And the extremes start again. I love how people think that because one person is gay or lesbian they're ALL gonna become gay. It just doesn't freaking happen. There will ALWAYS be people having kids somewhere. Two men or women loving each other isn't gonna change that. You people need to get overselves. There's a whole other world out there past your prejudices.

Let people be who they are and leave them alone. We need good parents period, regardless of gay or straight, too many just don't have any.

I agree

and there are single parents who are doing wonderful jobs everywhere

but , all things being equal, which they never are,, the IDEAL we need to encourage is for PARENTS (those who will create a life together) to commit first to each other,,,,

This should be up to the voters at the ballot box, not a suit in a building that can be bought.

I Agree, let it be a state issue left to voters,,,,if it has to be an issue at all,,,

Obviously it's still an issue if gay people are not allowed to marry unless the Governor signs it into law, or it's voted on. It's unfortunate it has to be that way at all, though.

Why? It should be up to the people of the country and state. If people think it should be allowed then let them decide at the ballot box. It really offends a lot of people and if the majority of the people are against it then so be it.

It's sad it's an issue at all.

what is marriage but government aknowledegment?

if its a matter only of church acknowledgement the churches can perform those when and how they wish,,,,


right now, government aknowledges a marriage as an ADULT HUSBAND and a WIFE,, not related


husband being male, wife being female
, adult being whatever age of majority exists from state to state

not related, probably to avoid family foundations in which children will have uncle dads and aunt moms,,,etc,,,,,

Indeed The gov'ment needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. (it is a religious ceremony, after all) Some churches will doubtless marry gay couples-some already choose to.

There have been several cases heard in the lower, district Supreme Courts: I’ve condensed the main points of three of those cases below. Portions of the articles appear at the end.

I think the main points are:

DOMA (at the least section 3) has been declared unconstitutional at the lower ‘district’ supreme courts
Among the reasons:

DOMA should be considered under the more critical heightened scrutiny measure and also noted - that several courts have found that the provision would not even pass the more deferential rational basis test.
Because
“neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.”

Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married.

the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ (or any other state) marriage licenses differently than others.

DOMA violates the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law.

Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth is that the 10th Amendment prevents Congress from defining marriage, a right that the states held until 1996.

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.

So where we are now is:

The Federal Supreme Court has thus far refused to take up any of the cases pertaining to DOMA. Many such cases are still in litigation and moving their way up the Court chain.

There are now enough cases in which Federal judges have ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional to allow the Supreme Court to take up any one of these cases and simply agree with the precedent already set – in other words they no longer have to be the bad guys, they can simply agree with the lower courts.

If the Supreme Court upholds the precedent then DOMA will be considered an illegal law. On the face of it, the federal government simply was not allowed to define marriage, that right belongs to the Commonwealth (states).

Also, because the federal government cannot discriminate in its laws, same-sex couples who are married legally in any state, must have the same protections and responsibilities as any other married couple.

If (when) that happens, same-sex married couples will be free to move from state to state, or job to job, knowing that they will receive the same treatment as any other married couple.

I’m uncertain about the restrictions that same-sex couples might encounter in state to state moves. For example, every state currently recognizes marriages & divorces & adoptions from every other state. I don’t know how far some states would go in refusing to recognize SS marriages & families and how much legal leeway they have to adhere to such open discrimination under federal law.

If a particular state then refused to issue a marriage license only to same-sex couples who have been married by another state, then I believe that too will make many appearances in supreme courts.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some states would go so far as to NOT recognize any other marriages or divorces that have not been sanctioned within that state. That would mean that every marriage and adoption would require a new license in order to be considered legal in that state for the purposes of accessing state programs (including adoption and divorces).

It could happen, but whether heterosexual couples approve of SS marriage or not, I don’t think heterosexual couples will stand still while their own marriages & families are discriminated against.




--I’ve added info below about the cases mentioned in the last paragraph.----

interesting perspectives,,,,

the only problem I see is that once you say a government entity, whether federal or state, should not have the legal right to define marriage one way or the other,,,

it makes it hard to justify ANY requirements whatsoever


in this paragraph alone

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
"


you could easily replace 'same sex' marriage with, incestuous, or minor , or any other description of any potential relationship which people may raise children together in,,,,

time will tell

but I do think its most likely we will move toward an anything goes society,

where marriage is nothing but a contract,,,,,

I look at it as more a title than anything else really. I don't think we REALLY need it as much as the state tells us we have to have it for our relationship to be legitimized. If two people love and committed to each other regardless of gender(s), that matters more than some piece of paper and a ceremony and to me is all you really need.

