So your saying that straight couples are given MORE benefits then gay couples?

That doesn't sound very equal.

Tell me where the court doesn't have a right to intervene...

You haven't beeen reading. And you misinterpret the issue.

#1 gays have always been able to wed, many have children, many are fathers and mothers...isn't that correct?
#2 if ssm were permitted by a court....overruling a legislative endeavor...I consider my rights being violated no matter the issue. I tried to add another issue and an example. Virginia's supreme court just struck down Virginia's ban on third term abortions...that also came from a legislative endeavor. I see these constituents dismissed as if their intent isn't clear.
#3 The issue arises in Massachusetts as well. This time the legislature approved same sex marriage or voted to not amend their Constitution. I don't think the voters in Massachusetts were denied their rights, the issue was handeled in the Legislature and the people's voices heard. Similiar to Vermont...that approved civil unions rather than marriage. Coming from the Legislature and supported by the voter either through referedum or representative voice, I'd accept same sex marriage in my state or any other. Coming from a judiciary...no way and I see a clear reduction in rights here and stand confused as to how you don't see that. It IS government intervening in your life. It is a government branch giving orders to those it is supposed to derive its' power from.
#4 The question answered. Same sex marriage in itself does not take my rights away. The inability to decide how societal institutions are defined clearly reduces my rights.
#5 It is time for you to answer a question
#6 If a state amends its Constitution...and in black and white in its Constitution is the definition of marriage...like so many states have done already...should this be the final word? Should a lawsuit arise and make it to the State Supreme Court.....with absolute black and white definition written into it...does the judiciary interpret that law correctly or legislate from the bench? The Judiciary does not make laws, Gentlemen, and this is a clear violation of exactlt that. How you all can cheer this merely given your political position on the matter is telling. Now...my question stands. Who should have final word on the issue. Government involvement needed at all? ANd if so...what branch of government has the final word given there is a disagreement?

 So the problem you have is not with Gays being able to get married but instead your problem is the way that institution was granted. I see.
 I agree that the judiciary should not "legislate from the bench"  but what has taken place here is not that.
 The judiciary is not simply a tool of the legislative branch used to implement or execute the laws they pass like some police force in robes. A large part of their job is to determine if a given law is legal under a law with a higher authority.
  The constitution provides for a system of checks and balances against the legislature writing bad law however popular it may be. The executive branch has the power of veto and the judiciary has the power to overturn. If you have a problem with this judicial power you have a problem with the constitution itself.
 For examle; prior to 1954 many state constitutions had laws for de jure, or enforceable segregation. These laws were populist and could easily have passed referendum they were in the constitutions in "black and white". Segregation was law.
 Then came Brown vs the Board of Education and these segregation laws were held to scrutiny to see if they worked under the higher law of the U S constitution and the Bill of rights. They did not not and they were overturned. This was similar to what happened in the California ssm case. This was not "legislating from the bench". This was a judiciary executing their duty and applying the fundamentals of the constitutional mechanism of checks and balances. More accurately it could be called stopping legislature from the bench.  not writing legislation from the bench. They did their duty within their authority.
 A smart and careful legislature would be self policing in not writing or passing bills that conflict with a higher order of law. When they do the judiciary should, and does correct the situation. 
 This is how the constitution was meant to work.

... if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

That's like asking a straight person to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Kinda awkward, no?


The judicial has a right to strike down legislation (even if it's by public referendum) if it violates the US Constitution - much like the Jim Crow laws.

Banning gay marriage cheats citizens out of the same benefits of straight couple, essentially creating an unequal populace. This is not allowed because of the 9th ammendment, which comes before the 10th which means this decision is NOT up to the states.


No, it is the stopping of unequal treatment.

There is NO reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed the benefits of marriage while straight couples can. Either remove government from marriage or give equal treatment to those who should qualify. Again, the public doesn't get to change the "Bill of Rights".


You don't get to treat people unequaly because you voted for it.

Again, it's not your choice and it is the judical branch's obligation to make sure laws don't disenfranchise any group for any reason.


You're welcome to ask me.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- The 9th Ammendment

This allows the court to intervene because the original defenition would deny homosexuals of particular rights, namely the benefits that straight couples get to enjoy.

