Why Marriage Equality is not a States Rights issue

[Dapper_Fellow]

I loved a man who was from South Africa and was working here on a visa. I really loved him, he completed me. Well, his visa expired and he had to return to South Africa. I would have married him to keep him here with me, but sadly immigration is a Federal right. Even in states that allow same-sex marriage, such state recognized marriages CANNOT confer citizen status upon an immigrant. Thus, until same-sex marriage is Federally recognized, I cannot provide a means to pursue a relationship with the one I love.

Sadly he no longer is in touch with me, I suspect it's because he lives in the closet on the hostile streets of Capetown, but I may never know why I no longer am in correspondence with him. *sigh*

Relationship details aside, I hope my anecdote has illustrated the neccesity of marriage equality on the Federal level.

[Neonaught]

You story definitely qualifies as tragic. My deepest sympathies go out to you. While I favor marriage equality I'm sickened by the political pandering it engenders. I respect the President but frankly he lacks the legal authority to do anything about the issue other than shine a bright light on it and spur reasoned discourse. Marriage licences are disbursed by States, not the Federal government. That makes it a State issue. Period. Immigration is within the purvue of the Federal government. The States can squak and wave their arms and foam at the mouth all they want and it changes these facts not one whit.
I wish we had a parlimentary government that was vunerable to losing power quickly and easily in a vote of no confidence. We'd have a lot more electoral chaos but at least the politicians would be much more answerable to the people than they are now.

[Long Duck Dong]

it always amuses me how people will deny others the rights that they have the chance to enjoy themselves.... and its why I often say, its the me, myself and I generation and the era of my rights thinking......

honestly I think that culture, race, religion and sexuality / gender should all be removed from the argument of marriage rights..... and that what should be argued is simply age ( legal age of consent ) and mental capacity ( does a person in a situation of being able to consent, understand what they are consenting to ) ..... or we just abolish marriage all together ( ducks for cover )

I can not really think of any other issue in history that has been argued and debated and yet denied to so many, coveted by so many and also not valued by so many, as marriage.....nor made so bound up by legalities ( benefits, medical rights of consent and visitation, custody etc )

I used to think that slavery ended years ago..... it merely changed and made us slaves to legal laws, rules and statues that keep us prisoner to the will of others.... and we call it freedom.....

[Annika L]

I have friends who are a married male couple. One has pension benefits from a Federal job that the other would receive funds from as well, except that the Federal government does not recognize their (state-wise legal) union. So they are missing out on over $100k of benefits that a hetero couple would enjoy.

Not nearly as tragic as the OP, but still another reason why it matters.

[Annika L]

(by the way, LDD, where can I join the Ducks for Cover? :tongue: )

(and Drew...where has my lovely : tong : gone?? The old one, I mean...the new one is just goofy. I was addicted to that thing!) :P

[æonpax]

I loved a man who was from South Africa and was working here on a visa. I really loved him, he completed me. Well, his visa expired and he had to return to South Africa. I would have married him to keep him here with me, but sadly immigration is a Federal right. Even in states that allow same-sex marriage, such state recognized marriages CANNOT confer citizen status upon an immigrant. Thus, until same-sex marriage is Federally recognized, I cannot provide a means to pursue a relationship with the one I love.
Sadly he no longer is in touch with me, I suspect it's because he lives in the closet on the hostile streets of Capetown, but I may never know why I no longer am in correspondence with him. *sigh*
Relationship details aside, I hope my anecdote has illustrated the neccesity of marriage equality on the Federal level.
`

I emapthize with your situation but the entire issue of Federal Rights Vs States Rights has a long and I will add, bloody, history to it. It is in truth, a complex issue. I will give my opinion but this is one of those topics where there is no right or wrong answer. I would agree that by allowing the federal government to constitutionally dictate and enforce certain laws, in this case concerning same sex marriage, would appear to be prudent approach but it is fraught with problems that may not appear right away. Also, so contentious is this issue that it was one of the causes of the Civil War.

