Analysis: Gay marriage votes could sway U.S. Supreme Court

Comments (11)
shevmonster wrote:

This is stupid… there is no way that any person who is not an idiot could think that gays do not qualify as a suspect class under the law because we are not powerless based on these referenda. Women are a suspect class. How on earth are we more powerful than women? We are like 3% of the electorate and they are 52%. Blacks are a suspect class, and they way outnumber us too. Blacks had no liberty under US law under slavery, but that ended in the 1800s, whereas gays had no liberty under US law because we could be rounded up and halled off en masse to jail right up until the Supreme Court overturned Sodomy laws in 2003. How on earth, then, are we more powerful than blacks??? That is the stupidest comment I have read on constitutional law in a long time…

Nov 08, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse

While they’re swaying, how about another look at Citizens United? Yup how about some clarity?

Nov 08, 2012 10:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

At least their citizens got an opportunity to vote on it – in Iowa we get some SFB, liberal judges to shove it down our throat.

Nov 08, 2012 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

The US Constitution does not say one single word about marriage.

Not ONE word. And one would think that if the framers were so concerned about individual liberties, they would have said something about something as fundamental as marriage. Well, they didn’t and here’s why. They left it up to the states to decide!

They absolutely intended for the power of our federal government to be limited. THERE’S NO “RIGHT” TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE US CONSTITUTION. None whatsoever. There’s -nothing- in the US Constitution that will EVER force the states to recognize marriages based on sexual orientation. If that was the case, then there could never be any laws against polygamy, child-marriage, marrying your sister, marrying your dog, and so on. These matters were and will remain left to the states to decide because they are morality laws, not safety laws.

Most people believe that having sex with your mother, your sister, or a farm animal is immoral. Thus, we pass laws to prohibit it. Most communities believe prostitution is immoral, thus we made it illegal. But yet in some communities, it’s legal. And both communities would be within their constitutional right to prohibit or let prostitution be legal.

Limiting ACTIVITY (behavior) is a community’s right and responsibility…thus, the morals of that community are put into law.

It’s that simple. And that’s why the SCOTUS will never rule on gay marriage.

Nov 08, 2012 11:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ahms wrote:

It’s not about the political power of a minority. The question here is about discriminating against that minority by denying them the right to marry each other. There’s no reason to do so unless you hate/want to control gay people’s lives, which is, ding ding, discrimination.

Or, if you do it out of religious reasons, which gives the Supreme Court even more reason vote in favor of gays. Keep your religion out of the court, please, and let people just love each other.

Nov 09, 2012 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
ahms wrote:

@CF137: It’s called Pursuit of Happiness. Discrimination is the opposite of that. Are you gay and want to get married? The folks down the street don’t want to let you.

Your argument also is pretty invalid. For one, you don’t factor in heterosexual marriages/lifestyles basically being ‘imposed’ on everyone. Second, all morality issues fly out the window once you start giving benefits, rights, tax breaks, etc. to the folks in question.

It’s not an issue of morality, which you can’t even define (I bet your definition is “Because God said so!”). In reality, it’s an issue about rights and living conditions that a certain practice (marriage) gets you access to.

Nov 09, 2012 12:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

There are two aspects to marriage, the legal and the religious. Because of the Free Exercise clause no government can interfere in the religious aspect, and because of the Establishment Clause no religion can interfere in the legal aspect. Why is this difficult?

Nov 09, 2012 2:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
david0296 wrote:

The fact that the president came out in support of marriage equality and he still won reelection, proves that the majority of the populous doesn’t have an issue with it. If they were fundamentally against gay Americans having civil equality, they would have voted for Romney or someone else, or not voted at all.

@CF137: The U.S. Constitution does not say one single word about opposite-sex marriage either. But our government is directly involved in the institution because it provides over 1,100 benefits to married couples. The U.S. Supreme Court has also overruled the “will of the people” when they nullified bans on interracial marriages in 1967. So, no, marriage is not solely a state’s rights issue. When states pass unconstitutional laws (such as banning a subset of the population from marriage without a rational basis) the federal government has interceded. States also have an obligation to respect other state’s marriage laws. DOMA, the discriminatory and clearly unconstitutional law, granted state’s permission to disregard those states that allow gay couples to marry. This is the equivalent of allowing states to disregard marriages by interracial couples. We cannot allow states to “pretend” that legally married couples are no longer married when they cross state borders. Even states that don’t allow first-cousins to marry, will acknowledge those marriages that took place outside of their state.

Morality is subjective. You cannot prove that gay people are inherently immoral (without using your Bible — sorry, but our country isn’t a Christian theocracy); and for the record, immoral straight people ARE permitted to marry. Newt Gingrich ring a bell? I’d say two adulterous affairs would make him an immoral person, wouldn’t you? There isn’t a “morality test” given to straight people that they need to pass in order to get married. The assumption that all straight people are “moral” simply because they happen to be straight is laughable.

Nov 09, 2012 8:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
ldfrmc wrote:

39 times voters went to a ballot box

14 times voters put up an initiative to ban marriage for gay couples,
21 times a state legislature did,
4 times people put a referendum to approve what a legislature made as a law – marriage-equality

The idea that banning marriage for same-sex couples is “always a grass-roots movement” – that is a big lie. Only 14 of the 30 state constitutional amendments came for anything like a “grassroots movement of opposition.”

Maine, Maryland & Washington state gave people a choice to approve marriage-equality, rather than deny it – that is a big truth. Minnesota said: Should it be banned? The people said: No.

Those facts will not be ignored by the Supreme Court in 2013. By the end of next year well over a third of the US population will live in states that have marriage equality within the state and by the federal government.

Know what? Few people will even notice, or care, who a neighbor marries.

Just hope mine are great cooks and like to watch football.

Nov 09, 2012 11:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
InisMagrath wrote:

@kevin2ia — you wrote: “Iowa we get some SFB, liberal judges to shove it down our throat.”

First of all, they weren’t “liberal” judges because the vote was unanimous. It isn’t “liberal” if all the judges were doing was following the Iowa constitution.

Second of all, calm down. No one is shoving anything down your throat. Now, shut up and bend over.

Nov 09, 2012 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
notUrAvgGuy wrote:

@kevin2ia — So people voting on civil rights and imposing their religious views via ballot isn’t shoving their religion down everyone else’s throat? You clearly have no idea what the role of the judicial branch is, so let me help you. The judicial branch’s duty is to apply the Constitution to the law in question. In a long list of court cases, federal court after federal court has declared DOMA in its various forms UNCONSTITUTIONAL by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendments “Equal Protections Clause”, rending DOMA invalid. Also, the First Amendment provides freedom of – and from – the religious mores of others. Those who oppose marital equality nearly always cite their religious convictions. Social science, on the other hand, supports marital equality. Religion vs. science…. hmmm…. who should win in the secular round?? Oh, yeah… SCIENCE, a.k.a REASON… something religion doesn’t grasp and historical has always opposed. BTW, the “liberal” judges you hate… most judges ruling in favor of Constitutionally supported marital equality have been CONSERVATIVE judges, most appointed by Reagan and GHW & GW Bush. Imagine that!

I am excited for your REASONED reply! Not that expect reason from you…

Nov 10, 2012 6:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.