The Supreme Court has consistently regarded marriage as a right

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It is a federal issue. Federal judges have repeatedly overturned laws that discriminate people's civil liberties regarding marriage (not just for homosexual marriages, but in the past for interracial marriages, etc). The federal government has not made a distinction between marriage and civil unions for the purpose of laws (such as in other countries, where you're in a union according the government and a marriage according to your faith), and as such, citizens are guaranteed equal protection under federal law. States may not violate equal protection.

You can continue to argue this, but the precedent on this matter is pretty clear. It doesn't become less of a federal issue just because you wish it wasn't.

Just because a judge rules on a case or even takes a case, does not make it a federal issue. Marriage is a want, not a need, not a right, not something that gives you something special in life.

Just as a 35-year old man can no longer marry a 14-year old girl, that is within the right of the states to determine who may and may not get married on various stipulations. Of course no one touches on this one. You cannot fight for certain groups to have the "right" to something, unless you fight for any and all groups/situtions to share in the same "right."

But there again, marriage is no more a right than owning your own home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a car. You have to meet certain conditions to get a job. I mean if I walked into a Federal building and wanted to get a job as a supervisor over that building, they wouldn't hire me without appropriate education background, job experience, and even then they still may not hire me for whatever reason.

You have every right to persue your dream, persue happiness, etc. You have no right to said happiness, to said dreams, etc. That is the key to remember in any and every situation that presents itself in life. Life isn't fair. Some are born rich, some are born poor. Some marry into a rich family, others marry into a family that ends up bankrupt.

Some people file for government loans, grants, etc. some people get accepted, some people do not. Even if they are equal on every level. Some people get the shorter end of the stick, some get the life of luxury.

Welcome to the real world.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just because a judge rules on a case or even takes a case, does not make it a federal issue. Marriage is a want, not a need, not a right, not something that gives you something special in life.

Just as a 35-year old man can no longer marry a 14-year old girl, that is within the right of the states to determine who may and may not get married on various stipulations. Of course no one touches on this one. You cannot fight for certain groups to have the "right" to something, unless you fight for any and all groups/situtions to share in the same "right."

But there again, marriage is no more a right than owning your own home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a car. You have to meet certain conditions to get a job. I mean if I walked into a Federal building and wanted to get a job as a supervisor over that building, they wouldn't hire me without appropriate education background, job experience, and even then they still may not hire me for whatever reason.

You have every right to persue your dream, persue happiness, etc. You have no right to said happiness, to said dreams, etc. That is the key to remember in any and every situation that presents itself in life. Life isn't fair. Some are born rich, some are born poor. Some marry into a rich family, others marry into a family that ends up bankrupt.

Some people file for government loans, grants, etc. some people get accepted, some people do not. Even if they are equal on every level. Some people get the shorter end of the stick, some get the life of luxury.

Welcome to the real world.

Yeam meant, welcome to

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An act of congress can change the bill of rights.

Granted, it's not 'easy' to amend the constitution, but it can be done...

Good God. The Framers of the Constitution believed that everyone has certain inalienable rights. If such rights only exist through declaration (either by legislation or by constitutional amendments), then such rights could also be taken away and then they wouldn't inalienable. The right to think for yourself isn't implicitly described in the Constitution but no one is going to argue that Congress could enact legislation restricting thought.

[Aubrey 10]

Just because a judge rules on a case or even takes a case, does not make it a federal issue. Marriage is a want, not a need, not a right, not something that gives you something special in life.

Just as a 35-year old man can no longer marry a 14-year old girl, that is within the right of the states to determine who may and may not get married on various stipulations. Of course no one touches on this one. You cannot fight for certain groups to have the "right" to something, unless you fight for any and all groups/situtions to share in the same "right."

But there again, marriage is no more a right than owning your own home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a home. You have to meet certain conditions to buy a car. You have to meet certain conditions to get a job. I mean if I walked into a Federal building and wanted to get a job as a supervisor over that building, they wouldn't hire me without appropriate education background, job experience, and even then they still may not hire me for whatever reason.

You have every right to persue your dream, persue happiness, etc. You have no right to said happiness, to said dreams, etc. That is the key to remember in any and every situation that presents itself in life. Life isn't fair. Some are born rich, some are born poor. Some marry into a rich family, others marry into a family that ends up bankrupt.

Some people file for government loans, grants, etc. some people get accepted, some people do not. Even if they are equal on every level. Some people get the shorter end of the stick, some get the life of luxury.

Welcome to the real world.

