bill of Rights and not denying certain classes of people their right to marry, who cares if it enjoys populist support? Right is right, right?

Methinks supporters are trying to create an aura of support while not placing much faith in either tactic.

Remember something: California voted twice in eight years to define marriage as a man and woman...and yet, it is now legal. In 1996, Congress passed DOMA with bipartisan support and over 2/3 of the states followed suit...and now many of them have legalized SSM and part of DOMA has been struck down.

Few states have shown through popular vote that they agree with same-sex marriage, if any. And yet, because of a few polls, it's now accepted that most Americans support same-sex marriage. What sense does that make?

I think it's clear that the mentality for most supporters entrenched in this fight is something like: If most Americans agree with gay marriage, great, we'll go with that. If not, we're perfectly fine Just Legalizing It Anyway.

And that's why the GOP needs to continue to oppose it. They need to tell the truth. Gay marriage supporters are fine using any means to get what they want, but most Americans have demonstrably shown they disagree with it. Using data without the anticipation of an actual vote to push a narrative shouldn't be just accepted as political wisdom. They need to stop being scared of being booed -- because the bottom line is gays and young people aren't going to vote for a Republican by any wide margin regardless what they say on these issues du jour (i.e. pot legalization, gay marriage, etc) -- and make a principled argument based on the truth.

Most definitely, the GOP should continue to support a platform that discriminates against gays. That is what the GOP is all about, denying people their rights.

 

[Qball]

Incorrect.

First, there's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there's only the marriage law as written by the states and administered in state courts. Marriage is a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

We're not going to argue based on a presumption of a contested question.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Equal protection doctrine means regardless of one's classification that they enjoy the "protections" of the law. It doesn't mean the law must mutually appease everyone for it to be constitutional. With that being said, if the law defines marriage as a man and woman, that doesn't restrict access of those with a same-sex persuasion. It just means the law doesn't interest them in the same way. To put it a different way, we couldn't pass a law that restricts certain people from marriage on the basis of their religion, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to legalize polygamy because some religious traditions promote such unions.

This is settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and to ensure this Constitutional case law is applied consistently, the states must allow same-sex couples access to their marriage law.

This isn't "accepted 14th amendment jurisprudence". This is making up precedence out of whole cloth to incubate a tenuous legal argument in the mores of the Constitution. I would argue the states aren't required to recognize any "union", per se. There is no such thing as a couple's right to be called something under the law.

This is the law as codified by the Constitution.

Politics is another matter altogether, of course, where republicans can either obey the Constitution and the rule of law, or ignore the rule of law and Constitution to seek some perceived partisan advantage.

But whatever republicans decide to do, the states and local jurisdictions will nonetheless be required to follow the law. Indeed, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

What's clear, therefore, is that those who advocate for the comprehensive civil liberties of all Americans, including gay Americans, understand the Constitution, its case law, and respect the rule of law.

I'd argue those who want to legalize gay marriage care very little about the Constitution if they think it requires that we legalize something -- anything -- and think duly-passed legislation is properly undone by declarations of law by judges.

I notice you're being very vague and general here. I've said before that there is no clear right to same-sex marriage based on jurisprudence. Any case that has established a right to marry has done so 1) by reaffirming it is a union of a man and woman; 2) while not submitting to a newfangled or controversial understanding of marriage, which gay marriage definitely is; and, 3) by striking down prohibitions that seek to achieve a goal completely unrelated to the purposes of marriage. Cases that affirm the "protected status" of homosexuals don't, on their own, establish a right to same-sex marriage because supporters glean an intent to discriminate from people disagreeing with their ideas about marriage public policy.

Like I've said, arguing that "traditional marriage" is specifically designed and intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians would be like arguing that it is specifically designed and intended to discriminate against religious traditions that promote polygamy. Or, to put it in a different context, your argument sounds like if blacks said, because they have been historically oppressed, they are entitled to affirmative action and failure of the electorate/legislature to pass such policies is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment. We can submit that gays should not face discrimination while disagreeing with them that every iteration of gender in public policy is a clear attempt to enshrine bigotry.

 

[NoNukes]

I know that gay marriage now polls at 55% and whatnot, and some conservatives think in order to win another national election they have to turn the page on gay marriage.

Here's why that's not only not true, but a bad idea.

First of all, notice how there are two separate but parallel narratives with the push for gay marriage. The first one goes "it's only a matter of time until it's nationally legal, so opponents need to drop it because they're on the wrong side of history". The second one goes, "this is about equal rights and gays not being denied their constitutional rights". Hmm.

If it's inevitable and all the young people and smart people agree with it, why does it matter that we see it as a matter of equal rights? It has a majority of support. The people have spoken. They want gay marriage. What's with the need to be Right when you're so sure you're going to Win?

Or...

If it's about equal rights and constitutional rights, why does it matter if the people agree with it or not? If this is about the principles of the Bill of Rights and not denying certain classes of people their right to marry, who cares if it enjoys populist support? Right is right, right?

Methinks supporters are trying to create an aura of support while not placing much faith in either tactic.

Remember something: California voted twice in eight years to define marriage as a man and woman...and yet, it is now legal. In 1996, Congress passed DOMA with bipartisan support and over 2/3 of the states followed suit...and now many of them have legalized SSM and part of DOMA has been struck down.

Few states have shown through popular vote that they agree with same-sex marriage, if any. And yet, because of a few polls, it's now accepted that most Americans support same-sex marriage. What sense does that make?

