Gay Marriage and the court

[Chris James]

"Coming soon to a courtroom near you." Don't you feel that all the energy and money being spent in resistance to what will eventually happen across the land, legal gay marriage, has just gotten out of hand?

Every time I hear a politician say that he objects to gay marriage on moral (read that as Christian) principles I cringe. You sir, or madam, are infringing on our Constitutional rights with that blather. "But the voters said..." yes they did in many states, and they were wrong. They were wrong because they were fed propaganda and legal BS by politicians.

What politician would now say let's make interracial marriage illegal. A few decades back the "moral values" were far different and it took a federal court to set things straight. Moral values change but the Constitution has not lost it's power. And once again here we are banging on the courtroom door.

Interesting article attached here which points out that even judges seem confused about what they can accomplish. But like the rest of you I wish the Supreme Court of the land would get on with it and make all this crap go away.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140813/OPINION05/308130136

[Cole Parker]

The fear is the Supreme Court won't make it go away. There are several judges on the bench that I doubt would ever vote for marriage equality. We assume we'll have our way, but I don't think it's guaranteed.

C

[DesDownunder]

If Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is denied status as a human right on religious grounds, or any other argument, moral or otherwise, that is claimed by the religious right, or by those who simply see SSM as against nature, then I think we can expect to see a confrontation that will make Stonewall look like happy hour at the local bar. I'm not saying this to encourage any such confrontation; just stating this as an observable possibility. However, those who oppose SSM should not be surprised if their arguments against SSM are met with an attack on the very logic and the rationale of their opinions and the religions on which they are based.

It may just be that to rid the world of religious stupidity, the stand against SSM could trigger the freedom from religion that so many religious bigots seem to fear.

The LGBT community has no real interest to reveal religion as a sham, but if they are left with no alternative it is an obvious, if ironic, means to them reacting against being denied the recognition of their human right to wed whom they love.

The ridiculous thing is that if the hard core zealots had just turned a blind eye, as they have to so many other "sacred" laws in their bibles, then all this angst could have been avoided. Instead they have shrieked unnecessarily, and loudly at something that doesn't have any bearing on their being able to practise their religion.

Leave us alone to live our lives, peacefully and lovingly, or find that even more people will abandon the churches for a much more accepting state.

[DesDownunder]

The American Bar Association has just posted a pdf of their adopted resolution recognising LGBT Rights as Human Rights.

[Graeme]

There's been a suggestion that one of the reasons the Supreme Court has been slow to react is because of the backlash due to the Roe vs Ward decision. It has been suggested that that decision preceded community standards at the time by too much, and it resulted in entrenched positions. The theory is that if they wait longer for society itself to evolve, when they eventually make a decision (like they did in Loving vs Virginia), they're merely reaffirming society's views on the remaining states that were resisting.

However, I don't see that they can refuse to take the matter in the next term. There's too much pressure on them from the various states.