Gay Rights

Absolutely spot on!

Thank you, as shown it does not matter what word we use, as long as we are seen as somewhat equal we will be forced to fight these measures because people do not even want us to exist, let alone have a single ability to live freely away from such oppression. These ingrates are nothing more than new age Hitlers, in a country on the verge of becoming  a third world theocracy like the middle east we are fighting against.

5 years ago, I would have settled for "civil unions," NOT anymore. They've pissed off the wrong faggot!

For civil and legal purposes, it wouldn't bother me if my relationship were legally classified as a civil union. Any sanctity and religious siginificance comes from my wife and I's personal relationship with God and our beliefs.

As long as the civil and legal classifications are equal, I don't care what it is called by the state. The state really should not attempt to provide moral validation of my marriage, just a legal framework in which to function as a couple.

We can only hope that a more human govenor will succeed that jack ass.

What about that fact that marriage was actually never a religious institution but an institution that religions adopted only after recognizing the gains in wealth over it? How about the fact that until the 1300's the davidic dogmas despised the idea of the institution of marriage because i was not as procreative as forcing a thirty year old man on ten to twenty fourteen year old girls to create more followers for the church? That is what the historical evidence proves.

Just a thought....

Oh and i forgot to mention. If you are gay you do not have the right to make any such arrangements because in most states your marriage is not valid. And if you do try to make arrangements, even with a will they can and most often will be challenged by a court of law on rational based merits. In this country if you are gay you only get quasi similar rights to straights, if a majority feels that its ok. This is why a will  for LGBT do not work about 95% of the time in states that refuse to recognize such families as legally married.

Your stance on destroying marriage what will appease the bigots narrow view of what a family is and what marriage is comes contradicted by another little factoid. These people wanted to strip us LGBT from even "marriage like" rights. This article is a perfect example of that. Referendum 71 in Washington is another perfect example. The people in California who wanted to stop domestic partnerships there five years ago is another example.

Not only does it matter what you call it, if it grants even a hint of equal in there, it will be vehemently opposed by these insane bigots of oppression.

Our lives are now seen as up to only a public opinion. There is no constitutional protection for us, because in the eyes of the public, we are not human enough, if human at all, to receive some protections for our families. Hey but dont worry while you can go to jail for beating your pet, you have a good chance to get a slap on the wrist for killing someone infected with "the gay."

Wake up man. It doesnt matter what happens, when it comes to any equality those who are against us will do anything to stop it. So stop playing semantics and wanting to do what should not be done. We should not cower to he will of tyrants and changing a secular and legal institution's name and stripping all people of that name, which emphasises many social aspect of life, like kinship, family relationships, acceptance, etc helps no one but the bigots.

It is time we stop arguing about semantics and start fighting together to secure the rights that already exist instead of trying to establish new rights that do not already exist. Ethier you support full equality or you do not. Nor more of this middle ground bullshit. It doesnt work and history has proven that time and time agian.

Don’t encourage the feds to get involved! They are already acting like the unconstitutional fascists that they are. This includes the leadership of both parties. This will only result in more violations of constitutional law, and oppression.

In the short run, I hope the Road Island legislature overrides that veto. Justice demands it.

In the long run, government at all levels needs to get out of the marriage business. That’s a zero sum game. If one group wins, another must lose. And whichever side that wins, sadly it’s human nature for that group to impose their view on society as a whole, no matter who gets hurt. But if government doesn’t recognize any marriage, then no one is favored, no one is hurt.

Marriage is a religious act. That the state is involved in marriage is a relic of state churches, where the state tries to enforce church practices. In a religiously pluralistic society, such as ours, many people have been hurt by this enforcement of only one group’s idea of marriage. If the government decides to enforce another group’s definition of marriage, then the first group will become victims of government oppression. The best thing is to get government out of that racket and have it recognize no marriage, then people will be free to contract whatever marriages they want, or no marriage, and others will be free whether or not they want to recognize those marriages.

Many people in the past came to the U.S. to flee the injustice of state churches, and we are continuing this vestige of state church practice? I am not politically involved, what will it take to rid us of this injustice? Get the government out of our bedrooms.

So the only solution is realy no solution and cowering to the oppression of religious bigots, given them exactly what they want, and another special right they can shove in the faces of all. Great strategy man.

Do you realize what you say is exactly what people said back in the 1800's when black people were denied their federal recognition of marriage? Why should we have to forgo a civil right and intuition to appease a few bigoted religions. So what happens if religions start claiming they invented education... which they did actually, but they want to mandate what is taught in public education, which they are doing now, because itis the "god given right."  Should we forgo education because ingrates cant see past their own ignorance and arrogance?

Your argument is severely flawed. Marriage has always been a contract, never religious. Prodigious amounts of historical evidence support this claim. We should not have to change the civil, and secular legal institution of marriage because a few bigots wish not to see past their ignorance and intolerance. Why punish all when you only have to remind a few? Granting gays and lesbians their rights to have their families legally and socially accepted as a family only forces people to to think about their inhumane actions against such families.

If that is such a bad thing, then why was that done for women, native americans, african americans, and those of other religons oppressed by christian majoritarian mob rule.

Having a legal standard whereby 2 people can enter into an agreement to share certain legal rights and responsibilities does not constitute government being involved in a religious issue. Having the governemnt enforce a certain religion's views on the matter is (i.e. DOMA).

In many countries, a religious marriage or ceremony has no legal standing. Religious people in those countries have their marriage legally registered with the civil authority for the legal protections (inheritance, child custody etc..).

They still get married in a church if their belief dictates that they should. The 2 events are legally seperated and have nothing to do with one another. If someone wishes to forgo the civil registration and only get married throught their church, they can, but they will understand that they may not be able to avail themselves of the state in civil matters relating to their marriage.

Thats why, mr. brown, civil rights and equality should never be allowed to be voted on...

William:

You have just illustrated the problem with state recognized marriages: it is not the marriage itself but the legal web surrounding the state sanctioned marriage that can become a real nightmare. In fact, it is being used by activists to wield the power of the state to oppress people, contrary to the Constitutional First Amendment protections. This oppression is pressed by activists, both homosexual where the laws have been changed, and heterosexual where the laws have remained the same. Therefore, if marriage is privatized, all other mention of marriage in that web of laws surrounding marriage should either be privatized at the same time, or made void.

Chris:

The religious bigots want the status quo, or more accurately the status quo from years ago. They do not want the state to forego the special status of one man, one woman marriage where none other arrangement is allowed by the government. This is where removal of all special status of marriage is something that they hate. They would no longer be able to use the force of law to oppress others.

However, what good is a marriage contract? Why get married? With no fault divorce as it stands, it is easier to get out of a marriage contract than a standard business contract.

Again why get married? Is it metaphorically to stick your finger in the eye of those you hate? Then you are using marriage laws as a weapon of hate, at which point the laws are better not to be changed. Is it to get the state to mandate certain actions out of other people? Then you are using marriage to oppress others. Then you have become as hateful as the people that you decry as bigots. It is that sort of bigotry on the part of some homosexual activists that is fueling much of the opposition to homosexual marriage today. Is it to show your love and commitment to another? Then you don’t need state approval. And if no marriage contracts have greater authority before the law than any other contract between businesses or private individuals, then all marriages automatically are equal before the law. So why do you want marriage?

What’s wrong with privatizing all aspects of marriage so that the government is completely out of the picture? Why should the government dictate to me what sort of marriage I should have? Should I be able to call on the government to force you to have certain attitudes and actions towards my marriage, and punish you if you don’t? Should the government have the authority to approve of some marriages, and not others? Isn’t privatization the best way to accomplish all the above goals?

Richard, part of the problem is that marriage is used for many purposes. Take Chris Marshall for example. His partner (Ruben) of many years is now currently in his homeland because they are not allowed to get "married."

Without "marriage" rights, his partner is treated like any other individual who wishes to migrate here. They are treated as legal strangers.

So please do tell me, how would you "privatize" immigration rights for these non-existent legal spouses?

Dave:

You wrote, “…part of the problem is that marriage is used for many purposes.” That’s exactly the problem, and why it is such a political hot potato.

By privatizing, at least a contractual arrangement can be made apart from the politicization, so that the two would not be legal strangers. I don’t have all the answers, but even here it appears that privatization would make it easier to deal with the other messy details.

Why privatize when you can expand. As for getting married I do not wish to get married to get back at the ingrates that wish to keep me from marrying. I wish to marry my Fiance Ruben, because I love him and marriage is a symbol of humanity that confers rights of kinship between families, displays commitment and love between the couple, and most importantly it grants Ruben any myself the many rights needed to secure our future together.

We should not have to change marriage in this country for less than 3 denominations of christians, when there are more than 20 different denominations now. Most supporting same sex marriage. Instead of stripping marriages away from people, it would be far more easier to just expand marriage like we have done in the past. However I would make one change. Get religion out of civil marriages all together. No more clergy being able to sign the marriage contract in place of a justice of the peace or a judge. This will further separate church and state. The courts expanded marriages with african americans, and after only ten years the "whites" finally started to see their marriages as valid. The same thing happened after Virginia v. Lovings.

So instead of getting the government out of a secular institution, how about we get religion out of a secular institution? That seems like a much simpler idea than stripping millions of family of their marriages, giving them "something else" and appeases to the will of the bigots. So instead just stop all clergy from being able to sign the contracts as will was mentioning that other countries do.

Marriage to me as well as millions of other couples is not only a legal contract, but is a symbol of our humanity, a symbol the shows that "this" couple is trying to do the impossible and commit to each other for life, that "this"couple has taken that final step in their lives together and wish to settle down and be a family, that this couple is a real, loving, and purposeful couple.

That is literally the Occam's Razor. Why do you think the APA, the AMA, and the ASA refuse to back down on enforcing the government not to enforce civil unions over marriage? Because they know that the simplest solution that will make everyone happy is not what you propose, but simply expanding marriages to all couples, like same sex couples.

Marriage has become a social institution that carries extensive amounts of baggage. Good baggage I might add. It creates an atmosphere of tolerance in society, and it also forces families as well as society to come together and recognize the love of a couple.

In every state that held civil unions, it has been proven and concluded that such institutions that are not marriage are not seen as marriage. The UK is a perfect example of this. Where their high courts told a lesbian couple from Canada that they are not human enough to have marriage, and were forcefully divorced by the court, and given a civil partnership, against their will. They thought for their humanity and lost.

Civil Marriage has become a symbol oh humanity, it is time we respect that symbol and allow all to enter into it instead of destroying it to appease the zealous few.

If you want to read more on marriage please go to these pages writen by Austin Cline. He lays it out rather nicely about the history and institution of civil marriage in this country and others.

What is the point of marriage:

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/whymarriage.htm

The entire article:

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/GayRights.htm

I hope this helps clarify what Marriage actually is. Take care.

“Why privatize when you can expand?” That’s just the problem with government sanctioned marriages. That’s why whenever the people are given a chance to vote on it, instead of being dictated to by tyrants from above, they vote it down. It is not the marriage itself that is the problem, rather the web of laws surrounding it that have often been used by homosexual activists intolerantly to impose on others.

By privatizing all marriages to where the law recognizes only contractual arrangements, then nobody will be able to impose their view of marriage on others: neither the heterosexual onto homosexuals, nor the other way around.