I would advise people to read into the legal, then social facets of this issue.


* http://bit.ly/JHF4UD - States Rights

* http://bit.ly/JHG8I7 - Tenth Amendment

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - Ninth Amendment

[Plumhead2]

States may disburse marriage licenses, but protection of all people's civil rights is a federal matter. Discrimination based on gender preferences should not be tolerated in this country. Equal protection under the law should trump states rights.

[Dapper_Fellow]

Pretty baffled that all those who bloviate on States Rights in other posts have failed to address this one. I guess the power of personal experience is that it gives a face to issues that people would rather not look in the eye.

"Again, it may be said, that to love justice and equality the people need no great effort of virtue; it is sufficient that they love themselves."
-Maximilien Robespierre

[dafydd]

Could you have gone over there, or could he have arranged another visa.... ? Why was his immigration to US the only chance for a meaningful relationship? I guess I probably would have felt the same way as you. Just curious.
My friend in the states had a similar story but luckily she was able to move to her lover's country.
South Africa is strange in that equality for LGB people is actually written into their constitution... and yet it seems that this does not translate to the culture (I dated a south african) pushy fella, a bit too single minded.. Sexy though... Nice hands...miss him now.

[Dapper_Fellow]

There's a few reasons. He was here to make money for his family whom he lived with in South Africa, and he was not out of the closet to them. Secondly I didn't have the money to just pack up and leave. Thirdly he didn't want me to move to South Africa, he insisted we wouldn't have a better life there, he sincerely wanted to be here in the States. He asked me to marry him, and that's when I did the research to find out that it wouldn't have mattered, and will continue to not matter unless there is Federal Marriage Equality, or Congress passes the Uniting American Family Act (UAFA) which has been introduced in the last 13 sessions of Congress by Barney Frank (whose retirement means that it probably won't be introduced during this session).

All I know now is that I'm not going to let money stand in my way ever again. I've been homeless for far less than the love I felt for Wesley, and I know now not to let fear keep me from love. It's probably the hardest lesson I have ever learned. I still think about him everyday, and I have no way to know whether he's alright.
5820
Here's a picture of us. Shucks, I sure miss being that happy.

[dafydd]

Dapper_Fellow
That is a beautiful pic. I hope you find him again or find a way to live happily with just those amazing memories of him. Thanks for posting the pic and your story. The pic is very inspiring and a type of image we need to see more off, aswell as discussion about/critique of/ways to respond to members and parts of society that would object to such an image, the hijackers of love that have caused us all damage at one time or another.

Salute.

[ivanthemonkey]

As regretful as it might be, at this point in time it would be better not to allow imigration by marriage for same sex couples. The reason is simply one of legal complications.

The biggest issue is not that of marriage, but of divorce. Same sex couples who later break up are often unable to obtain a divorce outside of the jurisdiction that married them. Worse no longer being residents or citizens of that area, can't apply for divorse there either. In a state that doesn't recognize the marriage, they also can't give a divorse.

Worse still is international marraiges, a Canadian court refused to give a divorse to a couple who lived in the US, and who had broken up and returned to their countries of orrigin, on to the UK, the other to Canada, because it had no jurisdiction since same sex marriage wasn't legal in that province.

While this might seem as no great deal, since being denied a divorce means they aren't married, what it means is that the divorsed partners have no rights or recourse in the eyes of the law as they would if they were recognized.

Unless the marriage is recognized federally in both of the 2 countries, then it would be foolish to allow immigration by marriage.

[jamieknyc]

In the United States, a same-sex couple can get a divorce in those states that recognize same-sex marriages, so long as they meet the residency requierments under that state's divorce laws. Where the couple come from or where the marriage was performed is immaterial.

[*pan*]

i have found nothing in the u.s. constitution that says a man must marry a woman, i can't understand why the government keeps getting involved with issues that are personal ones, and at the least state issues if they really need to be issues at all. just more big brother bullshit. http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
and about being in the closet in south africa i believe it is the death penalty to have same sex down there if caught. i could be wrong but i remember reading about something like that.

[dafydd]

i have found nothing in the u.s. constitution that says a man must marry a woman, i can't understand why the government keeps getting involved with issues that are personal ones, and at the least state issues if they really need to be issues at all. ..

because in America church is not seperated from state 'in god we trust' etc... The US does have secular societies but they are ultimately constricted by federal borders which can enforce non-secularism and in those areas the King James Bible is more quoted than the constitution (marriage there *is* stated as only being between a man and a woman.)


.......and about being in the closet in south africa i believe it is the death penalty to have same sex down there if caught. i could be wrong but i remember reading about something like that.

*Pan*, funnily enough it's the complete opposite and LGBT rights are enshrined in its constitution. I pulled this from wikipedia, just to check:

"May 1996, South Africa became the first jurisdiction in the world to provide constitutional protection to LGBT (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/LGBT) people, via section 9(3) of the South African Constitution (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/South_African_Constitution), which disallows discrimination on race, gender, sexual orientation (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/Sexual_orientation) and other grounds. As of 1 January 2008, all provisions that discriminate have been formally repealed. This included introducing an equalised age of consent (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_Africa) at 16 regardless of sexual orientation (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/Sexual_orientation), and all sexual offences defined in gender-neutral (http://www.bisexual.com/wiki/Gender-neutral) terms.["

It's a good example of legislation that can enforce justice but doesn't always prevent discrimination from happening in the first place. Cultural attitudes take a lot longer to change after discrimination laws are passed. In parts of South Africa there is terrible homphobia/biphobia and yet it has one of the most liberally progressive constitutions in the world.

Full acceptance occurs organically after politics is finished and, for instance in the case of bisexuality is largey due to the way individuals not governments deal with bisexuality. Thats why we all have more influence to make the changes we want than we sometimes think. e.g we cant leave it up to liberal politicians or activists...because even victories there are not the end of the story.

I think it sometimes sounds on here as if I don't agree with anyone who is in the closet. Thats not true. For some people, its a workable solution: they can better live happy lives, and challenge discrimination in small ways that dont involve coming out to the world...
It's when people have great ideas/passion/anger/criticisms of bisexual issues AND criticise 'out' public figures ...but do so not from the challenge the same public platform..but from the comfort of their own hidden secret lives. Things seem simpler when there is no risk involved. But I also recognise that being 'out' doesn't mean you're opinions are immune from criticism. I constantly rage against some aspects of the LGBT equality business but id rather sit down to tea with those people than say the Bush administration for instance ... or the Westboro Baptist church (and not just because I prefer the biscuits they serve in LGBT community meetings)

'Rules of engagement' change dramatically when you're out on the front line': ideas that seem so simple before take on new dimensions of complexity.
It's like World War II generals who sat miles and miles away from the front line in plush offices, directing the actions of men dying in the trenches, and debating unit tactics next to a warm fire and whiskey in their hand.

I just wonder if these people would think twice about their vocal criticisms of 'out' LGBT people and their public views/personnae if they had to put their own heads over the parapet to speak.

Maybe in South Africa people thought it was enough that they had equality down on a piece of paper..maybe people got complacent because they felt the law would deal with all that stuff and it wasn't their responsibility. In a metaphorical sense, maybe too many South Africans crossed to the other of street and expected the police to pick up the hate crime victims.
I dunno but i guess its easy to normalise blood on the pavement when, even in blind good faith, you think the next person who comes along will clean it up. The person behind you though is probably thinking the same thing.

d

[æonpax]

i have found nothing in the u.s. constitution that says a man must marry a woman, i can't understand why the government keeps getting involved with issues that are personal ones, and at the least state issues if they really need to be issues at all. just more big brother bullshit. http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
and about being in the closet in south africa i believe it is the death penalty to have same sex down there if caught. i could be wrong but i remember reading about something like that.

