U.S. Supreme Court jilts democracy on marriage

  • Article by: Jason Lewis
  • Updated: August 3, 2013 - 4:26 PM

The people should pass judgment on this, as they did, and will, in Minnesota.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
hawkeye56379Aug. 3, 13 5:33 PM

Marriage equality can not be left to the states when it violates the equal protection clause. In the 60's the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage as violating the equal protection clause. That was a correct decision, wasn't it? Now, instead of government dictating the race of who someone could marry, the issue is gender. By the way, the argument in this column about state v. federal powers has little to do with this - this is about the rights of individuals, not the power of government. And, just as in the 60's before Loving v. Virginia struck down bans on interracial marriage, no government has the power to treat people unequally under the law.

badcopperAug. 3, 13 6:06 PM

I am the last person on the planet that would attend a "pride this" or a "pride that". I am also not a lawyer by trade or education so I confess my opinion may not have merit in the eyes of the court. I do not believe in controlling other individuals no matter the issue as long as their actions don't hurt others. As my sons grow up, if they realize they are gay would I want them to have the option o marry? Of course i would. It would break my heart to look them in the face if they could not. I also have a strong faith and have some confusion on where my faith lies on this issue. I don't believe i Will be judged harshly by my creator for showing kindness. I didn't vote for the amendment. I didn't vote against it either (knowing full well what that means)due to "some" of the tactics used. I am tired of hearing about it (from both sides).

pumiceAug. 3, 13 6:29 PM

From the article: "the only precedent set here is the majority’s desire to impose its morality on every state in the union as soon as the next marriage case arrives at the court’s step." From another perspective, Mr. Lewis, you are the one who would impose your morality on others whereas the majority of the Supreme Court ruled to protect the right of all Americans to basic due process and equal protection principles.

davehougAug. 3, 1310:25 PM

I am confused by the whole issue of who has standing to challenge a law. We were just told the suing to stop the Day Care provider union vote should not even be in the courts. My previous post points to how does a person know when they are in conflict with the law??? Do we apply logic or just find out the preference of the court today and good luck with the next set of judges?

liora51Aug. 4, 13 6:34 AM

Davehoug: applying logic would tell me that there is a huge difference between a labor/union question and a question of constitutional protection.

nicho9lasAug. 4, 13 7:18 AM

badcopper - I probably disagree with your opinions 99% of the time, but I want to say that I appreciate your willingness to put the freedoms of others above whatever your church might tell you. I think it's great that you chose kindness over legislative evangelism (despite being turned off at times by the tone of the amendment's opponents).

mmediaAug. 4, 13 8:21 AM

They make copies of the Constitution in convenient pamphlet size. Jason should get one, highlight the 14th, and keep it in his pocket.

twspt7Aug. 4, 13 8:45 AM

"Proponents of this pseudo equality on marriage naively suggest you shouldn’t treat people differently. Wonderful, let’s start with smokers and rich people — both of whom are handled quite differently under the law." First of all, Jason, your apparent ideological opponents in the marriage issue suggest you shouldn't treat people differently BECAUSE OF their sexual orientation, just as you shouldn't treat people differently BECAUSE OF their age, gender or ethnicity. Big difference. And secondly, you're right, at least in how we currently treat rich people in the tax code. The top 1% pays a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than every other quintile but the very bottom, and, given the top quintile's economic gains in the past 30 or so years, this obvious shirking of economic responsibility must be corrected. I'm glad to see that you are on board with this.

presterjohnAug. 4, 13 8:57 AM

The SCOTUS majority opinions on these rulings are totally convoluted. Thus the legal logic behind them is weak and susceptible to overturn. I read them and I swear these guys seem to be making stuff up (just like in the ObamaCare ruling which I read too). As to Minnesota, there was A LOT of voter fraud going on with this. If popular referendum had been honest, and not gamed by certain progressive elements, the result would have been exactly the opposite.

twspt7Aug. 4, 13 9:32 AM

@presterjohn "As to Minnesota, there was A LOT of voter fraud going on with this" Really? Got any proof? Voter fraud has been studied on both a state and national level, and EXTREMELY LITTLE voter fraud was detected, something like .003%. But maybe you have evidence of voter fraud that no one else does, so please enlighten us...


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters