Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
Pretty soon Miss California will have the country she wishes to live in. Or at least, thinks she lives in. Maine is starting debate on a Same Sex marriage bill. Prospects look excellent for gay marriage in New York, according to recent polls. It is only a matter of time before some high federal court addresses some basic issue related to the topic of gay marriage, and lays down the law ... the obvious relationship between gay marriage and basic human rights will be duly noted and established. And the state laws, as laudable as they are, won't even be necessary.
I'm sure Miss California is praying for all the gay people.
Comments
Indeed, there is ample legal precedent now for full marriage equality. Of the four states that now have it, three of them got it through court decisions on constitutional grounds.
The USSC does look at that.
Posted by: Tony P | April 21, 2009 11:59 PM
The American anti waits only this! That the Americans are treated of sodomisés! I support Carrie Prejan.
Posted by: humorix | April 22, 2009 8:52 AM
I suspect my equality challenged state will be one of the last to drag itself into the 21st century, on account of us having a state constitutional amendment "defining marriage."
Meaning, of course, you can't get it tossed at the state supreme court level, it would take a push to federal to make anything change. And that seems like a long time coming.
Posted by: Spiv | April 22, 2009 8:58 AM
Spiv: If the USSC rules at some fundamental level, your constitutional amendment is automatically abrogated. Or we go to war. Whatever. Let's see, you're in Florida, right? We can take Florida...
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 22, 2009 9:41 AM
It all comes down to nine people in robes. Right now, the lawyers I've talked to about the subject say that none of the LGBT organizations are about to roll the dice because the current Court would have no problem finding an excuse to rule that Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply, or even in overturning it.
Note that overturning Loving would have no real-world effect since miscegenation laws are toast anyway and even the reddest of redneck States aren't about to bring them back. That leaves overturning Loving as a viable option to achieve the desired end of keeping Teh Gay out of States like California.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 22, 2009 9:57 AM
Greg, there's a commentary on the Miss California situation on CNN from Roland Martin (yes, I know!) that makes a valid point that's missing in the current debate.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html
He points out that not only is Miss California's views the same as the majority (no surprise, of course) but that they are pretty much exactly the same as those of all the leading democratic politicians. President Obama, vice president Biden, Hillary Clinton etc all claim practically the exact same views as Miss California on the subject of marriage.
Is it fair to single her out while letting the others off the hook?
Posted by: Sigmund | April 22, 2009 10:22 AM
Yea, but they were all just saying that to get elected... right?
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 22, 2009 10:42 AM
The Maine legislature is holding hearings today on two competing bills: One sponsored by (mostly) Democrats to allow same sex marriage across the board, and a competing (mostly) Republican bill to establish civil unions. In a recent public debate, both the supporters of both bills came off as reasoned, well intentioned, and intelligent. The forces of reaction, on the other hand, made the same tired or irrelevant arguments that have been heard over and over.
Polls are split almost 50-50 between "Marriage/Civil Union" and "No Change", but the marriage initiative had something like 60 Legislative c-sponsors. So, who know what will happen!
Posted by: Tom Coward | April 22, 2009 2:38 PM
Back around 1954, I read a story in Playboy, set sometime in the future. This couple was meeting clandestinely in the back of a dingy bar. They were very concerned their relationship not be discovered. I thought they were homosexuals. At the end, the morality police bust them for the crime of heterosexual relationship.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 22, 2009 4:47 PM
Actually there will never be a real accpetance of gay marriage within some church denominations. It is only then that the "hate crimes" legisation will take effect to silence the critics of the far left by prosecuting religious people for reading out of their own Holy books. So much for seperation of church and state. Looks like the state now owns the church and rules it with an iron clad fist. Kind of reminds me of the USSR in some ways. I wonder what Muslims will think when they are arrested for condemning homosexuality. Will they retaliate? I bet the leftists never thought about that when they sided with the terrorists.
I for one will never accept same sex unionism ("marriage"), not will anyone living in my household. It is wrong and it is sinful not matter what some brain dead politician says. They can change society but they cannot change God and they cannot change me and they cannot change what they have no control over, and they cannot change the Bible (without answering for it).
Posted by: One more DHS condemned "right wing extremist" | April 22, 2009 7:17 PM