CA one step closer to legalizing gay marriage
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sloginWonder how this will play out, nationally, this election year. Return of the wedge?
Comments
Bet on it.
"Do you want Barack Obama forcing NANCY PELOSI'S SAN FRANCISCO VALUES AND THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA on you?!? ZOMG! TEH GAYZ!!!"
(Of course, the above message will be delivered via various 527s so that McCain can claim to run a "clean campaign.")
tell them to turn their terrified gaze to the North where Elton John is not the Mayor of Toronto and Lindsay Lohan and Sam Ronson are not sharing Premier duties.
Don't they know how much $$ there is to be made in this?
I don't think "reason" has much to do with it.
Exactly.
Also, what is "ZOMG?" Is that something I missed before? I don't even know what it is, but yet I like it.
really? I think you can make a reasonable argument against almost any federal law.
It'll be interesting to see how Obama speaks to this court decision. He is on record as being against gay marriage but for[/b] gay civil unions. I wonder if he will need to refine his argument.
dude... giving people civil rights is a bad thing?
you sound like ron paul.
*eyeroll* yeah that's what I said dude; giving people civil rights is a bad thing.
hey I'm just keeping you honest. you know your statement was off the mark. given the constitutional structure in place in the US, a reasonable argument can be made against reams of Fed regulation.
I NEVER said that *I* would be the one making these arguments, but you and I both know that there are principled constitutional arguments to be made against lots of Fed regulation. that the people attacking gay marriage generally (a) aren't principled and (b) don't know shit about federalism is another matter entirely.
lol on the Ron Paul remark.
i don't see what the problem is. the alternative would be to leave it up to the states, but its difficult for state legislators to get things done when you have judges who say the law is invalid (Mass & Cali both faced this problem).
therefore, a federal law is appropriate and long overdue.
Yes, that's A reason, but it's not "reason" in the abstract. I'm not trying to argue, I just wanted to draw the distinction. As Rootless said, anyone can argue a case against a federal law, but that doesn't mean the case is "reasonable." In the case of gay marriage, I've heard lots of cases against, but few if any have been reasonable.
well, there's your "reasonable argument" right there.
and it's an argument that some advocates of gay marriage have been using for quite some time now. (in the face of the once-possible Constitutional amendment re: marrige between man and woman, gay marriage is one of the areas where otherwise "liberal" voters found themselves pushing states rights).
I'm not saying I agree with it, but your first poast was sorta hysterical. of course there's a "reasonable argument" argument against a federal gay marriage law (just as there's a "reasonable argument" against the Brady Bill, etc.).
the counter arguments (its traditional, "family values", will marrying a dog be next?) are so ludicrous and insulting, it amazes me every time i see some douchebag actually try to defend how things are - or worse, push for a law against it.
..says the guy advocating a federal law for it.
dude and that's my whole point: a "reasonable" argument can be (and has been) made against both of these (laws for and laws against gay marriage) on the basis of the US Constitution's vesting non-enumerated powers in the states. I know you understand this.
the "hysterical" part of your poast was your faux disbelief that "anyone" could even possibly make a "reasonable" argument against a federal gay marriage law.
I'd say the US Constitution is a solid foundation for a "reasonable" argument against many, many federal laws in various areas, from the environment to gun control to gay marriage.
[*sigh* and yes I think the law should protect the right to gay marriage (and I resent having to state this).]
I'm not sure, either, but I read is as "Zoiks! Oh my God!"
have you ever heard of the civil rights act? i don't know where you are coming from, other than as a Ron Paul type who thinks states should be able to decide everything, no matter how out of step they are with what's right.
we need a federal law for gay marriage because states are not doing the right thing, just like we needed the civil rights act for the same reason (segregated schools, lunch counters, etc.).
so no, i really don't think there is a reasonable counter argument.
yes.
Oh please Mr. Yankee sir...please, please, please tell us lowly Southerners what is really right for us.
Yes, and one out of a hundred creates a batting average of .010.
Maybe that one hit was a home run...but every other at bat has been a strike out on 3 pitches.
Where does Hillary stand on this??
C'mon, the door was wide open for that one.
More likely, this will end up resolved at the Supreme Court level though, with the current court, I'm not sure how that'd play out.
I don't see how you can throw this back to the states. If I get legally married in CA, my marriage benefits don't extend across state lines? That doesn't make sense to me. I think this HAS to be eventually adjudicated at the federal level. It seems unavoidable, just as anti-miscegenation laws required a federal ruling to abolish them once and for all.
I don't think "marriage" should be a concept that the government recognizes at all.
MARRIAGE however, carries not just legal qualities but cultural and religious connotations. I won't speak for the one Faux here but there's an argument made that the State should get out of the marriage game and instead, deal in civil unions for all couples (regardless of orientation). That would leave "marriage" to non-state institutions to govern.
I don't see that happening but it's not a bad idea.
ALl this aside though, I don't think the State will ever abandon the term "marriage" which means, at the end of the day, better to bring in as many people under the tent.
Question: I know this is supposed to be a red herring but why wouldn't a ruling like this open up the possibility of legalizing polygamy?