Why is gay marriage an issue for the courts?

[Stinky The Clown]

The question is rhetorical. I am caused to ask it because, starting Monday, the issue will be argued in court in Maryland. (As an aside, Maryland is now allowing court proceedings to be televised and this case will be the first one to be so broadcast.)

But back to the question ......

Why is this an issue for the courts. It seems to me the whole thing is a VERY simple matter of non-discrimination. People are either equal or they're not. There can be no shades of gray.

Are you a human?

If you answer yes, then all rights that are granted to one human are granted to all humans.

There can be no qualifiers.

This isn't about 'tradition' or 'protection'. It is about discrimination.

WHY is that so hard for some people to understand and accept?

There can be only one reason to opppose 'gay marriage' ...... hate and all its variations. Homophobia is a natural tendency in some. I can accept that. Acting AGAINST another person because of that homophobia is hate. And between these two states (being homophobic and acting on it) is where the line in the sand is drawn. If you accept that, then crossing that line is crossing from an emotion to which you are entitled to a hate crime, to which you are NOT entitiled.

To compromise on this issue is to condone hate.

Arguing in court for and against gay marriage is simply a strawman argument in my view.

(For the record, in case there's any doubt, I am totally supportive of anyone's right to live the life one wishes, including the RIGHT to marry whomever you wish. That said, I am reasoned and reasonable enough to find a way forward so we can allow ALL of us to live as we choose in THIS America.)

[Sapphocrat]

1. Why is gay marriage an issue for the courts?

Because if you left it up to the voters, women wouldn't have the vote, and half the country wouldn't recognize interracial marriages.

It's all a mystery to me, really. I'm still waiting to hear a logical (i.e., non-religious-based) argument against marriage equality.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Well, the issue is not one for the voters, either

I recognize I'm arguing a matter that is inarguable. It will, of course, be a matter taken up by court after court. That's the way rights are 'won' in this country.

I'm saying that we shouldn't HAVE to argue for what is inherently OURS.

"The only thing of which I am intolerant is intolerance"

[Sapphocrat]

5. You won't get an argument from me. :) n/t

[bliss_eternal]

6. I got flamed for using your quote in a post recently...

:(
I didn't know you used it, I just said I had no tolerance for the intolerant and I got a bunch of crap for it. :eyes:
Nice to see someone else believe in the principle. I was a bit taken aback that I was taking heat for the concept on
a progressive board.

[Sapphocrat]

7. Oh, but don'tcha know...

...anyone who condemns gay people is just exercising freedom of religion, while anyone who condemns homophobia is intolerant of differing beliefs.

Really. That's the way it works. I know. I'm told this all the time.

[bliss_eternal]

8. Fuck that.

No one has the right to tell you that. Seriously.
I'm not all that verbose tonight, but that's how I feel about that.

Anyone that does, is asking Karma and the Universe to swoop down and deny them
rights somewhere down the line.

[Sapphocrat]

9. You won't get an argument out of me on that, either. ;) n/t

[ArbustoBuster]

22. People who hide their homophobia behind their religion are, frankly, monsters.

I see no reason we shouldn't tell religious authorities who condemn gays that they're allowed to believe and say whatever they want, since both belief and speech are enshrined in the First Amendment, but the second they attempt to put their beliefs into action and engage in discrimination they're going to get slapped down, no matter what their holy books say. Our Constitution trumps their holy books, and the Constitution says equality is the law of the land.

[Autonomy]

23. That's exactly right

Actually, it's a good sign for the gay marriage proponents that a federal court is willing to hear it. I am guessing they are hearing it based on some variation of equal protection, which is a consistutional issue, and it means that gay marriage is not simply left up to political vagaries.

edited for clarity: too many pronouns

[bliss_eternal]

2. I don't get it either...

:shrug: A CA Assemblyman is fighting for it here. This is SO important. It needs to be legal everywhere!

[NMMNG]

4. It's an issue for the courts

because we haven't been able to get our equal rights any other way.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I understand that and acknowledge the reality of America in the Dawn of the Second Millenium

What I'm saying in perhaps a ham fisted way is that it seems to *me* that we're in damned poor shape if we have to argue in court for what is fundamentally a right for each one of us.

