You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
We've passed the tipping point. Prohibition against gay marriage is one of the last civil rights battles, and as Time Magazine noted in their recent issue, the battle has been won. Gays will have the same right to enter into a marriage contract as heterosexuals. It's about time!
So what's the drill here? Trumpeting about this-or-that supposed "conservative" coming out in favor of gay marriage is supposed to somehow influence the SCOTUS to rule in favor of gay marriage when the issue is voted on later this spring? Sorry, fellas. It doesn't work that way. The August Justices consider one thing and one thing only: constitutionality. This is not a popularity contest and all the drumbeating in the world isn't gonna change their minds one iota. The only thing it DOES do is to make the opponents of gay marriage dig in their heels even deeper, and if and when this bounces back to the arena of the political rather than staying in the arena of the judicial, those gay activists who have gone around PO'ing Joe Average Citizen with their hype and hysteria are gonna wish that they had a few more friends and a few less enemies.
owatannabill, no one cares what you think, or likes the way you try and dominate this space. It is amusing, however, to hear you self-importantly refer to yourself in the third person. Just would like to welcome these legislators to the 21st century. They are a century too late, but still nice to see people evolve.
owatonnabill---You are in the minority. Get used to it.
I think it would be safe to say that these two legisators always supported gay marriage, they just decided to "come out of the closet" if you will on making it public. All politicians pander to their base and present a public persona that may or may not reflect their private views. Getting and staying elected is a powerful draw (term limits could change that). The tide is turning in the gay mariage debate I am pretty confident that at the end of the day the law of MAN will state that the union of same sex couples is legal and binding and it will offer the same benefits of a hetrosexual union.
Apparently someone feels that if they can't prevail on this issue on the merits, then intimidation is next on the menu.
" owatonnabill---You are in the minority. Get used to it." .................. Indeed. Owatonnabill is not quite sure which "minority" is being referred to here, however.
owatonnabill: "The August Justices consider one thing and one thing only: constitutionality. This is not a popularity contest and all the drumbeating in the world isn't gonna change their minds one iota." The problem with that is that you have no clue what influences the justices. A Justice who at one time supports a particular position can, years later, have a change of heart and offer an equally compelling Constitutional argument against his or her prior viewpoint. The Constitution doesn't change, but the positions of the Justices can and do change.
"A Justice who at one time supports a particular position can, years later, have a change of heart and offer an equally compelling Constitutional argument against his or her prior viewpoint. The Constitution doesn't change, but the positions of the Justices can and do change." ................ Agreed. Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education is an example. But the last consideration on the list appears to be public opinion--witness the recent ruling on Obamacare when Chief Justice Roberts basically told America that despite the overwhelming public opinion against Obamacare, it is not the job of the SCOTUS to undo bad law and that they would either have to live with the results of the Democratic process, or change it in the next election. Same thing with this issue of gay marriage...those who expect anything but a very narrow ruling that will change little or nothing are apt to be disappointed.
I am wondering why no one seems to comment on why other religious rules like theft and murder aren't considered unconstitutional and should be legalized? If marriage is out because it is "religious" why not the other rules?
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks