Dirk and I support Marriage Equality…

Kiss 2 Crop Flip Equality… because we all deserve the freedom to marry the person we love.

(Image taken from TitanMen’s Extra Firm)

7 replies
  1. Frank Knottyfor
    Frank Knottyfor says:

    A KNOTTYFOR prediction:

    (1) SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will decide that the plaintiffs in the California Prop 8 case (the ones in favor of upholding Prop 8 and denying same-sex marriage in that state) do not have the legal concept of “standing” (personal involvement in the issue) to sue, and, thus, uphold the lower court’s decision striking Prop 8. A win for California same-sex couples.

    (2) SCOTUS will overturn DOMA to the extent that Hater-States will have to recognize same-sex marriages conducted legally in Civil-Rights states. It will also decide that DOMA doesn’t apply to the federal government and its programs. The Constitution’s Full Faith & Credit Clause will be upheld.

    We should know the answer by the end of June, if not before.

    Reply
    • Jesse
      Jesse says:

      I certainly hope you’re right, and I agree with your assessment of the Prop 8 case. In the case of Windsor v. United States, however, I’m expecting SCOTUS to issue a slightly more narrow ruling, granting federal rights and benefits to legally-married couples in equality states but also permitting non-equality states to retain their state laws/amendments. That would create a bit of a mess… couples who marry in equality states but live in non-equality states would be able to claim federal benefits, but not state ones.

      I have every confidence that we’ll see 100% marriage equality throughout the U.S. in my lifetime. It may not happen in June… but it will happen.

      Reply
      • Frank Knottyfor
        Frank Knottyfor says:

        “…granting federal rights and benefits to legally-married couples in equality states but also permitting non-equality states to retain their state laws/amendments. That would create a bit of a mess…”

        Yes, it certainly would and I thought I’d read where at least one of the justices (Kennedy?) questioned the legal mess doing what you’re suggesting would entail.

        But this is all speculation, isn’t it? And we’ll know before summer what SCOTUS decides but, I, too expect same-sex marriage to become universally recognized in the US. In some ways, maybe it’s better that this be done in increments since the vicious reactionaries might be a little easier to deal with if the measure is done one piece at a time.

        Reply
  2. Jack Collins
    Jack Collins says:

    As a GOProud gay man, I have to say that I strongly support the idea of SCOTUS overturning DOMA. This law is blatantly unconstitional on its face. It clearly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
    Marriage issues are clearly the domain of the states and the federal government has no business telling one state that it doesn’t like the decisions it makes, as long as those state choices don’t otherwise violate the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who actually understands the Constitution knows that federal representatives not liking a choice made by an individual state, i.e. State of Washington voters support for same-sex marriage, is completely meaningless.
    If one state chooses to allow same-sex couples to marry then the federal government and other states must respect those choices and treat the people married under those laws exactly as they would anyone else. Its real simple!
    In conclusion I’d like to point out that this is an excellent example of why the Constitution must be followed literally. Every time it isn’t someone ends up getting hurt really badly; can you say Plessy v. Ferguson?

    Reply
    • Jesse
      Jesse says:

      Just curious… what are your thoughts on Bush v. Gore? Voting is, for the most part, supposed to be handled by the states, and yet the Supreme Court (with 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal ones) waded into the decision by overriding the states’ right to handle voting. It seemed rather counterintuitive, considering conservatives are supposed to be the champions of states rights, at least in theory.

      Uh oh, what am I getting into? I should know better than to discuss politics (or religion) on my blog… <grin>

      Reply
      • Jack Collins
        Jack Collins says:

        Hi Jesse –
        Thank you so much for posting your thoughts about my previous comments. I really appreciate that you took the time to write them down.
        As to Bush v. Gore, I must admit I’m no expert on that topic – and I don’t even think that any of the nine Supreme Court justices sitting at that time really knew what they were doing either! The only thing I can say is that even after that decision Dubya still won the election by 537 votes. By the way this doesn’t mean I think he was a particularly good president; I could easily bore you until your ears bleed with my criticisms of 43’s job performance!
        Yet in general I strongly believe that a close “originalist” reading of the U.S. Constitution is in everyone’s best interests. This “living constitution” idea is such massive crap I may have an an aneurym just thinking about it.
        Again I really appreciate your gentlemanly and thoughtful comments on my posting. It’s really nice to actually be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone about the important issues that all Americans are facing today.
        Best regards,
        Jack

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *