I'd have a problem with any judge overruling the will of the people. But this case is especially egregious considering the judge was gay. If you read his decision, him being gay was the driving force behind it. He and the 5 liberal justices on the Supreme Court are cut from the same cloth - imperialist judges (all liberal of course) who overstep their Constitutional bounds to make their own laws out of thin air while ignoring the voice of the people.

Maybe in California's case, but isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law as they see fit? You're just unhappy because you think marriage is supposed to be between one and man and one woman. But if a gay couple is legally married by law, should they not receive the same benefits and protection heterosexual couples do? That's what this allowed and it struck down an egregious law.

Imperialist judges overstepping their bounds? Give me a break. That's what every hardcore righty is saying. It's utter nonsense

Of course I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. But that doesn't change the fact that the people in each state should be able to make their own laws and not have them changed or overruled by one judge. Especially a gay judge in a gay marriage case.



It's well known that civil unions can provide all the same benefits and protection for gay couples that heterosexual couples have. But that's not really what this is all about. It's about a shrill part of the gay community, and their liberal supporters, shoving their lifestyle down everyone's throat and forcing everyone to consider their relationships the same and equal.



We have judge (with an obvious conflict of interest) in California overruling the will of the citizens of that state. We also have 5 judges on the Supreme Court completely twisting and stretching the Constitution, making up law out of thin air, in order to justify themselves....once again, just how abortion was legalized in the past. They overstepped their bounds. Both issues should have been left up to the states. Your inability or refusal to look at this objectively is telling.

Not looking at it objectively? That's rich coming from you. Nowhere written in our constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree both issues should be left up to the states and it still is! It merely strikes down the law saying gays can't get benefits. That's all they want ivy, they aren't trampling on anything else. Their relationships are just as equal as straight ones. Love is not limited to straight people.

The judges aren't forcing gay marriage on the states. That part is still up to them. And don't think I'm wrong ivy in saying where you love you got nothing to worry about

Article III of the US Constitution provides the US Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction, in law, equity, and fact. The Congress is free to except any potential litigation it wants from the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

By the way, civil unions do not provide gay couples with federal protections and benefits.

If it's left up to the states, why was the will of the people in California ignored?



No, what they want is to force their lifestyle on everybody. Hide and watch. This federal victory won't be enough. Gay activists, and their liberal supporters like the ACLU, have already said they are going to "take the fight" to each state, one by one.



Unless the liberal wing of the Supreme Court attempt to pull another stunt like they did yesterday.



You must be from the klydon college of legal studies. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law. Not to create it by twisting, stretching, and perverting the Constitution so much that they create laws (or "rights") out of thin air. That's how we got legalized abortion based on "right to privacy" and now gay marriage based on "equal protection."

Your post above does not manifest a familiarity with either the common law or equity. The common law, which is judge made law, was so important to the Founding generation that it is cited in the 11th amendment to the US Constitution. The concept of Equity, cited in Article III of the US Constitution, predates the Founding generation and was and is intended to provide relief to litigants where the common law does not.

By contrast, no where in the US Constitution does it state or imply that federal courts must only interpret the law.

Anyone who has taken even a high school history class knows that the basic system of checks and balances among the three branches of government involves the legislative branch making laws, the executive branch enforcing laws, and the judicial branch interpreting laws. The 11th amendment in no way means the Supreme Court has the right to ignore large, bipartisan majorities in Congress back in 1996 or the citizens of California. As one scholar recently said, "It is absurd for the court to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself enacts." This is nothing but taking democratic self-government away from the people and putting in the hands of a few legislating-from-the-bench judges.

Looking at this thread I’ve seen arguments for the SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage stated more eloquently and thoughtfully than I could put them. While I support the decision, I appreciate the amount of though put into both sides of the argument.

If you go over to Yahoo comments, it’s a zoo over there.

Having said that, while I DO support state’s right to regulate their own laws, and that those laws reflect the will of the people of those states, the will of the people is a fluid thing. If you look at the will of the people in the 1960’s, it differs GREATLY from current thinking. If you look at some of the protectors of the people’s wills from that time, you’ll find that history is not kind to them.

The job of SCOTUS is to judge the “constitutionality” of that will. Simply because a majority of the people support a law does NOT make it appropriate. As John Oliver nicely said it, “Most Americans would prefer water fountains to flow with Mountain Dew.”

While SCOTUS is made up of those same fallible human beings who are also subject to the fluidity American psyche, in theory the constitutionality of the law is not. While some justices come from points of view that you might find objectionable, it should balance out.

At the end of the day, I believe that if you are unhappy with some of the rulings and agree with others, than you have a pretty good system. IMHO, I believe that SCOTUS got it wrong with Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act, but they made a good, human call with DOMA and Prop. 8.

It’s one of the things that makes us far from a perfect country, but still, IMHO, the best.

I'm not taking a side whether this passed or not. Would it have been the same scenario 4-5. I'm just wondering if one vote of the other side, would change your opinion on it being a fair ruling?

So the Family Research Council released this banner in response to the DOMA decision. Doesn't the stick figure look like it's giving a blowjob?



Sorry I can't unsee that now. LOL

No.

Fair enough then.