States should not be allowed to vote on gay marriage

You'd like to think congress would have enough sense to go ahead and legalize same sex marriage through legislation, but the bible has too much impact on a nation that was founded on religious freedom.

 

I was hoping a Supreme Court ruling on prop 8 would solve that problem but it looks like with the latest decision that probably won't happen.

But really, this isn't the same as the southern states in the 60s. Then, states with major civil rights problems were the minority, and pressure from the other states led to federal legislation. The gay marriage/gay rights movement hasn't reached that point yet. If things keep going the way they're going, they will. More and more states will allow gay marriage, and eventually the ones that don't will be the minority. Soon after that the pressure will be strong on the federal government to do something for the whole country.

Unless the Supreme Court does something first.

 

It's a wasted issue politicians use to get $$. But the fact is no studies have ever shown a child is more likely to be homosexual if his/her parents are. If our leaders can pass any legislation to get one more child into a loving home where they will have a better life you do it. A child without love is a child without a life.

 

Ron Paul wants the states to be allowed to vote on contraception. I'm not sure on whether to return to separate water fountains for blacks and whites.

 

most gay kids have heterosexual parents...

 

States should not even have marriage licensing. It is just stupid as dating or cohabitation licensing. Fight the real power.

 

Of course it would. It's just that sometimes it takes societies time to realize the error of their ways. That sucks, especially for the people directly affected, and it doesn't mean we can't work to make it go faster, but it's hard to change so many people's minds overnight, and you still need to change people's minds before you can protect the rights of people who've long had their rights infringed upon.

 

Of course. And I agree with you on the federal legislation. But the people voting on the legislation need to have their minds changed, too, and often that's based almost completely on the minds of their constituents.

 

I don't think courts should be precluded from ruling on legislation one way or another, and I believe the chief executive of a jurisdiction should adhere to that ruling (but should not be precluded from concurrently filing appeals or amicus briefs); but I have absolutely no problem with federal or state legislatures or state electorates initially voting on the issue.

You can't leap frog or disregard the will of the citizens because you anticipate an outcome you don't agree with; I think it just sets a dreadful precedent that would clog the judiciary. The system is more important than any group or ideology: laws, not men.

 

I don't agree. The legislature should follow the constitution when writing laws.

 

I am inclined to agree because I don't think things like this can just be forced on states. I think that homosexuals shouldn't be denied rights and civil unions (or some other institution) as long as they provide all of the same protections as marriage is as far as courts should go while leaving the terminology of "marriage" up to the states to decide.

At the same time I believe under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution that states choosing not to have homosexual marriages should still have to recognize such marriages that took place in a state that does recognize homosexual marriage.

I think we need to be careful about balancing civil rights with democratic federalism. In my opinion a civil union that provides all of the rights is a reasonable compromise and personally I think all government recognized marriages should instead be called "civil unions."

Ideally I would like to see government out of the marriage business and leave it to contract law but that is very unlikely to happen.

 

Indeed. Congress should pass legislation barring states from discriminating against gays in granting marriage licenses. Marriage is typically a religious ceremony and the state shouldn't have any moral say in thbe matter. The only purpose of the license should be for state matters like taxation. Theses guys should demonstrate some common sense for once...

 

I don't know. Legal marriages are governed by the states. Marriage is hardly the civil rights issue that was Brown vs. BOE (and what blacks were going trough all the way through the 1970s at the least). I suppose the denial of benefits is harmful to them though.

I still wonder why anybody cares about gay marriage. How does it harm anyone? It will be a good day when Republicans no longer see this as a political issue.

 

Well, 2 straight guys can't get married, and a gay man is welcome to marry a woman.

Not disagreeing with you, just giving the best reasoning I can come up with as to why it isn't seen as unequal by the law.

 

Even more reasons to end licensing.