All the media attention is focused on the 9th Circuit but the 10th Circuit now has two similar gay marriage cases headed the Supreme Court's way. The LGBT community is worried. Marriage suit vexes gay-rights activists:
CHEYENNE — Many gay-rights activists are fuming over a new federal lawsuit challenging Wyoming’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying it’s legally dubious and could undo years of political efforts on a variety of gay-rights issues.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by Cheyenne residents David Shupe-Roderick and Ryan W. Dupree, is likely the first court case to contest Wyoming’s definition of marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person.”
But Wyoming’s gay-rights activists and supporters, who were blindsided by news of the lawsuit, say the suit isn’t likely to accomplish anything. And some fear that the case could galvanize the state against gay rights in general. . . .
23 Comments
I hope they win. Even if it perhaps won't mean anything, a win is a win. It would be a step towards marriage equality, however small. And that's a very good thing.
Sometimes, you need a "shock medicine" to implement civil rights against prevailing bigotry, hatred, sexism and homophobia. This is what happened during Martin Luther King's time. This is how interracial couples earned the right to marry.
Can you please stop making false comparisons between gay marriage and interracial marriage? This is nothing like racial segregation. Making such a ridiculous claim is an insult to those who actually endured the injustice of the Jim Crow laws, and actually fought for real civil equalities instead of imaginary ones. An extremely high percentage of black civil rights leaders know these claims to be outright lies.
The only relevant comparison is whether there is a fundamental right to marry in the constitution as it applies to immutable characteristics. Sexual orientation is a behavior defined by a rational choice to chose the gender of the person or thing your attracted to. Thousands of people have recovered from homosexuality (see Narth, Evergreen, and Love won out). Responsible procreation and a child's right to a mom and dad are goals of the state. Something SSM will not accomplish..
Could someone please tell me what racial segregation has in common with gender integration?
When you frame it like that, I'm willing to concede that the connection is tenuous.
However, since opponents of SSM like to rail against activist judges who don't follow the will of the people, there is a connection.
This idea that judges should never rule against the will of the people -- is it mere rhetoric, or is it a principle?
If the latter, then please explain how it was okay for the Supreme Court, in Loving, to decide the case against the will of the people. Opinion polls showed the vast majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage in 1967.
Here's Rick Santorum: "People should decide issues, not courts,” he told the Des Moines Register. “This court attempted to impose its values on society.”
Santorum is free to say this, but I think he needs to address how the Loving decision did not violate the principles he just laid out.
Do those gay rights people expect every gay person who wants to be "married" to someone of the same sex to wait until the perfect couple files a perfect lawsuit before a perfect judge?
And Peter,
the Supreme Court refused to overturn laws against polygamy in Reynolds v. United States , Murphy v. Ramsey , and Davis v. Beason .
The following passage from Murphy , which was quoted in Davis and United States v. Bitty , is the kicker.
Loving was not about one's choice and behavior, it was based on an irrelevant characteristic (race). Bestiality and homosexuality are behaviors one chooses and deny children a right to a mom and a dad. Responsible procreation is the goal here, and well preserved in the man woman marriage Loving decision.
Michael, you forgot to boldface the "union for life" part.
Our collective definition of marriage no longer includes the idea that marriage is the union for life of one man and one woman.
Oh, we give lip service to that idea, but that's the extent of it. Marriage today is the temporary union of one man and one woman at a time.
Marriage has already been redefined.
Jakes, I'm looking for a principle that determines when it's okay for judges to overlook the opinion of the majority. When they agree with you is not a principle.
Few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence.
It seems to me that the SCOTUS, for the most part, bases its decisions on the general legal statues of all the states of the US at a given time.
So it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 30 state constitutional amendments and 31 out of 31 referendums defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and force gay marriage on everyone.
"Our collective definition of marriage no longer includes the idea that marriage is the union for life of one man and one woman. Oh, we give lip service to that idea, but that's the extent of it. Marriage today is the temporary union of one man and one woman at a time. "
Look up marriage in any dictionary and you will find nothing that specifies that such a union is to be permenant or temporary. You are claiming a change in the definition of marriage that never took place. Marriage for life is an ideal that many people hold, like the bride being a virgin on her wedding day, but it was never specified as a requirement by any definition, traditional or otherwise.
ConservativeNY, I appreciate your thoughtful response. You've put forth a principle that sounds reasonable, though it won't fit on a T-shirt.
Let's start with the Santorum line about the court forcing its values on society. In a sense, you are arguing that the court is reasonable when it forces the values of most of the states on the remaining holdouts.
I think this makes sense.
As for your 8:26 comment, how about Mark, 10:9 or John, 4:18?
FWIW, Conservapedia says that "Marriage is a life-long commitment."
Constitutional rights are ratified by the people, the various states, through the ratification process spelled out in the constitution itself.
Can Peter Hoh or anyone else here tell me when and where a constitutional right to same-sex marriage was EVER ratified?
Marriage is an institution that existed long before it was hijacked by the ultra religious right, who would like you to believe that a marriage has only to be between a man and a woman. It's somehow ok for a man to marry a woman he won't love (whether the said man is homosexual or not is irrelevant here). But when two men or two women demand their civil right to unite for life, this is seen as shameful. Go figure.
And Jakes: HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE!!!!!!!!
It's not a behavior.
