In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I hears that 'eigthman' was seen at yesterday's naked protests. He now has a new nickname---'stubs'!!

[JohnInToronto]

'"We are the rebels now," he said.'[quote for Brian Brown]

The word is "reactionaries", moron.

[WeTheSheeple]

NOM blames their losses in Nov on not enough money. Gee, what a suprise. I expect they will really ramp up their fundraising efforts in preparation for the 2014 & 2016 elections.

We're likely to see votes in Oregon & Indiana, with possible votes in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, and Arizona as well.

With the exception of Indiana, these other votes should be held off until 2016 when the electorate is much more favorable.

[Kahoki]

Ahhhh, I have a question here. Where in the constitution does gay marriage come up?

It's not there. So that means that Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the status of marriage.

Then that falls under Amendment 10. States rights. And that reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now what needs to happen is the Federal government needs to come out and say this is a state issue and leave it to the states to decide.

For those trying to make it a federal issue, stop. You are wasting everyone's time. Take it to your state legislature.

[WeTheSheeple]

Kahoki wrote:

Ahhhh, I have a question here. Where in the constitution does gay marriage come up?
It's not there. So that means that Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the status of marriage.
Then that falls under Amendment 10. States rights. And that reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now what needs to happen is the Federal government needs to come out and say this is a state issue and leave it to the states to decide.
For those trying to make it a federal issue, stop. You are wasting everyone's time. Take it to your state legislature.

That's why every court so far has ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

But there are limits to state powers, as states found out when they banned inter-racial marriages.

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why every court so far has ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
But there are limits to state powers, as states found out when they banned inter-racial marriages.

AND polygamy, don't forget the states banned polygamy too and still do...

[au contraire]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why every court so far has ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
But there are limits to state powers, as states found out when they banned inter-racial marriages.

Yes, we went from producing AKC races to Mutts.

[Rick in Kansas]

Kahoki wrote:

Ahhhh, I have a question here. Where in the constitution does gay marriage come up?
It's not there. So that means that Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the status of marriage.
Then that falls under Amendment 10. States rights. And that reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now what needs to happen is the Federal government needs to come out and say this is a state issue and leave it to the states to decide.
For those trying to make it a federal issue, stop. You are wasting everyone's time. Take it to your state legislature.

Although it has not been spelled out, the Constitution has been interpreted as fundamentally guaranteeing an individual's right to marry and have that marriage recognized by the state. The question is whether the state can limit that right by denying you your choice of marriage partners for no other reason than they happen to be of your same sex. We already know that this right cannot be limited because your choice of marriage partners is not of an approved race, is doing time in prison, or you wanting to marry some dude behind on his child support for his other kids. Tell me again the basis of denying us the right to marry.

Yes, the 10th Amendment gives the authority to regulate marriage to the states, but that authority does not extend to denying the rights of citizens guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution.

[Rainbow Kid]

Kahoki wrote:

Ahhhh, I have a question here. Where in the constitution does gay marriage come up?
It's not there. So that means that Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the status of marriage.
Then that falls under Amendment 10. States rights. And that reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now what needs to happen is the Federal government needs to come out and say this is a state issue and leave it to the states to decide.
For those trying to make it a federal issue, stop. You are wasting everyone's time. Take it to your state legislature.

The IRS controls marriage; not the states

[Kahoki]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Although it has not been spelled out, the Constitution has been interpreted as fundamentally guaranteeing an individual's right to marry and have that marriage recognized by the state. The question is whether the state can limit that right by denying you your choice of marriage partners for no other reason than they happen to be of your same sex. We already know that this right cannot be limited because your choice of marriage partners is not of an approved race, is doing time in prison, or you wanting to marry some dude behind on his child support for his other kids. Tell me again the basis of denying us the right to marry.
Yes, the 10th Amendment gives the authority to regulate marriage to the states, but that authority does not extend to denying the rights of citizens guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution.

But, there is one part of Amendment 10 you did not mention. "or to the people".

The people have not voted on it. There has been no constitutional convention held to amend the constitution to include marriage.

And the constitution does not state who someone can marry. So this then would fall back to amendment 10 to the states.

[Jane Dough]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text> Tell me again the basis of denying us the right to marry.

as to the legislative benefits associated with marriage, there is no real reason except that we want to encourage biologically related families...

as to the constitutional right to which you speak, it is based on procreation, so that answers itself...

the constitution speaks of ways we the people are free from govt. we are not free from govt by being entitled to GOVT RECOGNITION which is what "marriage" is...

The proof is in the pudding, no courts have called gay marriage a fundamental right (except Walker in CA rapidly overruled on that point), even though you know full well that straight marriage has been found to be one...