You clearly don't understand the law or our Constitution. Half-quoting the Declaration of Independence is no basis for your ridiculous attempt at an argument.

We have a Bill of Rights. In it there is a thing called the equal protection clause. This is the very basis for which Prop 8 was overturned. Read about it. Understand it. Your definitions of what you think are "rights" versus "wants" are not the same as those defined by the laws of the U.S. and the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marriage is considered a right according to the past opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see Loving v. Virginia) and protected citizens from discrimination regarding the right to marry. "Conditions" must fall within reason under the law and allow for equal protection under the law. A federal judge overturned Prop 8 based on the fact that it denied equal protection based on religious beliefs (which the government cannot discriminate by). It will now likely go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You clearly don't understand the law or our Constitution. Half-quoting the Declaration of Independence is no basis for your ridiculous attempt at an argument.

We have a Bill of Rights. In it there is a thing called the equal protection clause. This is the very basis for which Prop 8 was overturned. Read about it. Understand it. Your definitions of what you think are "rights" versus "wants" are not the same as those defined by the laws of the U.S. and the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marriage is considered a right according to the past opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see Loving v. Virginia) and protected citizens from discrimination regarding the right to marry. "Conditions" must fall within reason under the law and allow for equal protection under the law. A federal judge overturned Prop 8 based on the fact that it denied equal protection based on religious beliefs (which the government cannot discriminate by). It will now likely go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case.

First off, I understand the constitution quite well. Obviously better than you do if you think the "equal protection clause" is a part of the "Bill of Rights." So, please re-think your statemnts before posting something.

Secondly, the equal protection clause being used to defend same-sex marriage is completely erroneous. Using that makes it perfectly fine for ANY two individuals to marry then. Of course, the "gay community" will not admit this and will call your a heretic for daring to say so. - However, as it stands now as many people rightfully argue, there is already an equal protection. Any non-related man, and any non-related woman can marry already in most states. That is a "marriage" by definition in most states. Being as there's no federal definition to marriage, then the state's definition in a legal standpoint is what normally would be and should be upheld. There is no marriage clause/rules/laws on the Federal level, therefore the Supreme Court can only look at the laws on the level where they are present and decide if those laws are applied evenly. In the case of marriages they are. A gay man can marry a woman, a gay woman can marry a man. Nothing stops them from doing this. That is equal protection to have that same right under the law. - You're trying to bend it if you think otherwise.

As I've said before, I believe in equal rights and protections and think it's silly not to have civil unions for all couples, but this isn't a matter of "what's right," in my opinion, it's a matter from a lawful perspective on what's right and what is not.

The SCTOUS can delcare whatever it wants and give the opinion on whatever it wants, it doesn't make it the law of the land. That's what congress is for.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing a personal attack has been removed. Please refrain from insults and personal attacks while discussing the different viewpoints on this topic.

[Aubrey 10]

First off, I understand the constitution quite well. Obviously better than you do if you think the "equal protection clause" is a part of the "Bill of Rights." So, please re-think your statemnts before posting something.

Secondly, the equal protection clause being used to defend same-sex marriage is completely erroneous. Using that makes it perfectly fine for ANY two individuals to marry then. Of course, the "gay community" will not admit this and will call your a heretic for daring to say so. - However, as it stands now as many people rightfully argue, there is already an equal protection. Any non-related man, and any non-related woman can marry already in most states. That is a "marriage" by definition in most states. Being as there's no federal definition to marriage, then the state's definition in a legal standpoint is what normally would be and should be upheld. There is no marriage clause/rules/laws on the Federal level, therefore the Supreme Court can only look at the laws on the level where they are present and decide if those laws are applied evenly. In the case of marriages they are. A gay man can marry a woman, a gay woman can marry a man. Nothing stops them from doing this. That is equal protection to have that same right under the law. - You're trying to bend it if you think otherwise.

As I've said before, I believe in equal rights and protections and think it's silly not to have civil unions for all couples, but this isn't a matter of "what's right," in my opinion, it's a matter from a lawful perspective on what's right and what is not.

The SCTOUS can delcare whatever it wants and give the opinion on whatever it wants, it doesn't make it the law of the land. That's what congress is for.

My mis-statement does not equate misunderstanding the Constitution. I was attempting to remind you that we have guaranteed rights in our Constitution, not the "right to pursue" them as you were trying to argue. I know full well that the equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, tyvm.

The U.S. Supreme Court's opinions do not "make" laws, but they clarify or overturn them as unconstitutional. Clarification can expand protection of a group under a law, or it could state that it does not apply to a group. It HAS made decisions on marriage before, an it CAN decide cases of this matter. It DOES matter "what's right" under the law.