As for kinship, that is there only if it is recognized. Privately made contractual kinship can be made for legal matters, even without the formality of marriage. It will carry much more weight if there are no other, competing forms of kinship recognized by the state, such as a state sanctioned marriage. That’s why when I say “all marriages” should be privatized, I mean all marriages.

Another reason I say all marriages should be privatized, is because that would sidestep all the messiness of the present politicization of the marriage question.

“So instead of getting the government out of a secular institution, how about we get religion out of a secular institution?” This is what privatization will do. For those Christians who follow the New Testament, marriage is first and foremost a religious activity. That scrap of paper (marriage license) from the state is unnecessary, and with the ease of divorce through “no fault divorce” being as it is, that scrap of paper is pretty worthless too. The moral and kinship values conferred by a Christian marriage far supersede anything that that state issued scrap of paper can.

In fact, the state shows how important it thinks that scrap of paper is by recognizing common law marriages.

Because marriage is first and foremost a religious institution to a Christian, he can never accept a “same-sex marriage”. That’s a contradiction in terms. But he can accept a contractual agreement that doesn’t carry the baggage that marriage confers. To force him to accept such a marriage is tyranny.

But you right now are suffering the tyranny of the other side. Our present marriage laws and baggage were designed to follow the Christian model. But you follow a different religion. In a religiously pluralistic society, why should you have to follow the marriage laws of a different religion? Just as the churches, when they came here were removed from the state teat, is it not about time that marriages also be removed from the state teat so that all religions—atheist, Buddhist, Islam, Christianity, etc.—can celebrate their own marriages as they see best?

Richard: you're still missing the point. Opponants to gay marriage don't want us to be treated equally, period. Even if the government got out of the marriage business in a feasible way (something that quite obviously is not going to happen anytime in the forseeable future), opponants to gay marriage would still be just as pissed off because gays would be on a level playing field legally speaking. This is about a group of straight people trying to maintain their privilage at all costs. They would fight tooth and nail agaist any "contractual arrangements" akin to marriage that gay couples would have, as indeed they do today in states that don't have gay marriage where couples are forced to cobble together what protections they can via contracts, wills, powers of attorney, etc...

Common law marriages are not actually recognized by the vast majority of states, and even then you still have to fill out some paperwork to be recognized as married.

William, I applaud you for re-evaluating your views on civil marriage and federal involvement. That is what most LGBT people want--equality under the secular law. I may not agree with a church's anti-gay stance, but I believe in their 1st amendment right to have it and practice accordingly.

Like you said, state's rights don't trump the rights of individuals to equality under the law--that is, after all, in the Federal Constitution.

William, I applaud you for re-evaluating your views on civil marriage and federal involvement. That is what most LGBT people want--equality under the secular law. I may not agree with a church's anti-gay stance, but I believe in their 1st amendment right to have it and practice accordingly.

Like you said, state's rights don't trump the rights of individuals to equality under the law--that is, after all, in the Federal Constitution.

More and more, I believe that this is not by any standard a free country. Meddling in our commitments to the persons we love by striking down marriage equality every chance is apparently not enough for the fundies. Now they'll go after us in death as well.

Screw wills! Wills are overturned all the time. If a family wants to interfere in inheritance issues, it can get a will overturned. Now, we have to worry not only about our property going to our spouses, we now have to worry that our spouses cannot even bury us, at least in Rhode Island.

This must be fought vigorously and with every legal means available. Carcieri is a human POS in my book. No kindness, no compassion, just a worry that some gay person trying to arrange their partner's funeral is getting "too close for marriage".

As for you, Mr Ortiz, shut the FUCK up about things you know nothing about! You are not going to be in the position of some poor GLBTQ Rhode Islander who, because of this law, has to worry that he or she cannot have the remains of his or her spouse released to them. You don't have to put up with the bigotry and hatred that so many GLBTQ people have to put up with every day of their lives.

I would love to see civil marriage for ALL and if you want a religious ceremony you can set it up for another time. France has had this system for many years and it seems to work just fine...of course, it also tends to keep its fundies on a tighter leash than the US does.

