Propecia dia siguiente….

I think these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause so I’m not troubled by them being nullified, but your mileage may vary. I’m pretty sure Mark Jaquith, our tech wizard, would agree with me

Based on the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS decision that made race-based marriage discrimination illegal, yeah, a gay marriage ban does appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Here is an excerpt from that decision:

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Just replace “race” with “gender” and you’re in business. The Equal Protection Clause has been used elsewhere to protect against gender-based discrimination.

The idea that it “should be left up to the States to decide” is nothing but a cop out, since as has already been proven multiple times, the “States” cannot actually “decide” anything anymore because the will of the people will always be circumvented by liberal activist judges who make up their own laws for people to live by from the bench, while Congress stands by and does nothing to stop them.

So start impeaching activist judges. I don’t like activist judges (which ever way they rule) any more than you, but that is its own problem.

One can only conclude that this Nation is doomed if this is allowed to continue, which seems to be probable. Perhaps it is too bad that all the activist judges out there seem to be liberals, since if there were any conservative ones randomly declaring that various liberalistic laws “unconstitutional”, like mandatory seat belt laws or pollution laws or whatever, the liberals then would be all over it like stink on sht.

So, where ARE the “activist” conservative judges who are willing to fight fire with fire, and start declaring all kinds of leftist leaning laws “unconstitutional”??? Let’s start with State gun laws. Imagine if we applied all the rules and regulations that States believe they can impose on the 2nd Amendment to the 1st. It looks like this is going to be the ONLY way to fight these people, who have figured out how to use our own laws against us to force their own will on the populace, regardless of what the majority of the populace wants.

if Senators Hagel, Dodd, and Rockefeller aren’t voting on this, WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING!?!?…

– spit -

The only reason some younger people are not opposed to homosexual marriage is because 1) they have just been through the liberal brainwashing establishments that we like to call public schools and it hasn’t worn off yet, and 2) they are young and their minds of mush don’t necessarily reason correctly because they have little or no life experience for it to use for guidance.

And unless they were raised in a God fearing home, they will have little or no knowledge of morality, other than what they have been brainwashed into believing is morality by liberal brainwashing institutions we call public schools, which in reality is immorality, or what they have picked up along the way by accident to the dismay of the liberal brainwashing establishments we call public school.

As they get older, one of three things will happen. 1) They will come to know and respect God, believe His word and know the truth. Or, 2) they will take their liberal brainwashing to heart and become mindless liberal fools who for the rest of their physical lives will always stand for the immoral things, ignorantly believing that good is bad and bad is good. Or, 3) they will ignore God and ignore their liberalistic brainwashing they got growing up and turn into people who really don’t give a crap one way or the other about anything except that which directly affects them in their life and that makes them personally content.

Of course, IF you had read the link to the first chapter of Ann Coulter’s new book, you would know the truth anyway. That if people are actually born homosexual, and cannot change, then pedophiles and animal sex lovers must be born the way they are also. So where are you going to stand on pedophiles “rights” and someone’s “right” to have sex with animals? What happens when the guy wants to marry his sheep, or the pedophile finds a consenting 12 year old to “marry”?

Oh wait, I already know the answer to that, you think that those are icky but you don’t think homosexual “rights” are all that bad. Congratulations, you have just set yourself up as THE moral arbiter of the world. Wow, you must be a god. But then, you already thought that anyway.

Fact is, sick sexual perversions within the concept of American society IS everybody’s business. And the vast majority of “everybody” knows that they do not want sick disgusting sexual perversions labeled as “marriage”.

I respect opinion, but I don’t agree with it. As far as minding my own business, yes that is usually a good policy. However, I don’t think that applies here. When I have two homosexuals living next door to me, I am pretty sure that they are sharing a bed together. I can guess what is going on. But in the privacy of their own home, I say that is their business, not mine. So I mind my own business.

However, I don’t think that is applicable to marriage. A marriage vow entails society and its participants saying and acknowledging that there is a marriage here. It also entails approval. And I don’t think I can agree with that.

We have marriages because we a society think this is the way to go. Are a man and a woman allowed to live together without being married? Yes. Are they allowed to have children with out being married? Yes. Is this what we want? No. We prefer that they get married so that they can build a family together.

Hmmm. I have re-read my comments. I am not sure they are as logically well ordered as I like. Nevertheless, they are the best I can do for right now. Perhaps one day I shall obtain my degree in logic and critical thinking. Unfortunately, that day appears to be a long way off. Until then, I shall continue to keep reaching for that rainbow…No pun intended. ;-)

Very respectfully,

After all the fuss, the matter will be settle generationally–younger people are for gay marriage, older against. So you see you will have the last word.

Allah, I agree that the Equal Protection Clause is an important thing. Normally, I support it. But doesn’t its existence make it necessary to have a constitutional amendment if we want to have any real chance of keeping marriage a heterosexual thing? Doesn’t that Equal Protection Clause mean that as soon as one state, by no matter what method, (judicial activism, perhaps) makes homosexual marriage legal, all states have to recognize those marriages? So as soon as one state recognizes it, can’t any homosexual couple can go to that state, get married, and then return to their home state and be a completely legally married couple?

So doesn’t that render moot the argument that this should be an issue for the states to decide?

Personally, this whole gay marriage thing snuck up on me. For years, I have heard about homosexual rights and what not. For the most part, I didn’t pay it too much mind. When they passed laws that said that gays shouldn’t be discriminated against in employment or housing, to me, it seemed reasonable enough. Implementing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Well, it might not be the best thing, but I figured we could live with that. But gay marriage? What the heck? Call me naïve, but I didn’t expect that!!!

Right or wrong, doesn’t our system of law as it is now leave us with no other option than a constitutional amendment?

Thereis something VERY VERY wrong in this Country. And guess what, it’s ALL DOWNHILL from here if this is now what passes for “government” “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

There are 5 kinds of Republican voters:

1 – Republican voters who are extremely loyal to the Party and would vote Republican no matter what.

2 – Independent Conservative voters who although are registered “Republicans” might reconsider giving a blank check to the Republican Party after proving its inefficiency in governing by failing to advance the Conservative Cause. They may chose to stay home.

3 – Christian Conservative voters who as No.2 voters are disappointed and might as well stay home.

4 – Liberal Republican voters -in the West and North East coast- who although might be at the Center-Right- may express their anger with the Republican Party by voting “Liberal.”

5 – Lay Republican voters who are nonchalant, who are victims of the Liberal 6:30 pm alphabetical Media, and who, as a consequence, will believe the lies they are fed and would vote “Liberal.”

Of course, there are the “Independent” voters who have nothing to do with politics and who would vote on “hearsay.”

Are RINOs becoming an endangered species or what?

Bush is so transparent.