All the rest can only cover so much anyway, if the relationship is bad, no large wedding is gonna save it. It's the people that matter not the title.

Yes, but that has always been the case, in that, states have the right to make laws that define marriage for that particular state.

In fact, if one compares and contrasts the marriage laws from state to state it would be noted that some stats allow marriages of first cousins while other states require three degrees of separation (third cousins).

Some states struggled with the idea of marraige between half-siblings. Changes in adoptions laws which required that adopted children be allowd access to their birth history was partially a responce to strick marriage laws against siblings. Proof of the "degree of separation" was required in some states in order to issue a marriage license.

Utah allowed polygamy and there was such an uproar in other states that they passed laws (which would never stand up in courts today) to guard against it in their state and would even prosecute those who practiced polygamy in state. What finally happened is that one of the conditions of Utah becoming a state required that they abolish the acceptance and practice of polygamy.

Today we regognize how illegal that was, and that's why Utah, from time to time (including right now) has allowed those unions to exist and has even considered legalizing them again. And they have the right to do that.

The point is, that no matter how any state defines marriage for thier own purposes/interests, ALL of those marriages must be granted all the same treatment under federal law, because federal law must respect the marraiges from every state. Definition of marriage is out of federal control becasue federal law applys to all the people regardless of state and local laws.

When it comes to defining marriage, every state must consider the impact of those laws not only on its budget but they must also be weighed against U.S. Constitutional law, which is constently changing. Can any of the people affected by these laws be considered a protected class as defined by any sources of Constitutional law (Supreme Court cases).

There is currently a large volume of case precedent in the Supreme courts which define homosexuals as a protected class, that's why judges are saying that discrimination claims by homosexuals must be reviewed with heightened scrutiny.

Whether there would ever be a time that polygomists, siblings, cousins and in-laws could fall under the definition of protected class does remain to be seen. Obviously we can't forsee the future and all laws must be flexible in order to accommodate broad changes in social values and attitudes.

When we consider how long it took for this country to accept interracial marriage, and integration of African Americans and at least a similar amount of time for homosexuals to come as far as they have, then we have to expect further changes to states marriage laws could be a long way off. But change occurs and we have to face issues as they come up.

i agree with you.

This would not be a problem at all IF the laws being voted on were not a matter of U.S. Constitutional concern.

The U.S. Constitution as defined and explained by the judiciary system must determines what 'issues' states can address on popular vote. In other words, no state make laws by popular vote that enfringe on the freedoms and liberties thar guaranteed under the Constitution.

That has been the premise of this battle over marraige equality. It was not the fact that states could define marriage, but that the federal government had done so with DOMA. This is what the courts have recently been declaring unconstitutional.

During this whole process, the corts have also declared that cases involving discrimination of homosexuals are subject to heightened scrutiny, which meant that homosexuals are now considered a minority entitled to the same Constitutional protections of other classes of minorities.

When DOMA is no longer the barrier it is today, then the battle will take a new turn. The question will then become -- Can the laws that would blatently discriminate against a minority class be put to a popular vote?

If homosexuals are defined by the judiciary as a minority class, they join the ranks of other minority classes; ethnicity, race, women, handicapped ... and they are protected from being singled out or segregated by any state law, and even any Constitutional law unless there is extenuating government interst involved.

Thus, no popular vote can be taken at any level which would result in the discrimination of any or all minority classes.

scary,, to me, that something originated to prevent people from being kept from jobs or education should be so broadly applied to every situation and every circumstance,,,,


I dont see defining marriage as one male and female as discriminatory because EVERY class has males and females in it,,,

but, I guess it could be argued that because the homosexual 'class' is not attracted the same way as heterosexuals (those who havent had kids with a heterosexual,, at least), it indirectly discriminates


it also discriminates on the basis of familial status though, to say one man and one woman and that they cannot be related


it also discriminates the protected class 'genetic information' (which is set up to prevent people with genetic likelihood toward disease from receiving insurance), if we apply it as the foundation for not allowing siblings to marry,,,


the list could spread on and on, because we have tried to make sure all citizens are treated equally when it comes to being able to WORK and become educated or get medical care,,,,and defined them as 'protected'

a term now being used to 'protect' for other situations and circumstances as well,,,


but it may come, to appease everyone of every 'class', that we stop defining marriage/encouraging marriage at all on a government level and just 'live and let live'


the kids are already exposed by media to the anything goes culture,, why not take it all the way,,,,

What business does the state have dictating what our relationships are or aren't? Is that not a personal thing? It ought to be.......