Equal protection also can be considered based on the rights of people between states. When a person is considered married legally in one state and not another, that can be a foundation for an opinion by the SC. When a couple must spend $1000's to write contracts to gain the same rights as a couple allowed to marry, THAT can be considered.

I've said enough on this topic. But I think that people like you who argue against this are just as bad as those who supported segregation and opposed voting rights for women and minorities. Discriminating against gays/lesbians is equivalent and you should be ashamed for supporting discriminatory practices.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

My mis-statement does not equate misunderstanding the Constitution. I was attempting to remind you that we have guaranteed rights in our Constitution, not the "right to pursue" them as you were trying to argue. I know full well that the equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, tyvm.

The U.S. Supreme Court's opinions do not "make" laws, but they clarify or overturn them as unconstitutional. Clarification can expand protection of a group under a law, or it could state that it does not apply to a group. It HAS made decisions on marriage before, an it CAN decide cases of this matter. It DOES matter "what's right" under the law.

Equal protection also can be considered based on the rights of people between states. When a person is considered married legally in one state and not another, that can be a foundation for an opinion by the SC. When a couple must spend $1000's to write contracts to gain the same rights as a couple allowed to marry, THAT can be considered.

I've said enough on this topic. But I think that people like you who argue against this are just as bad as those who supported segregation and opposed voting rights for women and minorities. Discriminating against gays/lesbians is equivalent and you should be ashamed for supporting discriminatory practices.

I'm not arguing against the idea. I'm all for the idea as I've said.

Comparing gays/lesbians to the struggles of blacks is absolutely disgusting though. Very different situations entirely.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Secondly, the equal protection clause being used to defend same-sex marriage is completely erroneous.

Because you say so? Accomplished experts on constitutional law,a ccomplished judges and accomplished litigators - such as Ted Olson who argued 56 cases before the Supreme Court and prevailed in 44 of them - conclude that the equal protection clause does cover same sex marriage.

So, how many cases have you successfully argued before the SCOTUS?

[Aubrey 10]

I'm not arguing against the idea. I'm all for the idea as I've said.

Comparing gays/lesbians to the struggles of blacks is absolutely disgusting though. Very different situations entirely.

Uh, yeah, they've both been hung, beaten, had laws made against them to discriminate, lost jobs and opportunities due to who they are... totally different...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Uh, yeah, they've both been hung, beaten, had laws made against them to discriminate, lost jobs and opportunities due to who they are... totally different...

people of all races have been hung over centuries for various absurd reasons.

people get beaten for wearing the wrong shoes today still...

the laws aren't made to discriminate against them. Not the intention of those laws really.

people lose jobs and opportunities all the time. you have no right to a job.

- Of course, if your job knows your day, then you're not doing your job to begin with. It's a JOB, not personal time.

Marriage and civil unions are the asme minus the word. The water fountain reference is absurd and you know it. If the benefits are equal, then that's all that matters. AGAIN THOUGH I'm one who thinks that all "marriages" in government should be civil unions. Take the word "marriage" out of it completely on a civil contract level.

Gays weren't slaves.

Gays didn't have to fight or a right to vote.

Gays didn't have to fight to go to school.

Gays didn't have to drink from a separate water fountain.

Gays didn't have to fight to marry someone of the opposite sex unless they were black.

Gays didn't have to sit at the back of the bus.

Gays had the luxury of being able to blend in while out in society, blacks did not.

etc.

Very different scenarios entirely.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[twowls 217]

First off, I understand the constitution quite well. Obviously better than you do if you think the "equal protection clause" is a part of the "Bill of Rights." So, please re-think your statemnts before posting something.

Secondly, the equal protection clause being used to defend same-sex marriage is completely erroneous. Using that makes it perfectly fine for ANY two individuals to marry then. Of course, the "gay community" will not admit this and will call your a heretic for daring to say so. - However, as it stands now as many people rightfully argue, there is already an equal protection. Any non-related man, and any non-related woman can marry already in most states. That is a "marriage" by definition in most states. Being as there's no federal definition to marriage, then the state's definition in a legal standpoint is what normally would be and should be upheld. There is no marriage clause/rules/laws on the Federal level, therefore the Supreme Court can only look at the laws on the level where they are present and decide if those laws are applied evenly. In the case of marriages they are. A gay man can marry a woman, a gay woman can marry a man. Nothing stops them from doing this. That is equal protection to have that same right under the law. - You're trying to bend it if you think otherwise.