It's not a lifestyle either.
Well, what is it then?
It's LOVE! Love between people. Good old plain, boring love, like it exist between a man and a woman.
The amount of lies and hatred that one reads on this blog is truly astounding. Do the readings. Inform yourselves. At the moment, Jakes, you look rather like a poor, stupid ignorant. A true member of the republican party, in fact.
And Marty: for your information. the constitution does not allow discrimination.
Not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is discriminatory.
Hence Prop 8 is discriminatory.
Geez, I can't wait until the Supreme Court puts this loud and clear.
"As for your 8:26 comment, how about Mark, 10:9 or John, 4:18? FWIW, Conservapedia says that "Marriage is a life-long commitment.""
I wasn't aware that the bible or Conservapedia were considered dictionarys.
"In a sense, you are arguing that the court is reasonable when it forces the values of most of the states on the remaining holdouts."
I am arguing no such thing. I am saying that the court sometimes responds to shifting public opinion as indicated by the statutes of most US states. Even if most people didn't favor interracial marriage at the time, public opinion was moving in that direction nonetheless.
Marty, I've never argued that the Supreme Court should find prop 8 unconstitutional.
I don't want the Supreme Court deciding this issue. I want the people to decide it, through legislature and referendum.
ConsNY, you really want to declare that the cultural definition of marriage is best determined by what's in the dictionary?
You wrote, "Marriage for life is an ideal that many people hold, like the bride being a virgin on her wedding day, but it was never specified as a requirement by any definition, traditional or otherwise."
The idea of marriage being for life was very much part of the idea of marriage -- not just the ideal -- as evidenced in the Murphy decision, as quoted above.
"The idea of marriage being for life was very much part of the idea of marriage -- not just the ideal -- as evidenced in the Murphy decision, as quoted above."
The basic definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman across all cultures since the beginning of civilization. The reason why it was commonly for life was because women were more dependent on men back then and couldn't afford to seperate from them. And divorce was considered and allowed under some circumstances in many cultures throughout history.
So traditional marriage is now one man, one woman, until one of them changes their mind?
Marriage is between one man and one woman, as it always has been, period!
The NOM staff opposes no-fault divorce.
And anyway, it was the Supreme Court that declared, in three decisions, that marriage was a "union for life of one man and one woman" and that legislation to establish a free, self-governing commonwealth on the "basis of the idea of the family" as springing forth from marriage was "necessary and wholesome". That is surely a justification for defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
This issue will always be impossible to argue as long as there are people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. This one belief is what divides people, and unfortunately it is the one thing that cannot be proven. I can tell others how I feel until I am blue in the face, but they do not have to believe me. Therefore, those of us who feel what it is to be gay, are easily able to equate gay marriage with interracial marriage and other african american civil rights issues. To us, both are things we cannot help, and to discriminate against someone for something they cannot help is wrong. I am so sick and tired of hearing that if we allow gay marriage we must allow pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy. With regard to the first two, there is no comparison because there must be CONSENT in any relationship. To not have consent is to call it rape. The third is a little more difficult to argue... why can't a man marry three women if gays are allowed to marry whoever they want? Well I say that is simple: A man is not born with an innate need to have three wives. I was born attracted to other women, and I will not force myself to change just because it is considered unnatural. I don't need to in this day and age. Now is our time, and we aren't going away. Marriage or not, gays will continue to live together, sleep together, enter into civil unions, and have CHILDREN. Allowing "marriage" is not going to change any of that. Give us civil marriages, and you can keep your religious marriage.
"Well I say that is simple: A man is not born with an innate need to have three wives. I was born attracted to other women, and I will not force myself to change just because it is considered unnatural. "
Lynn, Your logic doesn't make sense. If it did, I would be able to say, "I don't have an innate need to marry another man" and the case for ssm would be right out the window. Who are you to judge people who have real feelings for more than one person at a time just because you consider it unnatural?
The reality is that people can develop and maintain all kinds of attractions and affinities for things that are outside the definition of marriage. Feelings, in and of themselves, cannot be relied upon for the definition of marriage. Feelings change from person to person, and you can't judge one person as being any less for having the feelings they do simply because they're different than yours.
Thank goodness Marriage is not based solely on feelings.
You NOT having an innate need to marry another man does not invalidate my point. That would either mean that instead, you have an innate need to marry a woman, or no one at all. There is no other alternative. In either case, you are permitted to do so by law. The only thing not permitted by law is that innate need to marry a member of the same sex, so I don't follow your logic.
And you are absolutely right, feelings do change from person to person, and they change quite a bit, leading to the astromical divorce rate among heterosexuals. Why? Because marriage IS based on feelings. Sure, many people look for that lifetime mate, and intend to procreate and populate the world. But what about the others who choose to get married even though they cannot have children or simply do not want them? Should they not be able to get married, if their marriage is based solely on their feelings for one another? You people who are shouting about the "sanctity of marriage" really are putting way too much stock in the practice. It's a piece of paper, that 50% of people figuratively rip up, and many more who may not opt for divorce are unable to abide by the promises they made on that special day. Of course, religious marriage has much deeper meaning than just a piece of paper, but we are not asking for religions to change their rules. We want the same piece of paper that everyone else gets, and to deny a civil right based on people's religious beliefs is going to get shot down by courts and "activist judges" one state at a time.