[Ex-GOP Con]

Constitution-lover wrote:

Good againt evil. Gods word againt the gay liberal sinners. I WILL STICK WITH GOD AND HIS HOLY WORD.

God said to help the needy and the poor. You support Obamacare then?

[Rick in Kansas]

Kahoki wrote:

But, there is one part of Amendment 10 you did not mention. "or to the people".
The people have not voted on it. There has been no constitutional convention held to amend the constitution to include marriage.
And the constitution does not state who someone can marry. So this then would fall back to amendment 10 to the states.

Um dear, evidently you are unaware of this, but not even the people have the authority to unconstitutionally deny their own rights. Votes which have attempted to enshrine various bits of unconstitutional nonsense in state constitutions can be and have been overturned. The Supreme Court in the Loving case overturned 6 examples of the votes of the people. So you were saying?

[Not Yet Equal]

Kahoki wrote:

<quoted text>
But, there is one part of Amendment 10 you did not mention. "or to the people".
The people have not voted on it. There has been no constitutional convention held to amend the constitution to include marriage.
And the constitution does not state who someone can marry. So this then would fall back to amendment 10 to the states.

While the constitution does not specifically mention marriage, the Supreme Court has established and affirmed marriage as a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions.(see 9th amendment) Case law has firmly established marriage as a fundamental right protected by the constitution.

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
Obamacare is stealing. God does not support stealing. Helpping the sick and ol and poor should be from the heart not FORCED AT GUN POINT.

hmmmm funny... to bad you never do that... not much heart i guess

[Kahoki]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Um dear, evidently you are unaware of this, but not even the people have the authority to unconstitutionally deny their own rights. Votes which have attempted to enshrine various bits of unconstitutional nonsense in state constitutions can be and have been overturned. The Supreme Court in the Loving case overturned 6 examples of the votes of the people. So you were saying?

You are missing my point. Marriage is not in the constitution. Nowhere is it mentioned. This is the problem. Personally I do not care if someone is gay or is a goat. Marry whoever you want. An individuals marriage to whatever or whoever will not affect my life in any form of fashion. I personally do not care.

And since marriage is not called out in the constitution, it falls down to the states. After the states, then to the people. Meaning the people shall have their voice heard and it should be put to a vote by the people.

Here is the constitutional amendments, you tell me where marriage is called out? Not assumed meaning, but, where it is actually called out?

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments...

[Rick in Kansas]

Jane Dough wrote:

as to the legislative benefits associated with marriage, there is no real reason except that we want to encourage biologically related families...

Which is served by punishing same sex couples and their non-biologically related families how?

Jane Dough wrote:

as to the constitutional right to which you speak, it is based on procreation, so that answers itself...

Yes dear, the fundamental right to marry is first mentioned in the case of a chicken thief trying to save his boys for future use. That matters how?

Jane Dough wrote:

the constitution speaks of ways we the people are free from govt. we are not free from govt by being entitled to GOVT RECOGNITION which is what "marriage" is...

Dear, under common law, the federal government is required to recognize as married any and all couples the states tell them are married and to continue to recognize that couple as married, regardless of where they are and local laws governing the recognition of their marriage, period. Until said marriage is reported as no longer legally in existence by a state. Why do you imagine that Section 3 of DOMA has been found to be unconstitutional by EVERY SINGLE JUDGE that has heard an argument against it? The federal government has no authority to enforce state laws, if sates have legally married couples they refuse to recognize, that's their problem, not the federal government's. If you meet a state's requirements to marry, you are married, the federal government has no say in that matter.

Jane Dough wrote:

The proof is in the pudding, no courts have called gay marriage a fundamental right (except Walker in CA rapidly overruled on that point), even though you know full well that straight marriage has been found to be one...

The courts of this country, despite their reputation, rarely get too far ahead of public opinion on controversial issues and there is the issue of a case 40 years ahead of its time which is always being shoved in our way. But the tide has already turned and these cases are about to be decided upon in an environment which has approved of same sex marriages in ways never before. Uh-oh for your side.

[Not Yet Equal]

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,”“fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...

[nhjeff]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
AND polygamy, don't forget the states banned polygamy too and still do...

That is someone else's battle. You're trying to confuse people. Fortunately, we're not half as dumb as you need us to be.

[nhjeff]

Constitution-lover wrote:

<quoted text>
Obamacare is stealing. God does not support stealing. Helpping the sick and ol and poor should be from the heart not FORCED AT GUN POINT.

So I assume you will decline Social Security and Medicare. Afterall, those are paid for at gun-point by those still working.