http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05 ... ml?_r=1&hp

The first step, but a big step.

Disclaimer: I was and still am against Proposition 8

However, I do not like the idea of an unelected official overturning the will of the people. The people spoke and voted for Proposition 8.

Regardless, this is far from over. We'll have to wait until this gets to the Supreme Court to get a final ruling on gay marriage.

I agree with your statement here.

I think the Supreme Court will affirm in part, and overrule in part, Judge Walker's opinion. I doubt they adopt his due process argument but will strike down the law on equal protection grounds (sexual orientation) which gets rationality review (the lowest standard to show constitutional legitimacy) but will use the "heightened" (and incoherent) version found in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and Romer v. Evans

I say they will go the equal protection route, rather than substantive due process, as a cop-out to make it seem they are not going as far as they really are. Meaning that they will not declare that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage or that the state can never treat homosexual couples differently than straight couples, but that in the case of this law, due to animus, the law fails rationality review. Basically, this is the opinion that Justice O'Connor espoused in Lawrence v. Texas.

Cleburne: Basically a Texas city denied a special use permit, under its zoning laws, for a home for the mentally disabled. City said it did so because nearby school students would make fun of them and because of flood concerns (but they allowed a nursing home in the same area)

Romer: Colorado voters passed a law that banned the government from favoring (some may say "protecting") gays in real estate, housing, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment.

Lawrence v. Texas: Texas anti-sodomy law. It did so on substantive due process, rather than equal protection grounds.

Isn't the point of the US consitution to ensure that minorities aren't given the short thrift they would get if their fate was left to the will of the people?

In this particular situation, it wasn't really the unelected official overturning it, so much as it was the unelected official recognising that it flew in the face of the constitutional right of a small portion of American citizens.

There are other "points" like federalism, the 10th Amendment, and Art. IV, Sec. 4., Cl. 1 which guarantees each state a republican form of government, which could argue for the states having the right to decide what the word "marriage" entails and what they will recognize within their own laws as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause which argues, strongly, against DOMA and the comity of other states' recognition of gay marriage.

What Constitutional right did it fly in the face of? The right to get married? I can see an argument for equal protection, though it is not nearly as obvious as you, or judge Walker, make it out to be, but not the substantive due process argument that the judge also used (i.e., that there was some fundamental right involved).

You do understand how our government works, right? That the courts are an equal branch? That their job is to make sure "the will of the people" doesn't violate the Constitution?

It is indeed a 14th amendment issue. A state does not have to allow marriage at all, but if it does, it cannot discriminate (especially if that state has gay right laws).

The will of the people should only be allowed to matter if that will is not imposing on another's civil rights. In this matter, regardless of the fact that a majority of constituents want something, it violates the basic rights of others and SHOULD be struck down. Remember, if we never overturned the will of the people, slavery would still be part of the American dream.

Do you extend that same reasoning to taxation?

God I hate libertarians.

Yes, reasonable arguments can be soooooo infuriating!

They sure can! Let me know if you ever have any!

It is your civil right to pay taxes. I promise not to let anyone take that right away from you.

Way to avoid the question, Karl!

I love it how when confronted with their own arguments liberals get sarcastic. How about answering the question?

Here's one: stop using any public services, ever, and never get involved with the public again (this should be easy, as libertarians seem to have such an apathy of people that aren't them). Then one can stop paying taxes.

There are also federal benefits to marriage that will probably send all this to SCOTUS eventually, though. "States' rights" is always used as code for "putting subnational entities ahead of individual people" and a roundabout way of trying to screw people over.

Shit just got real:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952

That doesn't in any way answer my question, but nice try

Federal benefits to marriage? WTF does that even mean? If you're married the president gets to screw you?

DOMA was always doomed to get overturned by the Supreme Court. The people who put the bill together knew it.

If you aren't using public services or interfering with the public in any way, I fully back one being tax-exempt. Don't know how it could be pulled off, though.



I didn't expect this to happen for another five years, though. Prop 8 and 2004 were huge blows.



There's like 1,000 legal rights/privileges/benefits to getting hitched among the fed alone, last I checked. INAL, though. The government (federal, state or municipal) being involved in marriage seems silly, wrong and outdated to me, but as long as it is, I don't see any reason to exclude SSM except bigotry, really.

It sort of harkens back to public schools really. You don't like public schools, and I think education needs to be rebuilt completely on a societal level. Long as there are public schools, though, the idea of Creationism/ID being taught as science is friggin' toxic and is more immediately a problem to tackle than putting the hammer on the education system in general, which will take perhaps decades to get done, and we can probably agree with that.

This is one of the few political debates in which there is a clear black and white. It doesn't matter what the law or the constitution or the Bible says: this goes beyond any legal or religious principle, it's about freedom and equality, and simple common sense and compassion.

Was this cloying and self-congratulatory statement really necessary? Nobody here seems to think that gays should not be allowed to marry, the question is if it is Constitutionally permissible to not allow them to do so or whether a state, if it allows marriage, must provide it to homo and hetero couples on an equal basis.