Should gay marriage be legalized by Supremes or do you prefer state-by-state?

[progressive85]

I'd love to see the Supreme Court make a sweeping ruling, especially in one of these really antigay states, that is similar to the Loving vs. Virginia case of 1967.  I think there's the majority for it and Kennedy should once again write the opinion... but the SC might not decide to support gay marriage nationally and instead might rather let the states themselves repeal their marriage bans. 

http://www.lovingday.org/legal-map
This map is a great resource for looking at the years that interracial marriage bans fell before the Loving decision, which ultimately tossed out 17 state marriage bans (all of them in the South).

Here is the order by which the states legalized interracial marriage:

California (1948)
Oregon (1951)
Montana (1953)
North Dakota (1955)
South Dakota and Colorado (1957)
Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii (1959)
Arizona (1962)
Utah and Nebraska (1963)
Indiana and Wyoming (1965)

So nearly all of this action was in the West.  The Northeast and Great Lakes states had interracial marriage before 1948.

Within ten years time, the Northeast has gay marriage (all except Pennsylvania).  Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa are the Midwestern states to have it.  Washington, California, and Hawaii have it on the West Coast.  New Mexico in the Southwest.

Utah and Oklahoma joined other states where the process is going through the courts.

Oregon will likely vote on repealing their marriage ban this year, and if this happens, it will be the first time voters overturn a state constitutional amendment.

So I'm torn.  I think this process should continue in the states...but there is going to be a wall eventually.  Much of the South, like in the Loving case, will never approve gay marriage, and it will take court cases, and very likely it will go to the Supreme Court. 

So what do you prefer and also what do you think will happen in the next few years?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 1948, 19 states had interracial marriage and 29 didn't.
Of those 19, 14 now have gay marriage.
Of those 29, only MD and DE have gay marriage.
DC and HI also have gay marriage.

[eric82oslo]

So what do you prefer and also what do you think will happen in the next few years?

I'd love to see the Supreme Court make a bold decision on this, but even more so I'd love to see Hillary using this for what it's worth as a wedge issue come 2016, and I'm also confident it'll be a huge plus for most Democratic House and Senate candidates in the upcoming midterm campaigns this fall. Thus I'd prefer to wait for the big SC decision come 2017, hopefully not earlier lol.

[Ebowed]

So what do you prefer and also what do you think will happen in the next few years?

I'd love to see the Supreme Court make a bold decision on this, but even more so I'd love to see Hillary using this for what it's worth as a wedge issue come 2016, and I'm also confident it'll be a huge plus for most Democratic House and Senate candidates in the upcoming midterm campaigns this fall. Thus I'd prefer to wait for the big SC decision come 2017, hopefully not earlier lol.

Equality shouldn't have to wait one second longer.

[Flake]

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

[eric82oslo]

So what do you prefer and also what do you think will happen in the next few years?

I'd love to see the Supreme Court make a bold decision on this, but even more so I'd love to see Hillary using this for what it's worth as a wedge issue come 2016, and I'm also confident it'll be a huge plus for most Democratic House and Senate candidates in the upcoming midterm campaigns this fall. Thus I'd prefer to wait for the big SC decision come 2017, hopefully not earlier lol.

Equality shouldn't have to wait one second longer.

I agree, however: The longer it takes for the Supreme Court to reach a decision, the more state legislatures will turn from Republican-controlled to Democratic-controlled, including Florida (and probably North Carolina as well, though that would be far from the only reason why NC would be shifting). Florida has one of the biggest gay populations of any state. If this issue doesn't change Florida from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning permanently, then no issue will probably have the power to do it.

[Ebowed]

The South has always had a higher proportion of minorities and has always lagged behind in progress.  It's no coincidence that the top ten states with the highest number of same-sex couples raising children all have constitutional bans on recognition of gay relationships.

[Supersonic]

Leave it to the states.

[Sol]

Leave it to the states.

The issue with that is that states like OK and UT, left to their own devices, might not even pass gay marriage this century.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that a delayed decision will provide a wedge issue that benefits Democrats is laughable.  This isn't an issue that is important to swing voters generally, and for those to whom it is important, I expect those will be largely anti-SSM.

[old timey villain]

The Supremes broke up years ago and I don't think Diana Ross is sane enough these days to make such an important decision.

