commentaries

Another of the left's spit in your face political stunts. Are you going to allow a father and son to marry?

- clintonlies: "Are you going to allow a father and son to marry?" While this question doesn't really deserve a response, for those individuals who truly might wonder about its validity, I'm clarify that the US generally prohibits marriages as follows: - A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one or both parties. - A marriage between an ancestor and or descendant; or between a brother and a sister; or between an uncle and a niece; or between an aunt and a nephew; whether the relationship is by half or the whole blood or adoption. - When either of the parties lacks capacity to consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity or infirmity. - A marriage between different species. This battle simply asks for the right of two adults to marry so long as they don't fall within one of the prohibited categories.

I know a lot of people voted no for the marriage amendment because you didn't believe it was necessary to put it in the state constitution because it was already against the law in the state of Minnesota. They did not vote no because they believed in gay marriage. Well, in many ways I agreed with that argument for the vote no crowd, on the other hand I knew this (some supreme court judges making the "decision") was the alternative. Very disappointing.

Call me crazy, but I have always considered gay marriage to be a quintessentially conservative issue. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones who tell government to stay the heck out of our private homes. And conservatives argue (rightly) that these issues belong to the States, according to the constitution. Sure there are some big spending big government conservatives out there who supported the DMA and other big government initiatives, but these decisions belong squarely with the States.

Are you going to allow a father and son to marry?---yes because that is what this is all about. Now, you say "this will allow people to marry animals".

"Another of the left's spit in your face political stunts. Are you going to allow a father and son to marry?"........... So, you consider the US Supreme Court as leftist. And by the Supreme Court taking the case it is a 'spit in your face political stunt.' The Supreme Court decides totally on their own which cases to hear- no one can force them.

The Supreme Court will determine that marriage equality is law of the land. Why? Because of basic fairness. One class of citizen cannot be treated differently than another class. That truth will eventually win out.

Why do ordinary people's opinions matter? Should my opinion control which rights you have or are denied? The Constitution controls, and, hopefully, a conservative Supreme Court will see that denying equal rights to any class of citizen is simply, well, unconstitutional.

From the article: "[Lawyers supporting the ban on same-sex marriage] didn't fail because they're bad lawyers; they failed because there isn't any evidence to support the argument they're advocating." David Boies got it exactly right!

explicitly embracing the notion of a living Constitution whose meaning evolves to reflect changing social mores. - - - So were the founding fathers just kidding about all that amendment process? Do we just need to change a definition to get the new normal?