There are many laws and statues that, while not in the US Constitution, still have constitutional backing. See: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

[void()]

There are many laws and statues that, while not in the US Constitution, still have constitutional backing. See: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Still think this (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html) which is linked via the source you cite is spot on.


The enumeration (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ENUMERATE) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

From my understanding, if I choose the right to marry a man then, so be it as it is my right regardless if it is in the constitution or not. Granted, I am not a lawyer and do face issues in perceptual comprehension. Point being, I'm a person. The 9th Amendment says just because they don't list a right in there, does not mean it is not a right granted to people.

It does not not deny the right, nor disparage it. To me this seems to me that if I desired to marry a unicorn, a frog, a lamp post and I was not endangering anyone, including myself, then I ought to be given the right to do just that. Not that I desire marrying any of these, merely illustrating a point with hyperbole.

Which ultimately leaves me having the opinion that it is a federal issue. The states do not have more power than federal government. Poo rolls downhill and not up. So, if the federal government cannot deny or disparage rights of the people, only follows that states are not allowed to do so. Again, INAL but this seems pretty clear cut.

Oh wait, sorry. I'm using common sense. Damn being mentally challenged by those lacking common sense! You must now please the void by showing him the sacred thing known as exit. That is all.

[dafydd]

Still think this (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html) which is linked via the source you cite is spot on.



From my understanding, if I choose the right to marry a man then, so be it as it is my right regardless if it is in the constitution or not. Granted, I am not a lawyer and do face issues in perceptual comprehension. Point being, I'm a person. The 9th Amendment says just because they don't list a right in there, does not mean it is not a right granted to people.

It does not not deny the right, nor disparage it. To me this seems to me that if I desired to marry a unicorn, a frog, a lamp post and I was not endangering anyone, including myself, then I ought to be given the right to do just that. Not that I desire marrying any of these, merely illustrating a point with hyperbole.

Which ultimately leaves me having the opinion that it is a federal issue. The states do not have more power than federal government. Poo rolls downhill and not up. So, if the federal government cannot deny or disparage rights of the people, only follows that states are not allowed to do so. Again, INAL but this seems pretty clear cut.


But what if your 'right' to do something infringes on someone elses 'right'?
Whose 'right' is right?
There are no inherent rights to anything. They are created and conferred upon us.
You have no more the inherent right to marry a man than I have the right to access the internet.

I haven't quite finished with this thought. Im going to mull over why I think this.

D

[void()]

That is where this comes in.


To me this seems to me that if I desired to marry a unicorn, a frog, a lamp post and I was not endangering anyone, including myself, then I ought to be given the right to do just that.

If you are not harming anyone, self inclusive, then how could it be argued you've infringed upon anyone's rights? Go on and mull your thought over. Providing a different view may be difficult, either because there isn't one, or I'll be unable to grasp it. I comprehend your point of rights being bestowed. I also understand there some rights which need not be. Common decency and respect granted to one another should not require some authoritarian endowment yet ought to exist as cannon of being civilized beings, for example.

[æonpax]

Still think this (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html) which is linked via the source you cite is spot on.
From my understanding, if I choose the right to marry a man then, so be it as it is my right regardless if it is in the constitution or not. Granted, I am not a lawyer and do face issues in perceptual comprehension. Point being, I'm a person. The 9th Amendment says just because they don't list a right in there, does not mean it is not a right granted to people. {snipped for brevity}
`

From my imperfect understanding, under the US Constitution, if a right is not enumerated or listed, it becomes an unremunerated right or a right that is not expressly mentioned in the written text of a constitution but instead is inferred from the language, history, and structure of the constitution, or cases interpreting it. Classic example, the right to an abortion or Roe v. Wade that started off as a “right to privacy” issue, which in itself was an unremunerated right until the SCOTUS Griswold v. Connecticut decision years earlier.