[NMMNG]

17. I agree, and we are

Unfortunately the powers that be believe we are less than human and therefore not worthy of the same fundamental rights because of some words written by bigots in book several thousand years ago.

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. Because learned judges who have studied constitutional matters are more qualified to decide on these

things than doctors, longshoremen, pig-farmers, and hairdressers. It's nice and all to hear the opinions of doctors, longshoremen, pig-farmers, and hairdressers, but they really know squat about civil rights other than their own opinions, at least compared to people who work with the law on a daily basis and have the expertise.

It's why we have equal marriage in Canada. It started in the courts, moved to the provincial appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mind you, our judges are appointed and non-partisan, so they don't have to act politically in order to capture the votes of assorted doctors, longshoremen, pig-farmers, and hairdressers.

[sandnsea]

11. Because that's what courts do

Overturn unconstitutional laws. Kind of simple really.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. 14th amendment seems pretty clear to me.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If I'm entitled to marry the person of my choosing, then so are you. (the generic "you", I mean) :)

[Stinky The Clown]

13. The 14th Ammendment .... some would say to you and me ......

..... 'how quaint'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. It's an issue for the courts...

...because it's none of the politicians damn business. "Equal protection" is unambiguous.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Isn't it funny ..... about oxen and goring ......

.... just today I heard some news reports that I admit to not paying full attention. It seems some Dem (I **think** it was Henry Waxman) was calling for a smoking ban in the 'Speaker's Lobby' at the US Capitol. There were stories of some of the politicians who would be affected by this ban screaming like stuck pigs. Among the pigs being stuck is one John Boner, Minority Leader to Be.

"How dare you take away my right to commit slow suicide?"

(Disclaimer ===> I smoke, too.)

[election_2004]

18. Because lawmakers have been dragging their feet....

It took a state Supreme Court decision to get the momentum for civil unions rolling in Vermont.

Look at the states that have initiated voter bans on not only same-sex marriage but civil unions - - Virginia, Nebraska, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (my homestate, which I'm now ashamed to be from), to name a few.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I understand all that ... what I'm saying, I guess, is that .....

..... there should, in a perfect world, not even be a QUESTION when it comes to basic human rights. And the right to marry is a basic human right ...... if you're human, you can marry whom you wish.

But then reality rears its ugly head of hatred .... and we get court cases and voter referenda.

The fact that our society is so fucked up that we have to go to court on such matters just plain pisses me off.

[Doctor_J]

20. Unfortunately, when someone's civil rights are under attack, the only

recourse they have is to go to court. You certainly don't want it to be subject to a vote.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. And the plan of the Theocrats, from the start, has been to pack the courts with

100% certifiable haters.

Just since the reign of St Ronald of Reagan, they have had 20 years to pack the courts. Our side has had a mere 8 years to attempt to balance that.

We have years of stuggle ahead of us. And while I'm a straight guy, I will be there with the people who are directly affected by this.

[DarkTirade]

24. It's an issue for the courts BECAUSE it's a case of rights...

and not something that can be decided by popular vote.

[Pushed To The Left]

25. Too many Americans have been brainwashed

into believing that if gay people have the same rights as everybody else it will somehow damage society. The reason the Courts sometimes need to get involved is because Courts decide what is or isn't Constitutional, while anti-gay voters decide the issue based on emotion and ignorance. I think interracial marriage was legalized in some area by the Courts as well. If it's the voters vs. the Constitution, the Constitution has to win. That's why it's so important that the new Senate doesn't allow Bush to stack the Courts with any more hardcore conservatives!

By the way, here's a great DU thread from earlier in the year regarding the issue of marriage and the Courts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1345334

[lastliberalintexas]

26. Because it is the courts that determine what "equal" means

The US Constitution and most state constitutions have some sort of due process and/or equal protection clauses/provisions, and it is the job of the courts to interpret those provisions and tell us what exactly they mean. And as slow as the courts are, they are much faster than either the electorate or of the legislative bodies. Without Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade and even Griswold v. Conn, we the people would have had to wait many more years for the rights conferred by the courts.


Which is also why the courts are such an important institution in this country, and why the right wing has been in full out assault mode on them for the past 20 years. Indeed, it's the only issue that has kept me voting for certain Dem candidates of whom I wasn't very fond.