Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage
posted at 3/28/2013 7:26 AM EDT
In response to Reubenhop's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
Loving v. Virginia: It violates federal due process to prohibit blacks and whites marrying each other.
Skin color is genetic. Sexual orientation is epi-genetic.
This isn't a trick question. It isn't even an analogy. Prohibitions on gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. That it has not been so held indicates just how strong the social conservative agenda is in influencing legal rulings. And yet we have some crying here about "progressives"....
Posted by BDC
The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan.
She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was ‘‘to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’’ The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.
The Supreme Court did not decide Loving v. Virginia, until 1967; by that time only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in place.
During the 1940s and 1950s the Supreme Court repeatedly turned down opportunities to make a broad constitutional ruling on anti-miscegenation laws. Only when the tide of public opinion had already turned did the Court feel the time was right to make its decision, a correct decision.
Point being, the Supreme Court has almost always rightly considered its limited role as a co-equal, branch of government, not a dictatorial branch.
Not a political branch using the due process and equal protection clauses to impose its own views on divisive social issues.
Imposing a Roe v Wade type dictatorial decision on all 50 states would be improper, and also may well backfire on the cause of gay marriage.
So minorities can be oppressed (for no rational reason) by the majority until it changes its mind... I truly wish you experience what it is like to be a minority so we can pat you on the head and preach patience while you live with being a second class citizen. Just wait for the bigots to come around... any day now... Such a view is morally corrupt. The "tyranny of the majority" was a primary concern of the Founders. You embrace it. You are on the wrong side of progress and of the history of our American ideals.
No one is being oppressed here. You have the same right to marry that I have. What this is about is feelings. I'm saddend that we can't have a conversation about this (Aren't progressives always lookign for us to have 'conversations' on these things?) without you calling everyone who disagrees with you bigots. I don't care what you do. I don't approve of it either, and I don't see how confering this special status helps our society. I think these are legitimate points, no matter how loudly you condem them with personal attacks. See, it is about feelings.
That being said, arguing against gay marriage is a lost cause. It has become a lost cause, as there are too many liberal votes involved, to many people that think it is about not hurting feelings as opposed to doing what is good for our society.