[Cassius]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

[afleitch]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Rather a silly comparison to make; a more accurate example would be Loving v Virginia; when that was handed down there was less support in the polls for interracial marriage than there is for same sex marriage now; just 20% according to Gallup. Support didn’t reach 50% until the mid 90’s (!) But of course that decision should have waited; states rights and all that cr-p. I mean. people's definition of equality is different no?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

[Cassius]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

Yes but it is. That's the whole point. I'm sure a number of activists for black rights in the 1960's were at best lukewarm about the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. By the same token, I'm sure that there may well have been some closeted segregationists who didn't believe that blacks were deserving of equal rights, but, at the same time, wouldn't have objected to greater rights for gay people. Who decides on what constitutes 'equal rights'? You? Me? Afleitch? The courts? The spokesmen of minority groups? The Pope? Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely keen on the concept of 'rights' in general. You can have privileges, granted by the state (to vote, to marry, to access public services etc) or the Church (to take part in Mass and the other sacraments) or even by your local tennis club (to use their facilities), and if you think that you deserve access to certain privileges, then by all means ask for it. But the idea that all humans possess  intrinsic human rights, ones that they recieve without any qualifications, and that these are an objective reason for the promotion of political and social change, is quite frankly unpersuasive to my mind.

[TNF]

Legalized by the Supreme Court (not a troglodyte)

[bedstuy]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

Yes but it is. That's the whole point. I'm sure a number of activists for black rights in the 1960's were at best lukewarm about the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. By the same token, I'm sure that there may well have been some closeted segregationists who didn't believe that blacks were deserving of equal rights, but, at the same time, wouldn't have objected to greater rights for gay people. Who decides on what constitutes 'equal rights'? You? Me? Afleitch? The courts? The spokesmen of minority groups? The Pope? Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely keen on the concept of 'rights' in general. You can have privileges, granted by the state (to vote, to marry, to access public services etc) or the Church (to take part in Mass and the other sacraments) or even by your local tennis club (to use their facilities), and if you think that you deserve access to certain privileges, then by all means ask for it. But the idea that all humans possess  intrinsic human rights, ones that they recieve without any qualifications, and that these are an objective reason for the promotion of political and social change, is quite frankly unpersuasive to my mind.

This is a ridiculous argument.  This isn't an issue of natural rights.  This is an issue of construing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to a specific set of laws.  It's a question of Constitutional law, reserved under US law to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court ultimately.

[IceSpear]

The idea that a delayed decision will provide a wedge issue that benefits Democrats is laughable.  This isn't an issue that is important to swing voters generally, and for those to whom it is important, I expect those will be largely anti-SSM.

That might have been true a few years ago, but times are changing. People aren't going to want to vote for a party that tries to discriminate against their gay friend/child/family member.

[Cassius]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

Yes but it is. That's the whole point. I'm sure a number of activists for black rights in the 1960's were at best lukewarm about the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. By the same token, I'm sure that there may well have been some closeted segregationists who didn't believe that blacks were deserving of equal rights, but, at the same time, wouldn't have objected to greater rights for gay people. Who decides on what constitutes 'equal rights'? You? Me? Afleitch? The courts? The spokesmen of minority groups? The Pope? Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely keen on the concept of 'rights' in general. You can have privileges, granted by the state (to vote, to marry, to access public services etc) or the Church (to take part in Mass and the other sacraments) or even by your local tennis club (to use their facilities), and if you think that you deserve access to certain privileges, then by all means ask for it. But the idea that all humans possess  intrinsic human rights, ones that they recieve without any qualifications, and that these are an objective reason for the promotion of political and social change, is quite frankly unpersuasive to my mind.

This is a ridiculous argument.  This isn't an issue of natural rights.  This is an issue of construing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to a specific set of laws.  It's a question of Constitutional law, reserved under US law to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court ultimately.

Where does the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment stem from, just as the rest of the U.S Constitution does? Debate and discussion over what constitutes 'natural rights' and whether those supposed rights should be protected by the government or not.

[Badger]

I would PREFER that all the remaining sates unanimously and voluntarily pass laws legalizing SSM. BUUUUUTTTT, given the choice of waiting for that to occur, along with the concurrent appearance of unicorns farting candy and single malt scotch, I'll gladly accept the Supremes issuing a uniform ruling under the 14th Amendment.

[Badger]

The idea that a delayed decision will provide a wedge issue that benefits Democrats is laughable.  This isn't an issue that is important to swing voters generally, and for those to whom it is important, I expect those will be largely anti-SSM.

That might have been true a few years ago, but times are changing. People aren't going to want to vote for a party that tries to discriminate against their gay friend/child/family member.

