In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

CraigWBryant Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:21 PM
The author hits on the most important point, that marriage (among many other things) is in the perview of the states to decide how they want to handle, this is expressly written in the 10th Amendment ("Those powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states"), unfortunately we have allowed the 10th amendment to be neutered over time and it now holds absolutely zero legal precedent.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:31 PM
YOU are doing the 'neutering'. Specifically, you are Castrating Off the last three words of the 10th amendment: "...OR THE PEOPLE".

The founders recognized that many powers not given to the Federal Governement are likewise NOT given to any State either. The States do not get to be little dictatorships. They have no more power to abridge any person's inherent rights than does the Federal Government. And as long as you're touting amendments please do not forget the 9th (the one that Alito & Scalia keep trying to erase when nobody's looking). We have ALL MANNER OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS, not just the enumerated ones.
Jack2894 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:43 PM
Conservatives very much believe in government tyranny, as long as thy tyranny is exercised by a state government. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the nature of the government involved.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:52 PM
Yes, in this case we might argue whether or not to recognize an inalienable right to marry the individual with whom you feel a committed bond of physical and emotional intimacy, and have that relationship be respected by the Govt to the same extent as any other such relationship.

And that is a difficult and contentious argument/discussion, with the whole choice vs nature issue, etc, etc. But just saying "leave it to the states" w/o even addressing issues of inalienable rights is simplistic & unjust.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:04 PM
on what basis do you conclude anyone has a right to government benefits?
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:39 PM
I said nothing about 'benefits' speciifically, only about equal protection under the law, and the basis for that is explicit. If benefits are consequences of equal protection then I guess the same basis applies.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:32 PM
classes of people who are substantially different from other classes of people have no right to equal protection.

race, color, nationality, gender, religion and disability are not differences that create substantially different classes of human beings.

however, when one union between humans cannot have the same elements as a differing union, there is substantial difference between the unions.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:07 PM
"classes of people who are substantially different from other classes of people have no right to equal protection."

This makes no sense. Do we mean that only identical people have the right to equal protection?

"race, color, nationality, gender, religion and disability are not differences that create substantially different classes of human beings."

This is historically inaccurate. Color differentiated slaves from slaveholders until slavery was abolished. Gender differentiated voters from the disenfranchised until women's suffrage. We now recognize these differentiations as unenlightened, but they certainly were sufficient differences to define "substantially different classes" which were then oppressed.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...