SSM is an equal rights issue this fact will never change and laws, rights court cases and court precedent all prove this fact
if anybody disagrees with this fact simply provide anything factual that makes all that stuff disappear.
Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.
There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
One of you will end up here next!
Court cases concerning SSM
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts)
In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
Hollingsworth v. Perry (Cali)
Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.
On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn)
The Court issued its opinion on October 10, 2008. The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.
Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper, Jr. (who replaced the recused Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers).[b] The Court found a substantial difference between marriages and civil unions:
Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal.
Varnum v. Brien (Iowa)
The Court noted that Iowa has a long history of progressive thought on civil rights. Seventeen years before the Dred Scott decision, the Iowa Supreme Court "refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions." Eighty-six years before "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such practices unconstitutional in Iowa. In 1869, Iowa was the first state in the union to admit women to the bar and allow them to practice law. Three years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois' decision to deny women admission to the bar.
The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws.
New Mexico Supreme Court
On December 19, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution required the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Its decision said that the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution required that "All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples." The decision made New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriages. The following day, the clerk and chief deputy clerk in Roosevelt County resigned. The clerk said she could not comply with the court's ruling with "a clear conscience" and added: "I felt like I'd be letting down the majority of people who voted for me."
In response to the Supreme Court decision, state Senator Bill Sharer proposed a joint resolution that, if passed by both houses of the legislature, would put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman to a popular vote. January 6, 2014, Governor Martinez said she would not support efforts to reverse the Supreme Court's decision by enacting a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. She said: "I think what I said before was that yes, the people should have decided on it, but the Supreme Court has decided.... And it's now the law of the land."
New Jersey Superior Court
On September 27, 2013, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson, granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs, ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. Unless a higher court rules otherwise, or grants a stay, the effective date of Judge Jacobson's order legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey is October 21, 2013.
In her ruling, Judge Jacobson states "Since Windsor, the clear trend has been for [Federal] agencies to limit the extension of benefits to only those same-sex couples in legally recognized marriages." She points out that many of these agencies, including the IRS, CMS, and DOL, that are extending benefits to same-sex couples in a marriage, do not recognize New Jersey civil unions for benefits purposes. She points out that the proper issue before the court is whether the New Jersey civil union scheme is unconstitutional because "of the manner it is applied and incorporated by the Federal government." She goes on to reason that this disparate treatment of civil unions versus marriage raises an equal protection claim under both state and Federal constitutions, but only if a state action led to this situation. Because New Jersey enacted a civil union statute that created a "parallel" structure to marriage (the state action) and the N.J. Supreme Court deferred to the Legislature on the actual label "as long as the classifications do not discriminate arbitrarily among persons similarly situated," the situation ended up changing post-Windsor. This change leads to Judge Jacobson's determination that "the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection guarantee."
and Hawaii and New York call their legislation "Marriage Equality Act"
i didnt look and i cant remember but id be willing to bet that other legislation has similar names or refers to equality in their verbiage also..
so again, the fact is SSM is an equal rights issue. Facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent make it so. Opinions are meaningless to this fact.
the writing is on the wall equality is winning and discrimination and bigotry is losing, america is righting one of its wrongs and fixing the unjust act of discrimination.
That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights. And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.
A joke, I hope. Do you even get the irony? Communisim - starvation... get it?There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.
Otherwise, no one could argue just about anything, including gay marriage.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker
One of you will end up here next!
2.) also it has very little to do with the left, this straw man fails every time you mention it since plenty on the right/conservatives support equal rights.
3.) overlooked? you mean like equal rights for women and minorities were and like interracial marriage?
4.) 100% CORRECT . . . . "NEW" rights not equal and theres no case precedent from hetero/homo sexual marriage they can use, and they are free to do so but it will have nothing to do with hetero/homo sexual marriage
5.) see #2 this strawman already failed