As I've said before, I believe in equal rights and protections and think it's silly not to have civil unions for all couples, but this isn't a matter of "what's right," in my opinion, it's a matter from a lawful perspective on what's right and what is not.

The SCTOUS can delcare whatever it wants and give the opinion on whatever it wants, it doesn't make it the law of the land. That's what congress is for.

It's so incredibly disingenuous for you to try to say you're all for gay people having equal rights, except that gay people shouldn't have this particular equal right, and to try to parse your way there with the kind of white noise that you seem to actually believe might distract from your obvious prejudice. You'd get more respect if you just said that buttsecks squicks you out. Really.

The Constitution doesn't allow states to put things into their constitutions that violate it. The U.S. Constitution preempts states' whack-#### notions, no matter how many yokels in those states want gay people to be invisible or slavery to make a super awesome comeback.

Follow along: People have rights, and your interpretation doesn't matter. California, with the help of the Mormons, homophobes, and a counterintuitive, deeply confusing proposition tried to enshrine right for Some in its constitution. But they don't get to do that, and your opinion matters not a whit. I'll let Judge Walker take it from here:

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Protecting the rights of the minority is not up to the majority, not up for a vote, not subject to your subtle and elegant legal daydreams. The courts are here for that, for making sure the U.S. Constitution, which is very much about individual rights, is upheld no matter what any ignorant fools want. And there's been a ruling. This is how it works--not how you say it should work, but how it works.

It doesn't matter how you think things *should* be, what you think a "right" is or what marriage is or how you get to the part where opposite sex people can marry but same sex people can't or how you think this notion of equal protection doesn't apply here. Stop thinking it matters, at all. It's getting more and more embarrassing the longer you try to make everything subordinate to your dubious armchair scholarship. There's been a ruling. If you want your opinion on the matter to hold water, become a judge on the 9th Circuit. We'll wait.

If you want to use your time more wisely, use it to examine the clumsily-obscured roots of your stance and think about how you want to feel in 20 years when bigots who still oppose gay marriage are no longer humored but pitied and laughed out of class for their sick, hateful perspectives and failure to evolve, as people that disapprove of interracial marriage are viewed today by all but the most demented. Sucks to be on the wrong side of history at any point when liberty and civil rights are on the line, but it will only be that much more painful and sad when your attitude becomes as isolated and lonely as it will soon be.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's so incredibly disingenuous for you to try to say you're all for gay people having equal rights, except that gay people shouldn't have this particular equal right, and to try to parse your way there with the kind of white noise that you seem to actually believe might distract from your obvious prejudice. You'd get more respect if you just said that buttsecks squicks you out. Really.

The Constitution doesn't allow states to put things into their constitutions that violate it. The U.S. Constitution preempts states' whack-#### notions, no matter how many yokels in those states want gay people to be invisible or slavery to make a super awesome comeback.

Follow along: People have rights, and your interpretation doesn't matter. California, with the help of the Mormons, homophobes, and a counterintuitive, deeply confusing proposition tried to enshrine right for Some in its constitution. But they don't get to do that, and your opinion matters not a whit. I'll let Judge Walker take it from here:

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Protecting the rights of the minority is not up to the majority, not up for a vote, not subject to your subtle and elegant legal daydreams. The courts are here for that, for making sure the U.S. Constitution, which is very much about individual rights, is upheld no matter what any ignorant fools want. And there's been a ruling. This is how it works--not how you say it should work, but how it works.

It doesn't matter how you think things *should* be, what you think a "right" is or what marriage is or how you get to the part where opposite sex people can marry but same sex people can't or how you think this notion of equal protection doesn't apply here. Stop thinking it matters, at all. It's getting more and more embarrassing the longer you try to make everything subordinate to your dubious armchair scholarship. There's been a ruling. If you want your opinion on the matter to hold water, become a judge on the 9th Circuit. We'll wait.

If you want to use your time more wisely, use it to examine the clumsily-obscured roots of your stance and think about how you want to feel in 20 years when bigots who still oppose gay marriage are no longer humored but pitied and laughed out of class for their sick, hateful perspectives and failure to evolve, as people that disapprove of interracial marriage are viewed today by all but the most demented. Sucks to be on the wrong side of history at any point when liberty and civil rights are on the line, but it will only be that much more painful and sad when your attitude becomes as isolated and lonely as it will soon be.

oh people like you amuse me. Speaking from the heart rather than your head.

Of course some of us know how to use both.

First and foremost to your first point, just because someone argues legally a certain way about something doesn't mean that they don't feel a certain way about it either. Sometimes you have to put personal feelings aside though.