Keep your noses out of our lives and our deaths, fundies! Go say your prayers, work out YOUR OWN salvation "in fear and trembling" and leave us work out ours.

Angry Lesbians For The Win! (ALFTW)

Well said Sarah. It is a sad and true reality. Many sociologist feel that we should consider many other types of families as legally married. Such couples would be cohabiting seniors, extend families, etc. Marriage should not have to be redefined as to be between one man or one women, or redefined as a purely religious institution when it is not, no civil, legal marriage should be redefined to include all types of families so that everyone can secure protections for their families.

An no for the bigots out there i am not insinuating zoophile marriage or pedophile mariage.

Good point. My religious beliefs could still be practiced under such a system. I don't have to personally agree with other people's arrangements, but my beliefs are not somehow strengthened or validating by haveing the civil authority enforce them.

I don't need the government defining my beliefs for me.

Which just further proves miss karp how prejudice against a minority can so easily turn around and bite the asses of the majority...

Unfortunatly...The bible thumpers are too blinded by their hate filled agenda to see that...Or even care.

Mr. Ortiz, we want the same rights, benefits, and protections given to other legally-married couples. You on the other hand would love to see no government benefits or protections given to same sex couples. That is what is fuelling your desire to see the government removed from marriage.

You would rather see no one receiving benefits/rights/protections if that group of people includes GLBTQ couples. It's pretty damned obvious to all but the most brain-dead people what you are on about.

I agree to disagree Loan. I think he believe that Marriage is a purely religious institution, and he cant wrap his mind around that marriage has actually never been religious. It was adopted by religions but that doesn't mean it is religious.

Once he learns the historical evidence, if he continues to persist in his stance, which he has all the right too, we have all the right to keep educating him until he finally "gets it."

I don't think Dick wants us to have no rights, or anyone to have no rights, he believes in civil unions for all, however civil marriage is a civil contract and can be considered a civil union. However that civil contract is called marriage and no matter how much the bigots want to steal marriage from the people at large and gain absolute control over another secular institution, we shall never let them. This is the stance of many legal scholars and this is the stance of many groups like Americans United (AU), APA, AMA, ASA, AAA(not the insurance company), NAACP, ACLU, and many other legal and medical groups.

In this country like many others marriage is a civil contract. We should not allow for a civil contract to be usurped by a single religious institution when doing so undermines and violate the rights of all other religious institutions as well as the millions of families married, who did so in a non religious mannor.

"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home-so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."

-Eleanor Roosevelt

Well said, Ted. I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm tired of the state-by-state efforts that either get vetoed or reverse by a referendum. It is time for the Supreme Court of the United States to rule in favor of marriage equality and strike down DOMA and all the state bans limiting marriage to straight couples. That's the only way we will achieve full equality, I have no faith in Congress. The time has come for SCOTUS to fulfill it's constitutional duty of protecting equal rights for all Americans.

Absolutely, this is a SCOTUS issue. Our founding fathers established the Judiciary for the purpose of protecting civil rights. Contrary to what opponents often advocate, this country has a history of sweeping civil rights being enforced by the US Supreme Court. Marriage equality is no different, the only issue is when SCOTUS rules in favor, there will be a push for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm hoping something like this won't happen, the USC is a document to expand our rights, not strip them away from a class of persons. SCOTUS should be final in regard to equality.

Those far-right wackos don't like people who are not Christian either--though they tolerate Jews for biblical reasons. As for people like me--a Deist, we are bound for hell in their eyes. Their goal is for a Christian America. Of course when they say Christian, they are usually talking about their own ultra-conservative brand.

I believe in basic human rights for all. I also know that once one group is down, I'm likely on their list next.

My experience dealing with these conservative-types is that they do tend to be very closed minded, refuting even good evidence. They live in their own conservative world where everything else is bad, sinful, and a one-way ticket to hell.