This is why Affirmitive Action is unconstitutional - another law that should be challenged in court but never will.


They're saying that banning people the right to enjoy federal rights is unconstitutional... AND IT IS.

It's NOT legislating from the bench. It's serving US law on the basis of equality - the concept this country is based on.


Actually, you ignored the constitutional argument the court and I have given you. Why don't you actually address the issue? Or are you content with headlines and surface details?


And I knocked it down.


The Constitution has the last word.

Another posterchild example. Bbw gives a clear and outright opinion here on exactly how marriage should be defined. Bbw claims there is no issue and we merely move on. This vote counts as one. So does mine. So do each of yours. We all influence our definition of marriage..We being the People of the United States.

Bbw, makes it very clear, it's also painfully obvious in many arenas where ssm is submitted to each and every opinion...it gets stomped on.

I don't know if it's awkward or not, I've never wed out of gender. One, its not recognized in my state. Two...I'm not asking anyone to marry anyone else. Where do you get this "asking" from? Are you going to submit to me that no gay people are married? That hundreds of thousands of them have children as well? Many children? Is that awkward as well, I don't know that either? You're acting as if this doesn't happen all the time, like it's "awkward" or abnormal that gay people are getting married to the opposite gender and having children. Secondly, it's a trick question. You must fram your question as follows...."That's like asking persons of opposite gender to marry someone of the same gender. Kinda awkward, no? And my answer would be exactly the same. I don't know. I married the opposite gender, what can I say?


What say the US Constitution has it written into its Constitution then...like it does now? What say the ban on same sex marriage is both prohibited by the State Constitution and the US Constitution?


The opinion that behavior warrants equal protection clearly isn't agreed to by law. You have an interesting opinion here, however, that is all it is.


As is this. Mere opinion.


No...but it does get to decide what falls under that bill of rights. It can define its own institutions as it sees fit. And your Bill of Rights is an excellent example here, what body of Government does this Bill derive? Who underwrites those first two? Would any Court finding any one of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional be spared my wrath? Of course not. The Legislative Branch is where these institutions are historically and absolutely defined. The Civil Rights Act was civil rights legislation as an example. Courts rule on the interpretation of written law, if the intent of the framer's is clear(You and I are framers here, we all do carry power to change the living document that is the Constitution, both state and u.s.)....and in the case of ssm, it is VERY clear.


I'm sorry, gender discrimination is a reality as enlightened humanity realizes differences in men and women. Women are going to be given leave to have children for example written into both state and federal statutes. You may not by law...as a man...leave your post for 6 weeks as you've fathered a child. Obvious and clear distinctions such as these are made while writing our laws and it is the definition of people being treated differently based on votes. Happens everyday.


Excuse me. So that the judicial branch is then checked....and balanced....the Legislature defines 'reason.' Gender reasons in this particular case.


This was challenged in court, was it not?


The overwhelming majority seems to disagree. So much that they chose to amend their Constitutions based on definitions that are impossible to confuse or misinterpret by any court.


You've given me mere opinion and claim its addressing the issue? . Ok. I'm giving you the argument from the Legislative side. I'm telling you it's amended in two dozen states, that's the argument I'm giving you. I understand the argument you're making, I mereley disagree and point you to the law. The legislative branch has made this clear, the court does not get to make up its own decisions, it must read the law as it was intended and rule. A no brainer.


It's towering 12 feet over your head, your opinions cut nothing. Still here.


And not an interpretation of it by a few lawyers promoted to a Bench, I'm glad we finally agree. The Constitution DOES have the final and last word and that's why so many states chose to word it quite specifically. One man and one woman. They must not be related, there are age restrictions, there are nationality restrictions and ramifications, and..you must not be currently married. You will be treated differently if you're already married.

I'm sure at one point, each and every vote would have kept slavery in place as well. The question here is what will change - the answer is nothing. Sure, maybe a new dictionary is in order, but other than that, you'll wake up in the morning unable to feel any different. That's because same sex marriage doesn't affect you, or anybody else that for that matter except the gays who can't get married.

If people are pissed because their archaic beliefs aren't being heard, well, so be it. Sometimes a child's hand needs to be forced.