The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

[scottie]

Check this out -- Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...riage-support/

[RobinFinderson]

Check this out -- Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...riage-support/

The writing is on the wall. Rick Warren has done an about face. Now this ex-McCain aide. It is clear which side is going to win, and folks who want to be on the winning side of history are doing what is necessary to convincingly 'see the light.' It kind of reminds me of a game of musical chairs. The music has stopped and everyone is rushing to grab a seat. Fair or not, at the end of the day it is going to be the Mormons left without a seat. The Mormon church is the face of opposition to the gay marriage effort.

The Colbert version of the 'gathering storm' ad is only margianlly funny, but it heats up at the end when the voice-over/text states, "The National Organization for Colbert, paid for by generous donations from an anonymous group that may or may not be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

[SteelBlue]

Someone might want to call that 1-800 number and inform them that Gordon Hinckley is dead.

[byu71]

The writing is on the wall. Rick Warren has done an about face. Now this ex-McCain aide. It is clear which side is going to win, and folks who want to be on the winning side of history are doing what is necessary to convincingly 'see the light.' It kind of reminds me of a game of musical chairs. The music has stopped and everyone is rushing to grab a seat. Fair or not, at the end of the day it is going to be the Mormons left without a seat. The Mormon church is the face of opposition to the gay marriage effort.

The Colbert version of the 'gathering storm' ad is only margianlly funny, but it heats up at the end when the voice-over/text states, "The National Organization for Colbert, paid for by generous donations from an anonymous group that may or may not be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

So the Catholic's and Southern Baptists have given up. How about the Muslim community have they now embraced the gay marriage agenda. What about President Obama, has he come out in favor of gay marriage yet?

[wuapinmon]

Overall, I have to agree that the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely.

I agree completely.

[wuapinmon]

Why I am in favor of allowing gays to marry:

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[RobinFinderson]

So the Catholic's and Southern Baptists have given up. How about the Muslim community have they now embraced the gay marriage agenda. What about President Obama, has he come out in favor of gay marriage yet?

Whatever the Catholic and Southern Baptist churches say about SSM, they have managed to avoid becoming the face of opposition. The Muslim community has avoided this as well. Perhaps by the skillful political maneuvering of Jon Huntsman the LDS church can avoid being the guy left holding the bag.

[byu71]

Why I am in favor of allowing gays to marry:

14th Amendment

Please, do you think if any number of people but a few thought not allowing gays to marry is against the 14th amendment that it wouldn't have been brought before the Supreme Court by now.

I can't take a leak in a womans rest room. Should I holler about my fourteenth amendment rights being violated.

[RobinFinderson]

Please, do you think if any number of people but a few thought not allowing gays to marry is against the 14th amendment that it wouldn't have been brought before the Supreme Court by now.

I can't take a leak in a womans rest room. Should I holler about my fourteenth amendment rights being violated.

Equal protection has been the basis of expanding marriage rights to gay people in all of the states where this has occurred. There are all kinds of political reasons, on both sides of the issue (as well as the SC's own interests) for why a pivotal case has not come before the bench. But it will happen soon.

[UtahDan]

Equal protection has been the basis of expanding marriage rights to gay people in all of the states where this has occurred. There are all kinds of political reasons, on both sides of the issue (as well as the SC's own interests) for why a pivotal case has not come before the bench. But it will happen soon.

But not under the 14th amendment. It has been done under the constitutions of those states which have similar provisions. SCOTUS to my knowledge has never interpreted the 14th amendment to say what you are wanting it to but they certainly could some day. If a privacy right can materialize from the penumbra of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments where it had been hiding undetected for almost 200 years, anything is possible. But I think it will be many years before you have a SCOTUS make up that will buy this. Too many conservatives too young.

[byu71]

Equal protection has been the basis of expanding marriage rights to gay people in all of the states where this has occurred. There are all kinds of political reasons, on both sides of the issue (as well as the SC's own interests) for why a pivotal case has not come before the bench. But it will happen soon.

So if the supreme court took it up and allowed gay marriages. Would that mean then that polygamy would then become acceptable and of course wouldn't the constitution override a parents right, so a 13 year old who wants to marry a 40 year old shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

[wuapinmon]

Please, do you think if any number of people but a few thought not allowing gays to marry is against the 14th amendment that it wouldn't have been brought before the Supreme Court by now.

I can't take a leak in a womans rest room. Should I holler about my fourteenth amendment rights being violated.

I merely said why _I_ was in favor of their marriage. The SCOTUS will consider the case based on the 14th Amendment, and it will rule in favor of allowing gay marriage throughout the land, or Congress will disallow all marriages and only allow civil unions.

There's no other solution. The war is lost; Prop 8 was a Pyrrhic victory.

[RobinFinderson]

But not under the 14th amendment. It has been done under the constitutions of those states which have similar provisions. SCOTUS to my knowledge has never interpreted the 14th amendment to say what you are wanting it to but they certainly could some day. If a privacy right can materialize from the penumbra of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments where it had been hiding undetected for almost 200 years, anything is possible. But I think it will be many years before you have a SCOTUS make up that will buy this. Too many conservatives too young.

Please educate me -- are you saying that state supreme courts look only to their own state constitutions in deciding the legality of these issues? And that only the 'equal protection' clauses in those state constitutions have counted so far? I had always assumed that state supreme courts weigh the federal constitution in addition to their state's constitution.

[byu71]

I merely said why _I_ was in favor of their marriage. The SCOTUS will consider the case based on the 14th Amendment, and it will rule in favor of allowing gay marriage throughout the land, or Congress will disallow all marriages and only allow civil unions.

There's no other solution. The war is lost; Prop 8 was a Pyrrhic victory.

You see no way a compromise can be obtained. Only hetero sexuals who are of age can be married to one partner at a time. Everyone else gets all the legal benefits through something called civil union. You just don't see that happening.

In other words the gays are going to make sure it gets rammed down someone's throat even if they don't obtain any additional rights by doing so.

[UtahDan]

Please educate me -- are you saying that state supreme courts look only to their own state constitutions in deciding the legality of these issues? And that only the 'equal protection' clauses in those state constitutions have counted so far? I had always assumed that state supreme courts weigh the federal constitution in addition to their state's constitution.

Yes. A state constitution can always confer more rights than the federal constitution. Since the federal courts have not been willing to do it so far, litigants have asked their state high court's to interpret the state constitutions as guaranteeing these rights and many of them have. I'm not up on the specifics of how this has been done, but my understanding is that all of the states that how guaranteed the right to a gay marriage by judicial fiat have done so under the authority of a state constitution.