- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,891
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court is staying silent -- for now -- on whether it will review the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, which has rapidly evolved into one of the most important social debates of our time.
Supreme Court mum on reviewing same-sex marriage - CNN.com
Bunch of limp-wristed, panty-waist, scaredy-cats. :doh
Theoretically the court could have already rejected the current writ's, but that is unlikely, with the results being released tomorrow or next week. As I said unlikely as that means the stays in place would be automatically rejected.
More likely the court is simply delaying a decision based on further review needed for the current applications or they are waiting to see how the 6th Circuit rules on it's case (which could occur at any time). If the 6th rules to uphold the ban, there is no split in the Circuit courts.
>>>>
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.
Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.
So just do it.
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.
Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.
So just do it.
ITA. All this dicking around with this issue serves no good purpose.
Make it legal FFS. It's nobody's business who other people want to marry.
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.
Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.
So just do it.
I think that's why they're actually not reviewing it. By not reviewing it, lower court decisions stand and the majority of those are starting to favor gay marriage.
SSM, like the 2A or abortion rights, either is or is not allowed to be decided at the state level. I fear that the result will be based upon another hidden or implied "constitutional" right rather than any language actually in the US constitution.
I personally favor the expansion of marriage but also see it totally as a state gov't matter, while I see the 2A as a "right of the people" that a state may not violate (abridge or deny) and abortion falls somewhere in between (so long as not gov't funded).
In order to establish any "protected class" should require specific constitutional action just as it did to give women the vote or to disallow racial/gender discrimination. The idea that "equal protection" (amendment passed in 1868) means that marriage must be wide open (equal to the least restrictive state law) yet carrying a handgun can require state permission is loony.
That would be a good start, but ideally the justices would rule that it's Unconstitutional for the Federal government to have any involvement in marriage in the first place, and make everything including heterosexual marriages "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, exactly what article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to define and regulate marriage?I hope the justices deny marriage but allow civil unions with full benefits.
I hope the justices deny marriage but allow civil unions with full benefits.
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.
So if one state decided that mixed race marriages were not "true marriages", you'd be fine with that since it's up to each state?
The right thing to do would be to uphold the fact that it's a state's rights issue and that states have the right to manage their own marriage laws. This isn't something that should be dictated at the federal level.
THIS!!! It's like people haven't actually read the Constitution.No, the right thing to do is enforce the equal protection clause regarding this unconstitutional distinction of gender.
THIS!!! It's like people haven't actually read the Constitution.
Why is the government involved in the marriage debate in the first place?
Because marriage is a legal contract, and the 14th amendment provides for equal protection under state laws...Why is the government involved in the marriage debate in the first place?
Because recognizing legal next of kin is important to modern society.
It can just as easily be done with a private legal document. Governments sanction marriage because of the belief there is a benefit to doing so, but when it becomes something forced upon society, it loses a bit of its luster...
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?