Because the “Right To Marry” is not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, which is on the Federal level, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment, it becomes the domain of the states. Unless a state law violates a federal law, which it did in the miscegenation (blacks and whites cannot marry) marriage law in Loving v. Virginia and was brought before the US Supreme Court, a state may enact laws prohibiting same sex marriage, which is the crux of this issue.

[void()]

`Unless a state law violates a federal law, which it did in the miscegenation (blacks and whites cannot marry) marriage law in Loving v. Virginia and was brought before the US Supreme Court, a state may enact laws prohibiting same sex marriage, which is the crux of this issue.

It is the same principle as far as I am able to discern. It is discrimination the same as laws against children born of two races was discrimination. Simply put it is the same old mantra of "you're different, me and my buddies hate you and will discriminate against you, cause your life to be a living hell." And discrimination and hate crimes violate federal law.

Ah, but me and common sense get into trouble. Forgot putting on socks this morning, shoes too, shirt. I did have on my nickers and a pair of PT shorts, ran around barefoot like some bearded, wide eyed, wild man hillbilly boy of fifteen. And now sitting here feeling the ever quintessential reminder of mortality, the pulsating thump of my heart pumping blood at a highly pressurized rate. Glad I took that shower upon coming back in. Still in nothing but my nickers and shorts. *grins and chuckles* Not a lick of sense here.

[dafydd]

As regretful as it might be, at this point in time it would be better not to allow imigration by marriage for same sex couples. The reason is simply one of legal complications. The biggest issue is not that of marriage, but of divorce. Same sex couples who later break up are often unable to obtain a divorce outside of the jurisdiction that married them. Worse no longer being residents or citizens of that area, can't apply for divorse there either. In a state that doesn't recognize the marriage, they also can't give a divorse.

Ahhh.. I've got it all wrong then. People who fall in love with someone of the same gender and want to marry are prevented from doing so in the US and UK (in name only), not because their governments see their relationships as second class...but because they are simply looking out for their best interests. How comforting.
It's not because they look down on LGB people, or consider their relationships invalid..it's because the politicans simply care too much and don't want LGB people to suffer horrible, complicated divorces.

I doubt though you'd find one LGB person who would say,
"Gee Mr and Mrs. Government, thanks for warning me! I'll take your advice and count my lucky stars I can't marry the love of my life. The liberals make equality sound fun...but you've warned me about the other side of the coin. And that shows me more that you care."

Look, same-sex divorce might be a real nightmare as you describe... but Ill take my chances thanks very much...just give me the information and .. I can weigh up the consequences myself..Its for me to decide to want to face that possibility, not the government to decide it for me.

In any case..heterosexual divorce isn't very easy or pain free either I've heard. Even the worst legal hell wouldn't force two people to live together until the divorce comes through. Isn't that what separation is for. It's not a torture in the sense that you're tagged and monitored and must remain with 5 feet of each other at all times....even at night in bed so that you're forced to sleep with someone who now disgusts you.
(That's the kind of torture you should expect after mediocre NSA sex and you can't get a taxi home)

Who goes into marriage thinking about divorce anyway? Surely if you're in love.....? I would assume those people concerned about divorce before the wedding, the ones who make prenuptial... those people have been divorced before.
People who have never had a marriage in the first place let alone the right to marry surely wouldn't waste any time worrying over that.

Prisoners-of-war, kidnap victims, etc locked away for years in dark lonely cells, don't worry about the potential to twist their ankle during the planned escape attempt. They're not grateful for the fact that despite being locked in a dungeon...at least they'll never have to worry about getting sun-burn, trying on new clothes that don't fit them or getting ill and ruining a dinner party cos they ate too much.

All they care about is being able to see the sun, wear fresh clean clothes, and have a decent meal again, and if given the option by the captors to escape but then warned that freedom might mean having to pay their taxes again....im sure they'd quite politely say that they would prefer to take any risk if it meant they could be free.

