Two men from Ohio flew to Maryland on July 11. They got married on their plane on the tarmac at Thurgood Marshall Airport. Maryland allows consenting adults to do such things. The married couple flew back to Ohio, which does not allow consenting adults to do such things, and said, "We're married!" The state of Ohio said, "Oh no you ain't." A federal judge said yesterday, "Oh yes they are":
On Monday, US District Judge Timothy Black ruled in favor of John Arthur and James Obergefell, a Cincinnati couple who married in Maryland on July 11 and want the rights they earned in that state transferred to Ohio so that both men can be buried next to each other in the Arthur family plot, which is restricted to direct descendants and spouses. Mr. Arthur is suffering from a disease doctors have diagnosed as terminal [Mark Guarino, "Same-Sex Marriage: Ohio Judge Opens New Frontier for Gay Activists," Christian Science Monitor, 2013.07.23].
The U.S. Supreme Court last month said gay couples are eligible for the same federal benefits as straight couples, but they explicitly overturn gay-marriage bans like Ohio's and South Dakota's. Judge Black's ruling appears to take that next step.
South Dakota, are we ready to kiss goodbye our state constitution's discriminatory ban on gay marriage?
There are constitutional rights that I have disagreement with individually, but as a citizen of the US, I recognize my neighbor has the right to enjoy those freedoms.
I hope that the gun owners in the country embrace ALL the rights guaranteed by the constitution (and the Supreme Court by extension) and embrace this newest right with the fervor they embrace the Second Amendment.
We can only hope...
The lack of wingnut responses to a post on gay marriage gives me hope that they have largely decided that, for them, this is an issue not worth fighting about.
We should be able to pull all sorts of libertarian, if not wingnut, support for recognizing same-sex unions. The proper conservative take should be, "You want to live with and love someone of the same sex and give them the insurance and pension and other benefits you'd be entitled to share if you were getting regularly frisky with someone of the opposite sex? Fine by me, no skin off my nose."
My thoughts exactly, and I'm a liberal, one of those people who supposedly want to micromanage, through excessive regulation, every aspect of life in America.
The federal government trumping states' rights (see tenth amendment) is hardly libertarian or constitutional.
What about states' rights to cultivate cannabis, Sib?
Equal protection isn't a "states rights" issue, Sibby.
Bill, yes I know the 14th killed our Bill of Rights. Does not mean that we should not fight to restore them. Equal protection only works for those who have gained political power. Pre-born children and their fathers don't have equal protection.
The "fathers' rights" movement is thinly disguised white-male whining. Eggs have no rights.
"The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act would provide funding incentives to states that have laws allowing mothers of children conceived through rape to “seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist.”"
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/26/2354771/rape-survivor-child-custody-act/