Lawmakers push opposing bills over same-sex marriage

Just looking at it from a legal issue, marriage is a constitutional right, declared so by the Supreme Court in 1967. Thus, laws which discriminate in the realm of civil marriage on grounds that have no governmental or compelling interest must be ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

It doesn't make sense to afford benefits to one group and simultaneously deny them to another. These are modern day Jim Crow laws, and make no sense.

Either extend ZERO benefits to everyone, or extend ALL benefits to everyone.

Stop Complaining wrote:

Just looking at it from a legal issue, marriage is a constitutional right, declared so by the Supreme Court in 1967. Thus, laws which discriminate in the realm of civil marriage on grounds that have no governmental or compelling interest must be ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
It doesn't make sense to afford benefits to one group and simultaneously deny them to another. These are modern day Jim Crow laws, and make no sense.
Either extend ZERO benefits to everyone, or extend ALL benefits to everyone.

Well said.

The current quandary in California is whether or not to invalidate the already-granted same sex marriages.

While the US Constitution promises equality for all, the push is on in the States to enact laws which supersede the Constitution. This happens every day, i.e. Gun Laws.(even laws in the US Code supersede the US Constitution.)

From my POV, the only reasons to deny same-sex partners equal benefits are Religious or "moral". If laws are enacted solely for Religious or "moral" values, we have become the Taliban.

At this point the 18,000 already married will keep their marriages intact. There is no logical argument to ban marriage. The rhetoric will only wrap around the issue of benefits and moral values held by followers of a mythos. This is not the ban on the existence of gays that most Californians think they have voted for and now Pennsylvania ventures into. Allowing people to marry will ultimately not hurt anyone.

right on!
and if they do not invalidate those already married (in CA)- then it opens the door to why they should keep their marriage legally but deny others the same... just like they tried to deny ppl the right to have mixed race marriages... archaic!

We need to make a big push to get this pro-equality amendment passed in Pennsylvania. I've emailed all of the senators and my representative, but it is unlikely to pass given the fact that the Republicans who control the senate are conservative.

You know what? We need a new political party: The CONSTITUTIONALIST Party.

Libertarians come close, but have their own constitutionally deviant policies.

The new CONSTITUTIONALIST Party would adhere to that document alone. No other laws (US Code, or State Code) would supersese the US Constitution.

If an adjustment needs to be made, for whatever reason, we have the mechanism to "Amend" the Constitution itself. It's been done before.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, it isn't Law, Stare Decisis goes out the window, thousands of tons of law books get recycled, and the US Constitution becomes the ONLY law in the land.

Dennis Mac wrote:

You know what? We need a new political party: The CONSTITUTIONALIST Party.
Libertarians come close, but have their own constitutionally deviant policies.
The new CONSTITUTIONALIST Party would adhere to that document alone. No other laws (US Code, or State Code) would supersese the US Constitution.
If an adjustment needs to be made, for whatever reason, we have the mechanism to "Amend" the Constitution itself. It's been done before.
If it isn't in the US Constitution, it isn't Law, Stare Decisis goes out the window, thousands of tons of law books get recycled, and the US Constitution becomes the ONLY law in the land.

That would be impossible. It would take FOREVER (and that's generous) to get something accomplished.

Stop Complaining wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be impossible. It would take FOREVER (and that's generous) to get something accomplished.

Oh, I know, but I can still dream!

:-)

''I'm under no illusion that this will pass immediately,'' he said.''I just believe gay marriage is inevitable, and within 15 years it will be legal in all 50 states and we'll look back and wonder why it was controversial.''

That's by no means a given.

We do not have to know about who is marrying who.
As long as we are not involved in any way.Money wise or other wise.

Legal tax payer wrote:

We do not have to know about who is marrying who.
As long as we are not involved in any way.Money wise or other wise.

I would absolutely share your sentiment if the fact was that there were no legal benefits obtained through a civil marriage. But because there is a distinct group in society that is being discriminated against because they are not afforded the same rights, then it has to be this way.

QuQueers are not being discriminated against. They can now marry the opposite sex just like everyone else does now.Why do queers have to identify themselves based on their sexual fetishes? Should we allow a consenting father to marry is consenting daughter? It never ends.

Flavious_Maximus wrote:

QuQueers are not being discriminated against. They can now marry the opposite sex just like everyone else does now.Why do queers have to identify themselves based on their sexual fetishes? Should we allow a consenting father to marry is consenting daughter? It never ends.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Pennsylvania passed a law in 1996 stating that unions/marriages by homosexuals are not recognized in this state, and thus all benefits are denied.

This is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Gay couples do not have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, comparable tax benefits, ability to share health care policies, and actually more than 1,000 other legal guaranteed to heterosexual couples.

The argument is not about the word "marriage". It's about the benefits entitled to a couple that have a marriage license recognized by the government. Since the state uses the word "marriage" when it doles out legal contracts, it's only right that gays argue for the right to "marry". Civil unions are inferior and do not provide most of the same benefits.

I personally believe that the government should not be involved in the marriage business in any respect, but that would mean absolutely zero benefits for getting married. They should only recognize civil unions, be they gay or straight, and thus no benefits will be denied.

Furthermore, the argument that this will start us down a slippery slope whereby a man can marry his dog or daughter has been raked over the coals for decades and just make your side look ignorant. The government has a compelling interest to prevent those types of unions, and they have cited them. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not a compelling interest according to prior government policies and Supreme Court rulings, thus it cannot be cited as justification for prohibiting gay marriage.

Gay is a life style and is 99% a personal choice.
This is not a civil rights issue.
There was a valid reason they were originaly
called queer, gay/lesbian is not natures way.
Giving any marital rights to those other
then a unrelated man and woman can only lead
to other un-natural pairings, even master & pet.

The harm this will do to children is incalcuable.
granddad and granddad..think about it

The vast percentage of people for this are politicans, movie/entertainment people and young
people who are just becoming of voting age. Polticans think it will get them re-elected, entertainment people think it will get them headlines and young people just don't understand the dire consequences of this.

yes it is an anti gay bill what in the world are you talking about. By dined us those rights you as a senator might want to think about that because I am gay myself and voting republican might not vote for you as well as my other republicans that are same way may not vote you back in.