And international marriages just to say, for some,.. are a god send. Countries with same-sex marriage who open their borders to a couple are countries who recognise love, afford equality to disenfranchised people, and make it possible for others officially leave rotten governments behind and for a new life without fear of death, discrimination, and the fear of lifelong lonliness in the closet.

Now...there is also a less 'noble' reason difficult same-sex divorces should *not* be considered all together bad.
Some unscrupulous people prefer long and messy divorces.. if the now despised other half is rich...and they can milk them for all the financial benefits marriage that confers upon two people.
LGB people aren't all angels you know...it's almost like....they're human...and behave exactly like the heteroesexual people do. Some LGB people are kind and loving,..and others can be mean, selfish money grabbers, who'll relish the red tape of divorce to bleed their partners dry to the very last drop. Just saying.

Same-sex marriage is denied, not because of bureaucratic red tape, .....but because of bigotry, religion, poor education and/or democratic governments who want to appeal to the most voters.

D

[darkeyes]

It is the same principle as far as I am able to discern. It is discrimination the same as laws against children born of two races was discrimination. Simply put it is the same old mantra of "you're different, me and my buddies hate you and will discriminate against you, cause your life to be a living hell." And discrimination and hate crimes violate federal law.

Ah, but me and common sense get into trouble. Forgot putting on socks this morning, shoes too, shirt. I did have on my nickers and a pair of PT shorts, ran around barefoot like some bearded, wide eyed, wild man hillbilly boy of fifteen. And now sitting here feeling the ever quintessential reminder of mortality, the pulsating thump of my heart pumping blood at a highly pressurized rate. Glad I took that shower upon coming back in. Still in nothing but my nickers and shorts. *grins and chuckles* Not a lick of sense here.
Seems the same principle to me Voidie, but bein' no legal eagle wot do I kno? I just use the grey matter which tells me 1 thing, but legal bods tell me summat else.. went out wiv a solicitor wen younger and he kept tellin' me wiv just a lil 2 much glee that the the law says discriminating against women on equal pay didnt mean they cant discriminate against women on pay they can only discriminate legally an' even then there were circumstances where they could cos the law didn't apply.. and that was right and proper.. the gett didn't last long in me affections an now is quite a famous advocate... and still a wanker!!

..and talking of knicks, or rather lack of 'em, was layin nakey in back garden this morning when the postie came and knocked on door.. Fran sleepily tootled 2 door an wos 'bout 2 open it wen ther wos a screech from behind me... me daughter reminded me me wos as me wos born in the garment stakes.. just 'bout died wen it dawned... spesh as I recognised the ole coot through the frosted glass an since it wosn't 'is birfday the Fran nakeyness wos not on offer!!! Ty darlin' Mummy Fran owes ya one!!! Xtra fiver in pocket money this week!!!

[void()]

LOL

Way to lull the postie mate into overlooking all the special royalties checks from Void's Village Brothel/Laundry/Pub/Speakeasy. "Brill day! i kin seez nakey Geordie lass fetch post! woot! Nevermind 'er gettins these huge cheques from some vast criminal terrorist netwerks. void who, eh? n'r erd o' im."

LOL

On blot next is arranging fer the satilite uplink fer global comsat to rival the MaRzTEL netwerks used by milly types. den wez be in da guudin ta pawn de world.

[darkeyes]

Geordie lass? Had 'e been a Geordie postie wudda been ok cos it wudn b me answerin' door!! Had it been postie we had last year mita opened door ne way cos she wos quite cute.. tho mayb not.. some rite pervs in our road an round abouts... an no cheques 2 day.. from crims or ne 1 else.. leccie bill.. but they r crims an all.... as r gas, fone companies an' local council...but handin' out money not ther thing.. least not 2 me...

[æonpax]

It is the same principle as far as I am able to discern. It is discrimination the same as laws against children born of two races was discrimination. Simply put it is the same old mantra of "you're different, me and my buddies hate you and will discriminate against you, cause your life to be a living hell." And discrimination and hate crimes violate federal law. {snip}
`
You touched upon the crux of the matter, discrimination, specifically in regards to federal laws and statues pertaining to homosexuals. Now here’s the tragic part, people assume the US Government has laws prohibiting discrimination by sexual orientation…it doesn’t.



EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) - http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/index.cfm
HUD (Housing and Urban Development) – http://www.hud.gov/complaints/
Civil Rights Act of 1991 – http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/civil-rights-act-of-1991.html
Family and Medical Leave Act – http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/29/28
Federal Marriage Benefits Denied to Same-Sex Couples – http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html


My common sense, as well as yours, tells me this is blatant discrimination against homosexuals and needs to be corrected at the federal level, but it hasn’t. Clinton and the democrats never attempted to change that, Bush and his cronies were anti-homosexual and Obama and the cowardly democrats, despite his advantage of having a super-majority in congress his first year in office, never even tried to rectify this. The reality here is that there are special interest groups with deep pockets either blocking or stonewalling any legal efforts to gain homosexuals their inherent rights.

As with marriage, if a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it becomes a state right, which is where you see the most progress being made for gay rights. Wisconsin, for example, has a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals ( http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wjlgs/issues/2007-spring/turnernobanner.pdf ) but also has a law prohibiting carnal acts between homosexuals. (Go figure) Many Wisconsin municipalities such as Milwaukee, Madison, Racine and Green Bay, have enacted their own laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays in employment and housing and also offers same-sex benefits. This same kind of practice has been going on in just about all the states, well, leastways in states where people are educated and not under the influence of archaic and hateful beliefs.

Remedies:


1 - As I pointed out, when Obama and the gutless congressional democrats had a chance to change the federal anti-discrimination laws to include homosexuals, they never even attempted. I do not expect the Teapublicans in congress, whom are already rabidly anti-homosexual, to do it either. If they will not change the discrimination laws, they certainly will not pass a law allowing gay marriage.

2 – Amendment to the Constitution? Perhaps in the near future but more states need to allow same-sex marriage for the votes to be there.

3 – The Supreme Court? This a very conservative, right leaning court, especially with the likes of Scalia and Thomas sitting on the bench. Mind you, this is the same court that in a moment of idiotic and foolish jurisprudence, allowed the corporations to become people, in the “Citizens United” ruling. This is not a good time to mount a constitutional challenge in regards to discrimination in same-sex marriage. With the exception of the “Dred Scott” ruling, SCOTUS historically, never changes its decisions. There is every reason to believe that the present Supreme Court would not rule favorably upon same-sex marriage.

[void()]

Remedies:


1 - As I pointed out, when Obama and the gutless congressional democrats had a chance to change the federal anti-discrimination laws to include homosexuals, they never even attempted. I do not expect the Teapublicans in congress, whom are already rabidly anti-homosexual, to do it either. If they will not change the discrimination laws, they certainly will not pass a law allowing gay marriage.

2 – Amendment to the Constitution? Perhaps in the near future but more states need to allow same-sex marriage for the votes to be there.

3 – The Supreme Court? This a very conservative, right leaning court, especially with the likes of Scalia and Thomas sitting on the bench. Mind you, this is the same court that in a moment of idiotic and foolish jurisprudence, allowed the corporations to become people, in the “Citizens United” ruling. This is not a good time to mount a constitutional challenge in regards to discrimination in same-sex marriage. With the exception of the “Dred Scott” ruling, SCOTUS historically, never changes its decisions. There is every reason to believe that the present Supreme Court would not rule favorably upon same-sex marriage.



You forgot choice number 4, hoist the black flag and cry havoc. I can see being reasonable, peaceable when a system works and has only superficial corruption. No one can fault a little fudging of the rules and that's par for the course of nature. When the corruption sinks into the roots of the system, plays it like a fiddle, then it's time to uproot that fucker and start again. Yes, I hate admitting to thoughts such as that. Still, if a dog is kicked enough it should not be surprising if it bites.