Not really that clear yet. It would take another SCOTUS ruling to make it so, or a lot of circuit court rulings and SCOTUS declining to review them.
Wait, what? Did this happen while I was at lunch?
As far as I know, it remains the case that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples do not present a federal constititutional question.
I for one think that would be a natural extension of the rulings, starting with suits challenging State laws citing the recent SCOTUS rulings. I wouldn’t be surprised if appellate courts or would be fine with overturning the rules using the recent SCOTUS rulings as justification, and the SCOTUS would then either have to clarify or allow those decisions to stand–in which case any circuit where the circuit court ruled that way would ultimately have Federally protected SSM.
I don’t tend to agree that that’s the natural extension of “the rulings” (which ones?). But I certainly don’t attempt to predict what courts will do. And, there’s no doubt that the issue will be before the Court before long.
What tickled me was someone being called “ignorant” for not knowing that the Supreme Court had struck down anti same-sex marriage laws as unconstitutional.
Exactly, and the recent NJ decision would back that up. I may have jumped the gun a little bit but it’s inevitable.
No, it hasn’t. The Supreme Court has decided that marriage laws are a state matter. Unless you are talking about the SC of your state. The recent New Jersey decision said same-sex marriage bans violated the New Jersey Constitution.
Oh, I see. You meant the New Jersey Supreme Court. That’s fair. I mean they haven’t ruled (and won’t, because the state withdrew the appeal), but the denial of the stay was close enough.
The problem with the idea that civil rights are not and should not be subject to popular approval is that unless your neighbors agree to act as if you have a particular civil right, you might as well not have that civil right.
Sometimes your neighbors are willing to act as if you have a particular civil right, not because they want to, but because someone else with badges and guns will punish them unless they do. But what makes the guys with badges and guns willing to punish them? There have to be enough people willing to enforce your civil rights, otherwise you don’t have them.
Saying “civil rights don’t depend on popular opinion” is something people say to try to influence popular opinion, otherwise there wouldn’t be any point in saying it. If your civil rights would be enforced by magic somehow even though everyone in the country didn’t want them to be then there’d be no need to insist on your rights.
I think their is a very valid reason for voting on this issue. We have a civilization and society that is established on cultural and religious beliefs. Homosexuality has only been accepted in a few places throughout history. It has mostly been heavily condemned. To accept homosexuality is to stretch very rigid lines that govern our perception of civilization. It appears our society is heading in the direction of acceptance. If the goverment were to shove this down the throats of citizens it would be viewed as a dictator type move and taken extremely serious by the citizens. I know plenty of people who voted agaist it but accept it as law because we got a chance to vote on it. Most of them are not looking back they just accept it and move on. I feel voting is the proper way to go about this.
That’s kind of you but I actually screwed up. I obviously get emotional about this issue.
I am not that old but in my lifetime, in 1967, it was still against that law in several states for there to be mixed race marriages. It took a Supreme Court decision to overturn that. Now we could have waited for the good people of Virginia to hold a vote on the matter but that could have taken several years. Fuck that. The courts in this country have to step in when civil rights are being violated.
We now know that same sex attraction, like race, is innate. You’re just born that way. We also now know, with the benefit of time, that the people who tried to keep those old racist laws in place were backwards thinking idiots. They were stains upon humanity and an embarrassment to their progeny. Just imagine, to steal a meme that I have seen floating around, how fucking stupid you’re going to look in twenty years if you’re one of the ones trying to impede SSM now.
Same-sex marriage has been enacted by means other than a popular vote in 12 states, and Hawaii is probably about to become the 13th of those states.
What, specifically, are the consequences in these states of the citizens taking it extremely seriously? You appear to live in a state where it was shoved down throats, so what has life been like since June?
Your decision to no mention religion and thus not poison the well was a good one. Too bad it didn’t last for more than one sentence.
Same-sex marriages weren’t recognized anywhere in the USA from 1776 up to about 10 years ago. For the vast majority of American history, not only were they not granted, but no one made any attempt to have them granted. Not liberals or conservatives, not religious groups or non-religious groups, not civil rights groups, and not even gay-rights groups in their early days were that interested in the topic. If same-sex marriage is a civil right, then why didn’t anyone express interest in it until recently?
Are…are you seriously putting that forward for consideration?
Gay people were extraordinarily marginalized until recently?
Marriage is a civil right. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Interest wasn’t expressed in it until recently because homosexuals have been so marginalized and discriminated against for so long that it probably didn’t occur to them. They were too busy trying not to get beaten or imprisoned for doing things in private between consenting adults.
Why is this true? I’ve never quite understood why I had a right to government recognition of (some) of my personal relationships.
I assume, since marriage is a right, that you would agree that it would be impermissible for a state to simply stop recognizing marriages entirely.
But that simply shifts the question to: why were gay people extraordinarily marginalized until recently? Why is it that, fifty or a hundred years ago, liberals weren’t clamoring for gay marriage rights?
Which is why we need to put it up to a vote. You assert that gay marriage is a civil right; others disagree. Majority rules.
Regards,
Sho-damned
Because people suck?
What sort of an answer are you looking for, here?
Meh. Either they do it for everyone or do it for no one. I don’t care either way. You don’t want to have a state sanctioned wedding, don’t do it. Other people do and they have that right, regardless of gender.
Would you be ok with Virginia’s marriage laws in 1966 when the majority of Virginians were in favor of them? If not, why not?