It would be nice to do this without having to resort to the Supreme Court. You know the conservatives will make a ruckus about having to go that route. However, if it is the only way to deal with these violations of basic civil rights, then that is the way it has to be done. People have supported laws targeting other groups before and it has taken the court to overturn these.

I keep hoping to see reason take precedence in our goverment and I am frequently disappointed. It would be nice to see that change.

I actually prefer to see the Supreme Court do it, as their ruling would be very difficult to overturn. Congress could enact a federal law, but then it would be far too easy to repeal it. Besides we don't need a law that says marriage equality is ok, we need the court to rule that the laws of our land must apply equally to all. That is a far more powerful ruling, that like interracial marriage would send a message to Congress and most Americans, that amending the constitution to strip fellow Americans of equality would be wrong. Of course they will try but I don't think the support would be there.

Unfortunately I am not very hopeful that the current makeup of the SCOTUS would rule in our favor - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are all idealogues, it is unclear which way Kennedy would swing, and Sotomayor is an unknown... A ruling AGAINST marriage equality in the Supreme Court could send us back decades...

An adverse ruling would be terrible, but there is a trial that is widely expected to reach SCOTUS within the next 2-3 years. It is also carefully worded to pose the question of whether state bans on marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. On the justices, I think Sotomayor is a yes for a few reasons. Some of the previous cases set the stage for marriage equality, then there's stare decisis, we have several state supreme courts that found a constutional right to marriage and it is more likely to see SCOTUS uphold those decisions rather than state legislation. Ultimately we need suspect classification to secure a favorable win, and there is no reason why we can't get it!

I meant to say, no reason why we shouldn't get it. Sexual orientation meets the three criteria for it.

There is a reason: there are plenty of biased judges out there. And remember, the CA Supreme Court granted us status as a suspect class and STILL ruled that it was okay to bar us from marriage. They said that the voter's rights supercede those of the suspect class, which is why the Prop 8 ruling was so scary... I'm just saying it's a bad time for federal court challenges right now. Most of the gay rights activist I know cringed when the federal Prop 8 case was filed.

I agree that SCOTUS is where we ultimately need to end up, but I am afraid we just shot ourselves in the foot by jumping the gun.

The CA Supreme Court did not say that, the question before them was whether the voter initiated ban was a constitutional revision or amendment. One can be done by mere popular vote, the other by a more difficult process. Even if SCOTUS says we are suspect class and grants equality, the Constitution can still be amended to strip it. Both the CA and Federal SC are bound by their constitutions and do not possess the power to declare an amendment as unconstitional is what it comes down to.

Timing is fine, it's been too long for equality and we shouldn't wait. I was reluctant at first but after reading the documents, I support the case and want to see it land before SCOTUS. I believe we will get a favorable ruling.

The problem is prop 8, in being upheld, basically renders the Equal Protection Clause useless because if it's against the constitution to discriminate against a suspect class, and gays are a suspect class, and prop 8 is a valid amindment, then the EPC is no longer valid. The Constitution can't contradict itself so the later amendment takes precendence. The justices specifically said that even though prop 8 is valid, gays still retain their status as a suspect class. THAT'S why it's scary legal reasoning.

So essentially the EPC is valid with the exception of marriage equality in the state of CA. It is unfortunate but even with a SCOTUS win, and suspect classification, the US Con could still be amended to carve out rights and SCOTUS can't do anything about it. The CA ruling isn't scary, what Justice Moreno argued in his lone dissent is true, that by carving out a class of persons from EPC it constitutes a revision and thus shouldn't been valid. If the CASC ruled that prop 8 was a revision, then it would be invalidated but that wouldn't stop the legislator from pursing a revision to override the SC. If they were successful, then despite being a suspect class, the CASC would have to uphold the revised constitution. What's most dangerous about the ruling is that it allows the electorate to put issues that should be protected by the EPC up for a vote. Justice Moreno was correct and it's too bad he didn't have three others to back him.

