LGBT News Marriage Equality for all 50 States

I don't think Obama has the power to do that.

 

I agree. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the circumstances) the Executive cannot legalize same-sex marriage by his will alone. It's up to the Judiciary and Legislature(s) to solve this issue based on our separation of powers scheme.

 

And the current Federal Judiciary (at least at the top, the one over all 50 states) has already weighed in and said "nope won't do that" they explicitly said they would leave it up to the states (I can go get and quote the decision if you need), it involve my gaining the ability to marry recently.

 

Americacentrism. The US does not equal 'everywhere'.

 

I'm not counting out the possibility that Obama could use an executive order to push through ENDA, but I think if he did it for marriage equality, we would have a backlash like that of Roe v Wade. When you have that sudden if a change, even though 70% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester, the 30% became increasingly vocal. Equality will come, but I believe it should come through the judicial branch.

 

The quote would help. Hollingsworth v. Perry (I assume this is the case you're referring to because this was the one that effectively legalized same-sex marriage in your state of California and not United States v. Windsor) was decided at the Supreme Court based on the issue of standing. The Prop 8 supporters did not have a "case or controversy" to posses standing so they didn't have the right to appeal to the 9th Circuit after the California officials named as defendants dropped their appeal, and to the Supreme Court, leaving the District judge's decision to stand. This was, in a way, considered by some to be done to not vote on the merits of the case and extend same-sex marriage to the whole of the United States. However, practically speaking, some say the Roberts Court also wanted to establish that one needs standing to use the Article III courts. If they had voted on the merits, it would have implicitly granted anyone who lacked standing, the so called "concerned bystander," the right use the federal courts as a "‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’”

And, as the opinion of the court stated in its conclusion:

 

I'll sign it, but I doubt Obama can do this. A court ruling would be more reasonable. In the case of interracial marriages, it wasn't legalized nationwide until a court ruling. Also, at the time of the court ruling, 33 states already legalized interracial marriage through legislation or voting. I think a court ruling would be sufficient enough to overturn all marriage equality bans when more than half, or at least two-thirds of the U.S has legalized gay marriage.

 

The only way marriage equality will become the law in all 50 states is through a Supreme Court ruling. And removing all of the laws from the books completely will take another 50 years or so after that. Didn't Alabama only just remove their ban on interracial marriage in 2000?

 

I honestly don't believe Indiana will legalize same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court says says all 50 states must allow same-sex couples to marry, IF they ever do. And even if they did, since lawmakers in this state wanted to ban same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court made their decision about the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, I doubt they'd go along with such a decision, anyway. They know they can't legally ban same-sex marriages now, but actually allowing it? I'll probably be old and senile before it happens here, IF it even happens while I'm alive.

 

This won't work. It really won't work. But it would be nice if it did.

 

I'm not American so my knowledge is limited but i am aware of how the country works in terms of state law and federal.

Surely if its a question of Civil rights and im guessing as your Country's constitution says 'All men are created equal' surely not allowing same sex marruage is unconstitutional and a breach of basic civil rights? therefore not something individual states can decide on?

 

Obama legalised gay marriage in Uruguay I LOVE HIM.

Is it not time we get an adjective version of USA?

 

Wait, what? o_o

 

Sounds right. Some states still have laws that it's illegal for men to have sex together, but they can't use them since the USSC Lawrence v Texas decision. The stupid legislators in those states don't want to remove those useless laws because they still believe in them.

 

"All men are created equal" is a famous line from our Declaration of Independence, which cannot be used in court for arguments.

Many say that marriage is not a right, because the Constitution doesn't talk about marriage. Truly, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. It should simply allow people to make their own contractual agreements with each other.

HOWEVER, since govt. is involved, many point to marriage as an "implied" right. It's not written in the Constitution explicitly, but ideas such as the right to privacy are implied by the Constitution (which was declared in a Supreme Court case regarding contraception, a few years before Row v Wade). Many point to the 14th Amendment, section 1 as the justification for marriage equality: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

Specifically, the equal protection clause right at the end. Still, other posters are right. For marriage equality to happen all at once in the states, it would need to be the Supreme Court's decision.

On another note, I was disappointed in the ruling regarding standing. Though I'm also disappointed that a group of people would want to defend a law which takes away the rights of people, I'm more disappointed that the Supreme Court has said that the Executive can choose to stop defending laws he doesn't like (whether they're good, bad, constitutional or unconstitutional). But that's just my off-topic opinion...