What would it take to cement gay marriage legally?
Any lawyers or judges in the house?
An amendment to the Constitution?
The last rulings, no doubt, provide a moral underpinning for gay marriage but does not guarantee anything.
I still feel like we're playing a game here. One step forward, one steps back, one step forward, two steps back, and so forth.
For instance, once women got the right to vote, that was it. There was no stepping back. The 19th amendment guaranteed it.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/27/2013|
in Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien passed the law thru Parliament with a "whipped vote" (forced all his party members to vote for it and fired the few who did not), so it could not be overturned.
When anti-gay Conservative Stephen Harper took office, he tried to reverse the vote but could not.
There is a similar solution in the US Congress.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/27/2013|
I mean, I think "we, the gays" get all excited about little victories when we should swallow nothing less than the full monty.
"We, the gays" need to get serious about this shit, bitches!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/27/2013|
Good answer, R1.
You see, Obama's throwing bones to us gays to soften his right-winged agenda. Make it seem like he's a leftie when he is definitely not.
Once Bush gets back in office, all of these little bones will be taken away. You can bet your ass on it.
Because giving the gays bones doesn't cost a thing to the overall agenda, especially in today's world. Most people are on board with gay rights. Not to mention, they need all the people they can get for the MIC, hence the repeal of DADT.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/27/2013|
Are you saying the Obama administration is using the gays? That we're mere pawns on the grand chess board?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/27/2013|
"Billary" will follow Obama in 2016.
There will be no reversal, no move forward either, but no reversal.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/27/2013|
^^ Apparently Alex Jones has linked some of his followers to this site.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/27/2013|
I highly doubt that Obama is using the gays for votes. Either way, the best way to accomplish this OP is to get the vote out for 2014. We need Congress to have a Dem majority. Not only would it be good for our rights but it would help the economoy and climate change. If that could get accomplished, we may not need to even worry about 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/27/2013|
Chris Hughes (Facebook Co-founder) put Obama into office. Obama was obligated.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/27/2013|
He's not using the gays for votes. He doesn't need votes anymore. But he does have to keep up left leaning appearances. That's what he's using the gays for.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/27/2013|
[quote]I still feel like we're playing a game here. One step forward, one steps back, one step forward, two steps back, and so forth.
That's the nature of civil rights litigation. And the courts are moving as slowly as possible in order to avoid another Brown (which was largely ignored) or Roe (which has resulted in decades of acrimony and a flood of lawsuits).
A Constitutional Amendment would do the trick but it is absurd to think one would be adopted. It would need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate and then approval by 3/4s of the state legislatures. In this North Dakota counts the same as California.
The next battleground will also be incremental--what happens to same sex couples who are legally married in one state but then move to a state that prohibits same sex marriage?
It is likely that there will also be rulings in the federal courts on the question of whether there is a right to same sex marriage under the constitution. It is likely that the decisions will go both ways. Ultimately, the federal appeals courts will rule and their decisions will be binding on those parts of the country (circuits) under their jurisdiction.
Usually, a Supreme Court decision happens pretty quickly when different circuits reach different conclusions, but the Court will be reluctant to take this case given how divided they are.
Realistically, the prospects in the Supreme Court depend on which party has the White House and the Senate in the coming years.
At the same time there will be efforts in each state to have state courts overturn laws prohibiting same sex marriage and to have legislatures or referendums to allow it.
I would bet we will have a decades-long period without a uniform national law, though it's pretty clear that all states will have to recognize the status of same sex couples no matter where they move.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/27/2013|
In the USA, the Court system is a political system, not a judicial system. This is the lesson Gay Americans are truly understanding now.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/27/2013|
That's only partially true, r11 and it isn't news to anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/27/2013|
A law passed through Congress would probably not work in the United States, since States (and not the Feds) seem to have the power to set marriage qualifications. A Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is a national right would almost undoubtedly be definitive, but only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would end debate unless it was later repealed (as happened with prohibition).
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/27/2013|
The US Judicial System is why so many American Lawyers go into politics. It is basically the same job.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/27/2013|
[quote]What would it take to cement gay marriage legally?
Scalia's meatball sandwiches to catch up with him.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/27/2013|