I think it's clear that the mentality for most supporters entrenched in this fight is something like: If most Americans agree with gay marriage, great, we'll go with that. If not, we're perfectly fine Just Legalizing It Anyway.

And that's why the GOP needs to continue to oppose it. They need to tell the truth. Gay marriage supporters are fine using any means to get what they want, but most Americans have demonstrably shown they disagree with it. Using data without the anticipation of an actual vote to push a narrative shouldn't be just accepted as political wisdom. They need to stop being scared of being booed -- because the bottom line is gays and young people aren't going to vote for a Republican by any wide margin regardless what they say on these issues du jour (i.e. pot legalization, gay marriage, etc) -- and make a principled argument based on the truth.

The answer is pretty simple. And, it's really no different from any other "no compromise" issue by the very right, amnesty and obamacare for example. The numbers are simply against you on these issues, as your post points out. So, your options are two: One: gee six out of ten disagree with me, could there be something to their view? Two: I'm principled. No compromise.

What your choice (and I mean the gop's choice too) does is that all those who'd seek to look at the other sides' motivations to find some good will are now unacceptable to you. So, in order to win a national election is you'll need someone like Caesar who was all things to all people.

I know that gay marriage now polls at 55% and whatnot, and some conservatives think in order to win another national election they have to turn the page on gay marriage.

Here's why that's not only not true, but a bad idea.

First of all, notice how there are two separate but parallel narratives with the push for gay marriage. The first one goes "it's only a matter of time until it's nationally legal, so opponents need to drop it because they're on the wrong side of history". The second one goes, "this is about equal rights and gays not being denied their constitutional rights". Hmm.

If it's inevitable and all the young people and smart people agree with it, why does it matter that we see it as a matter of equal rights? It has a majority of support. The people have spoken. They want gay marriage. What's with the need to be Right when you're so sure you're going to Win?

Or...

If it's about equal rights and constitutional rights, why does it matter if the people agree with it or not? If this is about the principles of the Bill of Rights and not denying certain classes of people their right to marry, who cares if it enjoys populist support? Right is right, right?

Methinks supporters are trying to create an aura of support while not placing much faith in either tactic.

Remember something: California voted twice in eight years to define marriage as a man and woman...and yet, it is now legal. In 1996, Congress passed DOMA with bipartisan support and over 2/3 of the states followed suit...and now many of them have legalized SSM and part of DOMA has been struck down.

Few states have shown through popular vote that they agree with same-sex marriage, if any. And yet, because of a few polls, it's now accepted that most Americans support same-sex marriage. What sense does that make?

I think it's clear that the mentality for most supporters entrenched in this fight is something like: If most Americans agree with gay marriage, great, we'll go with that. If not, we're perfectly fine Just Legalizing It Anyway.

And that's why the GOP needs to continue to oppose it. They need to tell the truth. Gay marriage supporters are fine using any means to get what they want, but most Americans have demonstrably shown they disagree with it. Using data without the anticipation of an actual vote to push a narrative shouldn't be just accepted as political wisdom. They need to stop being scared of being booed -- because the bottom line is gays and young people aren't going to vote for a Republican by any wide margin regardless what they say on these issues du jour (i.e. pot legalization, gay marriage, etc) -- and make a principled argument based on the truth.

Incorrect.

First, there's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there's only the marriage law as written by the states and administered in state courts. Marriage is a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” Romer v. Evans (1996).

This is settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and to ensure this Constitutional case law is applied consistently, the states must allow same-sex couples access to their marriage law.

This is the law as codified by the Constitution.

Politics is another matter altogether, of course, where republicans can either obey the Constitution and the rule of law, or ignore the rule of law and Constitution to seek some perceived partisan advantage.

No it doesn't. That's the bottom line. You can claim that gays have an equal "right" to be married all you want, but your claim goes against logic. It's just a petulant whine.

The people who oppose gay marriage are the whiners, and it is none of their business if gays want to get married.

 

[Stephanie]

we now have a new people in the country

they are Gay Americans

they can't just be, Americans....they are special people

 

[rightwinger]

we now have a new people in the country

they are Gay Americans

they can't just be, Americans....they are special people

We are all special Stephanie

 

[Redfish]

The generation of children that grew up with their parents hating black people saw how ignorant and pathetic their parents were. They grew up more compassionate and tolerant because they didn't want to become like their bigoted parents.

Today's generation of children see how ignorant and pathetic their parents are, and how much damage they inflict on gay people, and want no part of that type of hate.

And the Earth keeps on turning.

you are one of the dumbest posters on this forum. There is no hate of gays by conservatives. Conservatives want gays to have equality and fair treatment. But gay marriage is an oxymoron.

We fully support gay civil unions that would give gay couples the exact same rights as man/woman married couples.

But thats not good enough is it? The gay agenda is not about equality its about mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle. You don't really give a shit about equality---------its all about ramming the words "gay marriage" up the asses of the majority who oppose it.

Hell, even the left wing state of Ca voted it down twice, only to have the will of the people overturned by an activist left wing judge----------is that the america you want?

You are one of the dumbest people on this forum. It's ALL about equality! When there are idiots like you saying "they're trying to ram an abnormal way of life up my ass..." THAT'S not equality! That's homophobia sprinkled with a little bit of good ol' conservative IGNORANCE.

no matter how many times you spin it, homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. Its a genetic abnormality. Its not their fault, they should be afforded equal rights. Marriage is NOT a right.