US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[PistolBob]

When all states recognize gay marriage will that be the end of it?

Asking questions we already know the answer to?

There is no end.

 

[ModernGunner]

Likely headed for SCOTUS, and a State Sovereignty Bill.

 

[eric001]

Seems that the whole "group of states" thing was answered rather definitively when a "group of states" decided they were no longer part of the US of A... I think that kind of defaults to the other answer--being stuck with a federal government.

 

[eric001]

And for good or ill, you might as well expect the federal government to assert that it trumps state interests in marriage because something, somehow, crossed a state line and therefore triggers the "interstate commerce" clause they love so much.

 

[HoughMade]

The Constitution is pretty clear about the original intent. We are a group of states who have a federal government with specified powers that can only trump the states in the enumerated areas. It was never intended to be one or the other.

 

[wtfd661]

If someone wants to be a homo then I say knock yourself out. But NO ONE will ever make me think it is OK, cool, acceptable or whatever. It is morally and naturally wrong and no one even needs to tell anyone that it is. Disgusting stuff.

Yep

 

[Bennettjh]

If someone wants to be a homo then I say knock yourself out. But NO ONE will ever make me think it is OK, cool, acceptable or whatever. It is morally and naturally wrong and no one even needs to tell anyone that it is. Disgusting stuff.

 

[j706]

That's fine you think that, that is your right. It creeps me out too, but it's between consenting adults. No one can punish or discriminate against them for it.

Do gay rights trump private property rights... I don't believe they do. I think the gay rights people will do themselves no good demanding everyone cater to them.

That has always been my main problem with the entire gay thing. They come up with words like homophobia for people that refuse to approve of their lack of morals and they demand special privileges. I also believe any company should be free to not do any business with them. As it stands now company's are being sued over three minute phone calls wherein the company's refuse service. Service like refusing to host a big ole homo wedding shindig with all the riff Raff it would bring. That is wrong IMO. We are talking small mom and pop type of company's. This is not any good.

 

[PistolBob]

The cake lady that was forced to make a cake for a gay wedding

No one said she had to make a good cake.

 

[lj98]

Ooohh this again! Sorry, I just felt the need to get in on this discussion before those who would allow the states (with a lower case "s") abrogate the rights of individuals. So much for due process and equal protection and all that.
Oh yeah, 9th amendment forever!
I just had to add, I find it hilarious that many of those decrying this ruling on the grounds of states' rights keep bringing up the issue of the wedding cake which happened to be settled in Colorado by a state body.

 

[Fargo]

This fight was over from the start, some just won't quit. "Gay marriage" bans have always been unconstitutional, it's just now becoming official. Legislating others lives based on your religious beliefs is not how this country works.

If conservatives continue to pitch fits about this, they will lose the confidence of the younger generations who have grown up around openly gay people without harm.

What about the last time this was before the SCOTUS when it ruled that there wasn't even federal jurisdiction to consider the issue because it didn't present a 14th Amendment question?

I don't know why everyone ignores that the SCOTUS already ruled on the issue in IIRC Baker.

Judge Youngs opinion starts by conceding that there is a precedent and then using a bunch of mental gymnastics to try to ignore it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know why everyone ignores that the SCOTUS already ruled on the issue in IIRC Baker.

Pffft, who has time for the law while there are more Libertarian-than-thou points to score?

The opinion trades the law for the favor of the month.

 

[srad]

Well then, it must be high-time to overturn the Morrill Act and Edmunds Act, Reynolds v. United States and the host of other federal cases where the court has determined that the government possesses a strong societal interest which outweighs a claimants’ constitutionally protected civil rights.

 

[Fargo]

Pffft, who has time for the law while there are more Libertarian-than-thou points to score?

The opinion trades the law for the favor of the month.

Mmmmmm gay, the flavor of the month!

I'll pass.

 

[level.eleven]

If someone wants to be a homo then I say knock yourself out. But NO ONE will ever make me think it is OK, cool, acceptable or whatever. It is morally and naturally wrong and no one even needs to tell anyone that it is. Disgusting stuff.

I think you are a disgusting, immoral, simple man who favors superstition over evidence. So it all evens out in the end.

This may come as a shock, but the moral community isn't looking for your approval.

 

[HoosierLife]

If someone wants to be a homo then I say knock yourself out. But NO ONE will ever make me think it is OK, cool, acceptable or whatever. It is morally and naturally wrong and no one even needs to tell anyone that it is. Disgusting stuff.

I think you are a disgusting, immoral, simple man who favors superstition over evidence. So it all evens out in the end.

This may come as a shock, but the moral community isn't looking for your approval.

What evidence??

 

[Expat]

This may come as a shock, but the amoral community isn't looking for your approval.

FIFY

I think you are a disgusting, immoral, simple man who favors superstition over evidence. So it all evens out in the end.

What superstition, he didn't mention any in his post?

 

[Fargo]

What evidence??

Everything we learned from Will and Grace, Modern Family, etc...

 

[Sybaris]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Mmmmmm gay, the flavor of the month!

What is more important doing what the New York Times says or doing what the Supreme Court says in Baker?

Methinks the Supreme Court will suddenly find a substantial federal question, no doubt hiding in the penumbra, in this matter.