I have been arguing this issue for the matter of a decade with people, many of which are considered "much more scholarly" than myself. I talk to people of the "gay community" about it and get their feelings, as well as those outside of it. - The god's honest truth, is most gay people don't give a rats ####### about marriage. They just care about having equal positions on medical decisions, taxation as a couple, etc. The same things awarded to 'married couples.' - They could care less if it's an actual marriage or a civil union that addresses those issues.

My PERSONAL feelings is to do away with marriage completely. If John and Sally want to get married, it's a civil union. If Sally and Sally want to get married, it's a civil union. If John and John want to get married, it's a civil union. - Of course all around I'd rather take government out of the personal equation completely.

Despite what you "read into" what I am posting here, this issue touches very close to home for me and several people who are very close to me.

There's a part of me that's like, "Great! Awesome that the judge ruled this way. It's the right thing to do for these people." - Then rational realism and what marriage is kicks in, in relation to everything else out in the world. It has a definition, it has a formal stipulation to be granted as a legally binding contract, just like any other. Under that one stipulation everyone is equally protected under the law in this day and age. No one is left out.

There's always a difference in the way we feel about what's right and actually what's legally right. That's the key. Marriage is a state issue through and through. 49 states could deny marriages to everyone and ther's nothing a Federal judge could do about. That's the reality of the situation. Now constitutionally those states DO have to recognize a marriage if it took place in that one state under the full faith and credit clause, just as non-gay-marriage states constitutionally have to do now. But no state had to marry anyone if they so choose not to.

People seem to forget we are a nation of 50 individual states, who have different beliefs and different ways of life. That's the beauty of it. You don't like it in one place, then you can move to another that suits your lifestyle better. It's what made us what we are today.

[twowls 217]

I have been arguing this issue for the matter of a decade with people, many of which are considered "much more scholarly" than myself.

And they let you get away with this?

Then rational realism and what marriage is kicks in, in relation to everything else out in the world. It has a definition, it has a formal stipulation to be granted as a legally binding contract, just like any other. Under that one stipulation everyone is equally protected under the law in this day and age. No one is left out.

Stunning. This felt like it made sense when you were typing it?

People seem to forget we are a nation of 50 individual states, who have different beliefs and different ways of life. That's the beauty of it. You don't like it in one place, then you can move to another that suits your lifestyle better. It's what made us what we are today.

Negative. If the states were allowed to do anything they wanted, we would look nothing like we do today. You can thank the Constitution for what we are today.

Again, I hear how you *wish* things worked. They do not work that way. States aren't countries. But I guess you can keep on arguing from this imaginary platform while the country continues to exist as it really does, operating as it really does, allowing states lots of fun autonomy while keeping things in check if those states try to do something that VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES.

So go ahead working yourself into a lather trying to legitimize your Swiss cheese logic. Also, you might want to lay off the "but I have gay friends!!" Hail Mary. It's the oldest and most pathetic refrain in the long song of prejudice apologists, and a clear indicator of desperation.

It's like...psst...we can see you. You're not invisible just because you stood behind that plant.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Again, I hear how you *wish* things worked. They do not work that way. States aren't countries. But I guess you can keep on arguing from this imaginary platform while the country continues to exist as it really does, operating as it really does, allowing states lots of fun autonomy while keeping things in check if those states try to do something that VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES.

So go ahead working yourself into a lather trying to legitimize your Swiss cheese logic. Also, you might want to lay off the "but I have gay friends!!" Hail Mary. It's the oldest and most pathetic refrain in the long song of prejudice apologists, and a clear indicator of desperation.

It's like...psst...we can see you. You're not invisible just because you stood behind that plant.

Apparently you have no knowledge of what exactly 'state's rights' are in relation to the constitution and how this nation was formed where everyone would have an individual voice. Of course many ignore that today and seem to think we are "one" big nation. We never were. We were "UNITED STATES" - Individual states who unite under a constitution that says what the government cannot do, what limited powers they do have, and how each branch is supposed to work.

You like to think we're one big melting pot where every state should be the same. Guess what, if every state were the same, then every single state would be in the ####### hole because of this recession. Not every state is though. Each state has different laws, different rules, and some of which are discriminatory in their own ways.

Like I said. The beautiful part about the way this nation was formed was Connecticut could have Gay marriage and Nebraska could say they don't want to have it there. The only stipulation being in that fact, is that Nebraska must honor the contract between the couple that was married in Connecticut if they move to Nebraska. It's pretty damn simple.