Ivy, here is a news flash. the Founding Fathers did not believe in "original intent." The proof is that they provided for a process to amend the constitution (which only allowed white male property owners to vote, governors to appoint senators and slavery). As Michael Corleone said, "tempi cambi." The founders were in favor of amendments. Get over it.

It's funny how you hailed and cheered a year ago when the Court struck down part of the Civil Rights Act on what many considered an infringement on the legislative branch. Hypocrisy.

Your idea of judicial review was nixed in the 1800's.

I thought the Salem Witch Trials were in the 1600's?

Ivy, please give examples and not talking points. Your idea of judicial review was nixed in Marbury v. Madison in the 1800's.

Why are these crazies so obsessed with sex? Abortion and Gays...abortion and gays....aborttion and gays.... WHO CARES?
I'll tell you who should, women who are contemplating abortion, and gays who face discrimination.

Good advice DT. It might assist some Board members' understanding of the Constitution's interpretation if they would read any number of tomes about that subject. Some Board members almost rapaciously adhere to a "strict construction" constitutional position which is a dead end. There is nothing in the Constitution or its formulation that supports strict construction. The Founding Fathers included "equity" in the Constitution's Article III in order to provide the Supreme Court and inferior courts with interpretive latitude.

By the way, Amendments IX and X add nothing to the Constitution unless one ignores the Article I, Section 8 bookends: general welfare and Necessary and Proper.

I did it again! Another gay marriage ban bites the dust. This time it's Fla:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/justice/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

What is pissing me off is all these damned judges saing the will of the people don't fucking count. The people of these states voted for these bans so the will of the people should trump everything but nope.

I'm just tired of the topic. The gays won the culture war. It's over. As a matter of law, anyway.

If you think it's wrong, teach your kids that it's wrong. If you think it's natural, then you do likewise with your kids. But for God's sake, get over it.

The opponents of gay marriage have to stop with the judgement. And the gays themselves have to stop shoving it in everyone's face. Learn to co-exist. It ain't all that hard.

I'm just tired of the topic. The gays won the culture war. It's over. As a matter of law, anyway.

If you think it's wrong, teach your kids that it's wrong. If you think it's natural, then you do likewise with your kids. But for God's sake, get over it.

The opponents of gay marriage have to stop with the judgement. And the gays themselves have to stop shoving it in everyone's face. Learn to co-exist. It ain't all that hard.

One judge with some sense...


Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban-165757659.html

And, as I've pointed out before, the only reason secular liberals who support gay marriage now have to also say they wouldn't be opposed to things such as polygamy is so they don't appear inconsistent. Guaranteed, if gay marriage was not an issue, those liberals (including the ones on this board) would come out with all sorts of arguments against legalizing polygamy; despite the freedom of religion grounds for it. But they know they can't do that now. So it really isn't about "equal protection under the law" for them. It never was. Like the judges and lawyers who have supported this, they simply twist the Constitution to suit their own agenda.

The polygamy argument with respect to marriage equality holds no water for a couple of reasons, which have been stated before.

First, the civil institution of marriage recognizes hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities, benefits and obligations that would be frustrated and compromised by recognizing polygamous unions as legally valid. On several occasions I've posted examples of these and don't feel like answering the same question repeatedly. But the marital policy objectives of proprietary rights, joint tax returns, property rights on dissolution of marriage (equitable distribution), Social Security and Medicare (especially for the possibility of long term care, parenting and adoption rights, as well as insurance, pensions, duties of child support and debts of spouses are not achieved by polygamous relationships.

Secondly, there is a huge distinction between the would-be polygamist, who wants several spouses, and the homosexual, who wants one. The polygamist can enter into and receive all legal and financial benefits that legal marriage offers. There is no due process or equal protection argument of merit as he can fulfill the requirement of marriage. The gay person, unlike the polygamist, is barred from the benefits of marriage at the very beginning. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment arguments are available to him.

Also, your argument that the polygamist has a stronger argument for state/legal recognition of his plurality of marriages is ludicrous and underscores a fundamental ignorance of constitutional principles. The state is not required to recognize or validate unions performed by churches. According to the state the marriage is recognized by a civil license. It is not the obligation of the state or judiciary to conform public policy about marriage to include religious views on the topic. Religions are free to perform their wedding rituals, based on dogma, creed or mythology. If a church wants to let a guy marry ten brides, knock yourself out, but the first bride to get the license at the court house is the only one that the state should recognize as a legal wife.

The equivalent of Denver's second half td in last year's Super Bowl.

I haven't read the decision but the article suggests that the legislature has a right to define marriage. Nobody has argued against that in the previous court cases. What is also inarguable is that any statute or government action concerning a fundamental right must pass heightened scrutiny on equal protection and due process grounds.

Marriage between two men is an oxymoronic statement...the very definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why don't gays settle for "civil unions?"....the reason is purely political..they're really not interested in a civil union with the same rights of marriage, instead, they are interested in a political statement that "we are equal to heterosexuals." Again, its symbolism over substance..always the same from the left, whether its race, women's rights, or gays.