I was aware of all the laws and benefits of being married... it's not that I find it "icky" I find it repulsive and I'm sure there are plenty of pretend homosexuals and greedy f*cks that will find a way to use these "rights" to their benefit. Whatever not a big deal... the economy always finds a way to balance itself out.

By the way the Pirates are undefeated while the Phillies are 1-1.

I was aware of all the laws and benefits of being married... it's not that I find it "icky" I find it repulsive and I'm sure there are plenty of pretend homosexuals and greedy f*cks that will find a way to use these "rights" to their benefit. Whatever not a big deal... the economy always finds a way to balance itself out.

Another one bites the dust:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-end-ohio-ban-recognizing-gay-marriage-n72101

This is all happening very quickly, and my guess is the next time around the Supremes are going to give enforcement in all fifty states to gay marriage to those who moved from those places or who were married there, and who live in backwaters like Florida.

I think the Court will extend recognition of gay marriage but only per Article IV's full faith and credit clause. Total recognition of gay marriage will be a function of the 14th amendment's interpretation and will come down to Justice Kennedy.

Agreed Oli. It ill be full faith and credit. Seems like the 14th is going out of style.

Add my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the list of states that now recognize same-sex marriages. A federal judge from the Middle District struck down PA's ban of same-sex marriage. It doesn't appear that the governor will appeal as it is an election year (primaries today).

The decision was written by Judge John E. Jones, whose most famous decision was the order rejecting the Dover, PA school district's attempt to insert creationism/intelligent design in the science curriculum alongside the teaching of evolution.

And on cue, here comes Ivy to take activist judges and give them what for . . . . . . . .

I've said pretty much all I can say.

I just don't want anyone trying to deny these are activist judges who are overstepping their bounds. There's something wrong when a single power-hungry judge can twist the law to fit his or her warped interpretation and overrule the will of the majority of the people in a state.

Even though I think gay marriage is an abomination, and anyone who supports it is morally bankrupt, I'm content to let those states where the people want it to have it. The same should be allowed for those states that don't. But liberals have never wanted this because, as we've seen here, few states would allow it. So they force their sick, Godless agendas through the courts via corrupt lawyers and judges.

And the thought that it all could come down to one guy on the Supreme Court (Kennedy) is really scary. But I guess we can thank President Obama...Mr. Self-Professed Christian...oh wait...and supporter of traditional marriage...oh wait...for his Supreme Court appointments.

who should take the blame for all the children being held captive in polygamy or cults?

i mean who should we blame in utah for that debauchery

When twelve separate federal courts and seven state courts come to the same conclusion that prohibitions against marriage, based on sexual orientation, are unconstitutional, it's time to stop whining about activist and rogue judges, especially when there has not been a decision upholding the ban.

It is long established that the right to marry is embedded in the right to liberty under the XIV Amendment. Interpreting laws that affect fundamental rights of citizens, especially suspect classifications is the role of the judiciary, and not the legislature. This is made clear in Article III.

Moreover, where the legislature operates on majoritarian principles, the judiciary has been specifically designed not to operate in this fashion because constitutional rights are not subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Constitutional challenges to marriage laws are properly decided in courts of law. In each of these cases the courts properly framed the issue of whether the prohibition of marriage, based on sexual orientation is substantially related to a compelling or important government interest. And in each case the state could not present such an argument.

By the way, Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. He's also a devout Lutheran.

The issue (not the PA case as Governor Ridge indicated that the commonwealth will not appeal the decision) will eventually come before the Supreme Court probably in a few years. There will be several consolidated cases. Perhaps the composition of the Court will be different, but you can probably bet that the opinion will be assigned to Kennedy. Don't be surprised if Roberts rules that same-sex marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection clauses and it's a 6-3 vote. He can see the precedent of cases in the past 10-15 years and has a unique sense of his historical standing as Chief Justice, and he wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of history. It will be hard for him not to apply heightened scrutiny in his review.

We need Tom Wolf!

When twelve separate federal courts and seven state courts come to the same conclusion that prohibitions against marriage, based on sexual orientation, are unconstitutional, it's time to stop whining about activist and rogue judges, especially when there has not been a decision upholding the ban.

It is long established that the right to marry is embedded in the right to liberty under the XIV Amendment. Interpreting laws that affect fundamental rights of citizens, especially suspect classifications is the role of the judiciary, and not the legislature. This is made clear in Article III.

Moreover, where the legislature operates on majoritarian principles, the judiciary has been specifically designed not to operate in this fashion because constitutional rights are not subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Constitutional challenges to marriage laws are properly decided in courts of law. In each of these cases the courts properly framed the issue of whether the prohibition of marriage, based on sexual orientation is substantially related to a compelling or important government interest. And in each case the state could not present such an argument.

By the way, Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. He's also a devout Lutheran.

The issue (not the PA case as Governor Ridge indicated that the commonwealth will not appeal the decision) will eventually come before the Supreme Court probably in a few years. There will be several consolidated cases. Perhaps the composition of the Court will be different, but you can probably bet that the opinion will be assigned to Kennedy. Don't be surprised if Roberts rules that same-sex marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection clauses and it's a 6-3 vote. He can see the precedent of cases in the past 10-15 years and has a unique sense of his historical standing as Chief Justice, and he wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of history. It will be hard for him not to apply heightened scrutiny in his review.

[You can't argue several judges coming to the same conclusion as evidence they got it right. Gays having the "right" to marry is no more embedded in the XIV Amendment than woman having the "right" to have an abortion is found in IV amendment. The Constitution says what it says and anything else should be left up to the states. But that's where activist lawyers and judges, and their liberal supporters, twist and pervert the Constitution to say anything they want it to say. The laws are eventually no longer based on what the Founders actually intended but on case precedent based on the bone headed ruling of one judge or another. When you have a group of supreme court judges all looking at the same case, and going by the same laws, and yet coming out with different rulings, that shows you some are actually going by what the law says and others have some other agenda. And what the hell does that mean, the "wrong side of history?" Even if the majority of people eventually came to believe gay marriage was OK, and it was the law of the land across the nation, it wouldn't automatically make it right.

First of all, you are quite wrong on your belief that the basis for Roe v. Wade was the IV Amendment. You have posted this multiple times, and you're misinformed. Roe rests on substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Your application of Constitutional principles is appallingly narrowminded and contrary to what the framers intended. How do you account for the IX Amendment if the Constitution is an exhaustible list of rights? The Constitution is not statutory law, but constitutionalism requires applying the principles of the document (broadly spelled out, rather than narrowly crafted, like statutes) to laws passed by legislatures.

Because marriage, procreation, family decisions, etc. aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that laws affecting these rights should not be held up to the constitutional mandates of due process and equal protection, guaranteed in the XIV.

"Substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

In other words, we'll just go ahead and assume this is what the Founders meant or stretch the original intention so far out of wack to justify anything we want.

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.

[
You and I both know there is nothing the Founders put in the Constitution that would have ever justified support for gay marriage. Rather, you take a basic principle found there, bastardize it with a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo, and misuse it to justify gay marriage.

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.