This, plus opposition to SSM increasingl re-enforces the Democrat's narrative of the GOP being a collection of old white out of touch bigots.

[bedstuy]

This is a ridiculous argument.  This isn't an issue of natural rights.  This is an issue of construing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to a specific set of laws.  It's a question of Constitutional law, reserved under US law to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court ultimately.

Where does the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment stem from, just as the rest of the U.S Constitution does? Debate and discussion over what constitutes 'natural rights' and whether those supposed rights should be protected by the government or not.

The 14th Amendment was enacted through the proper legislative process and is currently the law of the land.  That's the relevant point.  We don't have to re-litigate whether individual liberty should exist or naturally does exist whenever we apply the law.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

Yes but it is. That's the whole point. I'm sure a number of activists for black rights in the 1960's were at best lukewarm about the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. By the same token, I'm sure that there may well have been some closeted segregationists who didn't believe that blacks were deserving of equal rights, but, at the same time, wouldn't have objected to greater rights for gay people. Who decides on what constitutes 'equal rights'? You? Me? Afleitch? The courts? The spokesmen of minority groups? The Pope? Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely keen on the concept of 'rights' in general. You can have privileges, granted by the state (to vote, to marry, to access public services etc) or the Church (to take part in Mass and the other sacraments) or even by your local tennis club (to use their facilities), and if you think that you deserve access to certain privileges, then by all means ask for it. But the idea that all humans possess  intrinsic human rights, ones that they recieve without any qualifications, and that these are an objective reason for the promotion of political and social change, is quite frankly unpersuasive to my mind.

This is a ridiculous argument.  This isn't an issue of natural rights.  This is an issue of construing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to a specific set of laws.  It's a question of Constitutional law, reserved under US law to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court ultimately.

Where does the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment stem from, just as the rest of the U.S Constitution does? Debate and discussion over what constitutes 'natural rights' and whether those supposed rights should be protected by the government or not.

It's simple: if you give heterosexual couples the legal protections they have, you must guarantee those same protections and benefits to same-sex couples.  As bedstuy said, this isn't a relevant argument.  We are simply applying the law.

[Cassius]

No. Even if you believe that gay marriage is the way to go, an abrupt, one size fits all decision to legalise it nationwide is surely the worst way to go about it, both for the county and your cause. I mean look at Roe vs Wade. Strategically-speaking, 'mission creep' through the states is far sounder.

Supreme court decision, we shouldn't have equality as an issue to vote on.

Why not? Equality is a highly subjective concept that means different things to different people. Why should your conception of equality not be put forward to be debated and voted on?

Equal rights is not something you debate, vote on, or even 'give' to someone; it's something you acknowledge and work towards.

Yes but it is. That's the whole point. I'm sure a number of activists for black rights in the 1960's were at best lukewarm about the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. By the same token, I'm sure that there may well have been some closeted segregationists who didn't believe that blacks were deserving of equal rights, but, at the same time, wouldn't have objected to greater rights for gay people. Who decides on what constitutes 'equal rights'? You? Me? Afleitch? The courts? The spokesmen of minority groups? The Pope? Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely keen on the concept of 'rights' in general. You can have privileges, granted by the state (to vote, to marry, to access public services etc) or the Church (to take part in Mass and the other sacraments) or even by your local tennis club (to use their facilities), and if you think that you deserve access to certain privileges, then by all means ask for it. But the idea that all humans possess  intrinsic human rights, ones that they recieve without any qualifications, and that these are an objective reason for the promotion of political and social change, is quite frankly unpersuasive to my mind.

This is a ridiculous argument.  This isn't an issue of natural rights.  This is an issue of construing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in relation to a specific set of laws.  It's a question of Constitutional law, reserved under US law to the judicial branch and the Supreme Court ultimately.

Where does the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment stem from, just as the rest of the U.S Constitution does? Debate and discussion over what constitutes 'natural rights' and whether those supposed rights should be protected by the government or not.

It's simple: if you give heterosexual couples the legal protections they have, you must guarantee those same protections and benefits to same-sex couples.  As bedstuy said, this isn't a relevant argument.  We are simply applying the law.

Then maybe the equal protection clause is in itself flawed. I hate formal constitutions, so little room for manouevre. Thank God we don't have one.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Then maybe the equal protection clause is in itself flawed. I hate formal constitutions, so little room for manouevre. Thank God we don't have one.

Oh dear.