Ultimately only SCOTUS can undo everything, and even with a favorable ruling, I think it will be settled law and people will move on from the issue of marital equality. Naive perhaps, but I'd love to see a unanimous 9-0 decision or even 7-2. I hope something more than 5-4.

What it means is that, in CA at least, the term "suspect class" no longer has any meaning whatsoever, as they ruled that the constitution could be amended even without passing strict scrutiny. A simple majority vote can now eliminate any rights for any group not protected by the US Constitution. A simply majority can now constitutionally, say, ban redheads from driving or women from holding jobs (still no ERA) or Norweigians from eating fish or whatever!

Like I said, 4 of the justices will without a doubt vote against it. There's no maybe there. We lose even *one* swing vote and it's disaster... Remember that just a few years ago, 3 justices voted that it was okay to outlaw sodomy. Luckily they were outnumbered, but read Scalia's dissenting opinion for a sobering reality check... It's a bit dense, but it's full of some pretty horrific bigotry.  Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are of the same ilk.

Point is, if all the stars align and the gay gods smile upon us, 5-4 is the best we can even hope for. Those are slim odds I wouldn't bet on... Unfortunately someone is betting on it for us and we're all going to have to deal with the fallout if they fail.

Suspect class still has the same legal meaning in the CA however the EPC no longer does. Essentially the CA Con can be amended to carve out rights for any class of persons, provided it does not violate the federal con. The point is no state supreme court nor SCOTUS have the power to declare a constitutional amendment as invalid (with the exception of SCOTUS ruling on a state con) and subsequently can't scrutinize it. The legal challenge was about whether it was a revision or amendment, CASC ruled it was an amendment and therefore valid. Just like in states that have constitutional bans, those state supreme courts cannot override it.

I've read his dissent before, and concur it is disturbing. Six years later, we are in a different climate today. We have sweeping landmark court rulings, including the unanimous Iowa decision from April. These are compelling decisions, and I can't see SCOTUS reversing them.

5-4 would be great, and don't get me wrong; I realize it's close but what can we do? The case is going forward, so I want to be positive, hopeful and optimistic that we will get a positive ruling. And if we don't, SCOTUS hasn't always been on the right side of history, and while decades away, a new court would likely reach a different decision. I'm really hopeful!!

Oh there's no doubt that we'll eventually have a landmark gay rights ruling from the Supreme Court, I just don't trust it will be THIS Supreme Court... but the case is filed. I think it was perhaps a stupid move, but all we can do now is hope!

We already have two such landmark rulings, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas and so far no adverse rulings. At first I was worried but after reading the document, and some background info, agreed that there may never be a "right time." And if we waited for the possible right court, perhaps many civil rights would have been delayed to who knows when. Now is the time, and I am confident we will see a favorable ruling.

Kristen,

I wouldn't trust the current make up of the court either. If anyone doubts SCOTUS how conservative the court is right now, go out and pick up Jeffery Toobin's book The Nine. I'm reading it right now. All I can say is Scalia is a total asshole.

A suspect class is a classification of persons that meet three criteria and are likely targets of discrimination. Currently SCOTUS has two such classes: race and religion. The requirements for suspect class is a minority that has an immutable trait (some argue gay is a choice, and subsequently not immutable but a counter to that is religion which can change but it still suspect), have a history of invidious discrimination and are politically unempowered to protect themselves. When a fundamental right is infringed involving a suspect class, the courts must use strict scrutiny which is the highest level of judicial review. This means the law must meet the following: fulfill a compelling gov objective, be narrowly tailored to achieve the stated goal and be the least restrictive means to do so. This standard is so strict, almost every law is struck down. If sexual orientation is considered a suspect class, it will essentially strike down every anti-gay law and send a clear message to  legislators about laws they propose.