Pigotry

So what's wrong with merely passing a law that says "Civil Unions shall have the same legal rights and duties of a Marriage between heterosexual couples"?

Problem solved, and no big fight over using the term 'Marriage'.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Defense of Marriage Act, any state law authorizing same sex marriage is void because federal law trumps state law.

Allen - Respectfully, the SCOTUS has already determined and stated in a decision that marriage is a right. As such, it is not a priviledge which can be revoked at the whim of a state or the federal government.

As referenced and quoted (my emphasis):

Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia (1967) stated in his decision, "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 . . .

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

While this decision was based on color/racial identity, it none-the-less provides for the qualification of marriage as a civil right.

I hear you Matthew and appreciate the background of your text, but if is so, I then don't understand why the ability define what marriage is, is afforded from State to State. Although I understand the presentation you put forth, it obviously isn't universally accepted at the State level..or am I missing something here?

A majority of the States in the Country have Constitutional provisions defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. How have these changes come to pass in light of this interpretation of Loving v Virginia?

Allen, it's afforded from State to State until challenged and ruled on. The presumption is that a law passed by a Legislature is legal unless otherwise proven.

In 1967 the law that was overturned was leftover from the Virginia eugenics laws, specfically the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Until that law was challenged and taken to the SCOTUS to be overturned, it was the 'law of the land.' Very much the same as poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and "red-lining."

Note that this law is also why Virginia has no federally recognized Indian tribes. The law required that all non-whites be classified as 'colored' in the census. In two generations it basically wiped out the ability to track one's heritage.

With respect to the one-man-one-woman, much of the premise of those laws are actually holdovers from laws and practices defining inheritance. Then they were afforded a "religious validity" and support by the Churches.

What I find funny is that Prop 8 was pushed by the gay lobby and when it backfired they changed the rules. Got to love those sore losers.

Either way why anybody is fighting against gay marriage (as defined by the state) now is beyond me.

Yep - oral arguments.....seems appropriate for this oral group.

1funnygirl, ha, ha, I guess that is suppose to be funny. How ironic coming from a name like 1funny girl. Notice your alone out on that limb, and your the only one laughing at your stupid joke? So I guess you think that no one should have rights unless you approve them right? Here's a tip; Keep your mouth shut and you will not let others know how stupid you really are. Oh and I suppose the invisible man in the sky told you that all gays are sinners too? People like you are why this world is like it is with all the discrimination against others. So what's your problem, you think the gay couple next store will take away your hubby. Here's another clue worry more about your own marriage and you want need to worry about other people lives. Why are you so scared that others want there right. The only oral you need to worry about is your own man not someone else's. My wife and I have gay neighbors and I sure as he** would rather have them than the likes of you, When your hubby leaves you take a good look in the mirror. Grow up and, PS your comment was something a 2nd grader might have said. Have you had a child yet, if not I suggest you wait a few more years?

Well Who what and why,

Should be a gay time in the old town when this happens. Actually, I have no issue with gays marrying. They also should have equal rights on health care, inheritance at high tax values, and other legal items.

When this happens, will you libs take the issue off of the table and move on to other serious issues like the debt ceiling and the Obama spending policies?

You T-Publican, refer to us libs when you are pushing for rules to make every body do what you do. It is the GOP people that have a thorn in their butts about anything gay. Why does the party that keeps telling the world that too many government rules slow down growth, spend all their time making more rules for every body to follow?

It is the GOP folk that make rules against, gays, old, poor, and anyone else that might not support the rich. I'm not gay or rich, and I retired two years ago, so I'll have to expect an attack from the greedy, bigots from the right any time now.

Actually, a majority of voters support gay marriage. Your "facts" just aren't real.

Those facts were as Allan in Omaha stated in his post "These are law abiding people who are not able to enjoy the same privilege as others simply because a voting majority say we don't want 'them' to have it". Did not a majority in California vote against it? Is it legal in all states? As I said I don't have a problem with it myself, this is one of the several issues I do agree with liberals on!

All law abiding taxpayers deserve the exact same rights and freedoms everyone else take for granted, including the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. You cannot vote away anyones constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. Yes, I know, that GOP and the Tea Party busy bodies regulary pass un-constitutional laws and they think that they can vote away anyones rights by popular vote. Maybe, they should read the Constitution they are always yapping about.

mikeinoregon -

Yes, obviously a majority in California voted against it - in California. The problem is that there are federal benefits in question if a couple is married in one state and then moves to another state where that marriage is not recognized - not sure where I read it, but I know I read somewhere that there are at least a thousand different benefits involved. Maybe I'm over-simplifying what's obviously going to be a very complex ruling, but I just don't see how the court can rule that this is something that individual states can decide.

In fact, I have a hard time believing this is something that can be fairly argued in just two days. This is going to be a MAJOR decision, of historic impact, no matter which side you're on.

Mike, if marriage is a civil right (and I believe that it has been already established as such by the SCOTUS) then it is federally recognized and as such all states must recognize it. It wouldn't matter if CA voted against it or NY voted in favor of it. It would have to be recognized everywhere in the US.

Actually, a majority of voters support gay marriage. Your "facts" just aren't real.

Not in California apparently.

I think the point of the Supreme Court in the Loving case, as well as others, is that while the states have the right and ability to legislate in many areas, they can't legislate away a basic right and the Court was saying the right to marry the person of one's choice is a basic right.

So a state can require you to have a license, or set a minimum age, or regulate the officiants but they can't take away a basic right.

I understand that some people have strong religious views about same sex marriage but no one is requiring religions to sanction them. I just don't see how two people of the same sex being in a committed legal relationship hurts anyone else.

If the will of the voters is unconstitutional than it is the correct ruling of the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the electoate. The March ruling should be pivotal in understanding the legality or illegality of same sex marriage.

Either way it cuts, privilege or right, I don't see any valid presentation that the State could or should be endorsing that says this should can not happen.

I mean at it's basic level, how can the same State uphold laws that could legally punish an Employer from not hiring a person based on their sexual orientation and then turn around and say that they will not allow, nor recognize your marriage, based off of sexual orientation?

False equivalency, unlike homosexuality, Pedophilia is a crime against children who are not at the age of consent. You can force someone against their will, or you can coerce someone who lacks the will to object, either way its still a crime.

JerseyJoe - you can easily avoid that by not reading the articles. See how easy that is???