US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Kyle; it's worth pointing out then whenever gay marriage has come to a public vote it's lost apart from like once. It only won because of meddling liberal judges.

Not a victory to be all that proud of.

[xxMATTGxx]

Love it

[Chippiewill]

it's worth pointing out then whenever gay marriage has come to a public vote it's lost apart from like once. It only won because of meddling liberal judges.

Or maybe the general public doesn't get to vote on civil liberties.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Or maybe the general public doesn't get to vote on civil liberties.

It evidently does in some states hence why it has lost nearly every public vote it's been put to. I do understand what you mean though, but then again that's just another reason for a unitary state and sovereign parliamentary system like our own rather than a federal system with a constitution like the United States.

[karter]

yay congrats hopefully other countries will follow or at least get rid of the homophobic laws

[FlyingJesus]

gay marriage is an issue so small it has no place with the federal government

Except it's not - because so many other legal and social functions revolve around the idea of legal coupling. I agree that it's SUPPOSED to be, and realistically there should never have been privileges given in a secular country to those who choose a rather specific form of religious living arrangement, but when you have a country where people can literally be kicked out of their homes for no other reason than them having a boyfriend rather than a wife then these things do have to be addressed nationally

[Chippiewill]

America is supposed to have a weak federal government, with strong states - gay marriage is an issue so small it has no place with the federal government.

One of the few issues the federal government is definitely responsible for is upholding the constitution on which the SCOTUS had made its ruling.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Except it's not - because so many other legal and social functions revolve around the idea of legal coupling. I agree that it's SUPPOSED to be, and realistically there should never have been privileges given in a secular country to those who choose a rather specific form of religious living arrangement, but when you have a country where people can literally be kicked out of their homes for no other reason than them having a boyfriend rather than a wife then these things do have to be addressed nationally

In any system of law or differing law across one sovereign state there will always be legal loopholes and people who fall through them. That however isn't justification for the US Supreme Court to enact what is a political and moral issue and dictate that to the states when time and time again the issue has demonstrated it doesn't have public support as it fails at the ballot box.

I can understand the need for states to recognise a gay marriage (which I believe was the case) but that is different to performing them themselves. In other words, Alabama should be compelled to recognise the legality of a Californian couple's union but Alabama certainly shouldn't be forced to conduct similar unions.

One of the few issues the federal government is definitely responsible for is upholding the constitution on which the SCOTUS had made its ruling.

The US Supreme Court, like the US Presidency these days, appears to have a very strange idea of what the constitution applies to. Nowhere did the Founding Fathers sit down and write that gay marriage is equivilent to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. It's clearly a state-level issue yet activist liberal judges have been pissed for a long time that despite having celebrity and establishment backing, ballots on gay marriage keep returning No's each and every time.

The role of the federal government isn't even supposed to include competences such as education, healthcare - that's state level too, or should be/was.

[Chippiewill]

The US Supreme Court, like the US Presidency these days, appears to have a very strange idea of what the constitution applies to. Nowhere did the Founding Fathers sit down and write that gay marriage is equivilent to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. It's clearly a state-level issue yet activist liberal judges have been pissed for a long time that despite having celebrity and establishment backing, ballots on gay marriage keep returning No's each and every time.

As I said before, ballots mean jack **** when it comes to civil liberties. A precedent was set a long time ago that Marriage is protected by the constitution when bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional therefore a person's right to marry any other person is protected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As I said before, ballots mean jack **** when it comes to civil liberties. A precedent was set a long time ago that Marriage is protected by the constitution when bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional therefore a person's right to marry any other person is protected.

The comparison between gay marriage though and interracial marriage is absurd, and many blacks (who are among the biggest opponents of gay marriage in America as a demographic group) reject that comparison too. The banning of interracial marriages was an absurd law that discriminated against people for something that they could not help: marriage laws on the other hand never discriminated against gay people just gay people could only get married if to a woman - like everybody else. In other words, it wasn't a discriminatory law standing in the way but the very definition of the concept itself.

A lot of black Americans can't stand having their skin colour compared with a behaviour.