- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional
A U.S. federal judge on Sunday ruled that the state of Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Judge Timothy Burgess of the U.S. District Court for Alaska made the ruling after hearing oral arguments on Friday challenging the state's 16-year-old ban, saying it added to discrimination already faced by gay and lesbian people every day.
He also barred Alaska from refusing to acknowledge lawful same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
"The plaintiffs in this case do not ask the court to recognize an entirely new fundamental right to same-sex marriage; rather, plaintiffs wish to participate in the existing liberty granted to other couples to make a deeply personal choice about a private family matter." "By singling out homosexual couples and banning their ability to marry an individual of their choosing, it is impossible to assert that all Alaskans are equal under the state's laws." "“Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex."
"While homosexuality and the union of same-sex couples through marriage may be against beliefs or beyond the moral parameters of some Americans, the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to protect an individual’s freedom by ensuring that a constitutional right is not infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.” ""Adherence to tradition is not a valid basis for taking away an individual's constitutional rights""There is no sensible reason to deny same-sex families the same advantages and benefits already given to opposite-sex couples""A state may not exercise its power to define marriage in a way that infringes upon individuals' constitutional rights,"
AGENT J, you have gotten all the blue states you're going to get.
Every state that comes after this has the wonderful distinction of being slower than Alaska in establishing marriage equality.
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.
I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.
I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
Every state that comes after this has the wonderful distinction of being slower than Alaska in establishing marriage equality.
yep I wonder what state will be last to deliver on equal rights. . . .
had a poll on it before and mississippi was the top guess
At this point it's more about the speed of the individual circuits than the states themselves.
:lamo
Why? What impact on your life does same-sex marriage have? Can you name a single thing?
So you want homosexual couples to pay more taxes than you do? ...interesting. So, heterosexual marriage's impact on state taxes just doesn't matter?It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter. It impacts my SOCIETY. It impacts my state taxes.
Specify a negative impact on our courts. Unless you don't mean there is a negative impact, just that there's an impact.It impacts our court systems.
Still not an impact. "I don't want it" is a desire, not an impact.It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported.
You still haven't specified any impact. Other than taxes.I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
awwww sorry you are bothered by equal rights1.) It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter.
2.) It impacts my SOCIETY.
3.)It impacts my state taxes.
4.) It impacts our court systems. It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported. I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
awwww sorry you are bothered by equal rights
another fail
theres NOTHING in your post that is factual AND that matters to equal rights, in fact, much of its logic is flat out factually wrong lol
do you have ONE single legit, accurate and dare I say fact based argument to deny others equal rights? . . . one, we'd love to hear it
It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter. It impacts my SOCIETY. It impacts my state taxes. It impacts our court systems. It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported. I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter.
So you want homosexual couples to pay more taxes than you do? ...interesting. So, heterosexual marriage's impact on state taxes just doesn't matter?
Specify a negative impact on our courts.
Still not an impact.
You still haven't specified any impact. Other than taxes.
Don't try and BS me. You don't oppose same-sex marriage because of taxes.
Your society? How about everyone's society?
State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues. Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?