Put a stop to this expensive & tiring battle - The Supreme Court needs to rule on marriage equality

[Divine Discontent]

Poll question: Put a stop to this expensive & tiring battle - The Supreme Court needs to rule on marriage equality

Voters shouldn't be able to vote on individual's rights.

And, therefore the argument before the court should be, why is it OK for a man to get to marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman if she & the other woman want to be married? And likewise, if it's okay for a woman to be allowed to marry a man, why can't a man have the right to marry a man also?


Text from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


What's your take?

Poll result (12 votes)
The Supreme Court will do everything they can to avoid hearing the case	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
The Supreme Court will hear the case and send it back down by saying they shouldn't decide on it, only states	(2 votes, 17%)	Vote
They will vote narrowly against marriage equality for all	(5 votes, 42%)	Vote
They will vote strongly against marriage equality for all	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
They will vote strongly for marriage equality for all	(1 votes, 8%)	Vote
They will vote narrowly for marriage equality for all	(4 votes, 33%)	Vote
Other	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote

[Divine Discontent]

1. I voted for strongly voting for it, but I thought like the 1st person voted - that the court will

chicken out and send it back to the states instead of having to do something that will change America forever.

[dkf]

2. After Bush V. Gore I came to the conclusion that the righties on the Supreme

Court make up whatever shit they want to.

[Confusious]

3. The people who voted.....

That the supreme court will vote for marriage equality are living in a dream world.

[Berry Cool]

4. What we need is a constitutional amendment. Nothing less.

Something to the effect of:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the right of a citizen of the United States to enter into and live within a contract of marriage with one person at a time of mutual choosing who is of legal age to enter into such a contract."

That should cover those who would argue that a right-to-marry amendment opens the door to plural marriage, or underage marriage, or whatever, and try to thus ensure its political defeat amongst those who have no problem with gay marriage but would object to polygamy or underage unions or unions of adults and children.

(I expect that someday, this country will also have an amendment securing the right to plural or group marriage, but it won't be for another hundred years or so. And when it does, society will discourage any such marriages in which the partners don't have equal standing.)

Ed. to change "his or her own" to "mutual" to emphasize that both partners would have to agree to the marriage--no one would have a right to force someone else to marry him or her, of course.)