SSM at state or national level?

No matter how long it takes here, it is best if it is done State by State. The more states that follow the lead already started, the more inevitable it will be. If it is done by Fiat from any part of our national government, it will be seen by our opponents as the political action of whatever party (i.e. liberal Democrats) that happens to be in power or by "unacceptable judicial activism" by "liberal judges."

Its an old story here. The future is becoming more inevitable because of consistent, steady, gay activism, technology, and the fact that there are more good and kind people than there are jerks and a**holes if just given the chance to follow up on their own deeper beliefs in fundamental justice.

I am more encouraged about the march of progress every year. Setbacks yes. Defeat no. The real secret of our progress here is people just steadily opening up, coming out, and sharing their stories and their lives.

 

By the time the Canadian federal government legislated for same-sex marriage, many of the provinces were already performing same-sex marriages, so the federal government responded to something that was happening in most parts of the country.

 

I'm afraid to say that in the end, it will take something at the national level to make it legal everywhere. For example, my state, Idaho, is one of the most conservative states in the union. We passed a constitutional amendment a few years ago (2004?) banning same sex marriage. Oh, I'm sorry, "defining marriage between a man and a woman." Right, politically correct talk and all.

The only thing that will strike that down will be a national law. Plain and simple. Idaho will go kicking and screaming towards any new social change, gay or not.

And, I believe that our best hope is honestly the Supreme Court of the US. I have high hopes that they might actually see reason and overturn the bans. I doubt they have the guts to say, "make it legal", but they might say, "you can't make it illegal" and thus pave the way for more states to step forward and make it legal.

 

Yes, this could help very much. It might give states more authority and encouragement to act. But I think the process has been moving really fast in what has been a largely conservative nation. In the end, it would be better if we are perceived to have won a long slow victory over the short sighted and selfish demands of what is increasingly a shrinking segment of the population.

The more we come out to our neighbors, our families, our friends; the more we show up as their neighbor, their doctor, their priest, a relative, a favorite actor or singer, and on and on, then the more their lips will fall silent, and the NO vote will get smaller. History is on our side. They are an ideology, we are a force of nature.

 

as an attorney, my take is that it will have to pass several states before the fed steps in and makes it nationally consistent. unfortunately its a tad like the slavery issue. at the time the constitution was passed slavery was too divisive an issue here in the US. 220 years ago there would not have been a union if all had to agree on slavery, up or down, at that time. so, they agreed to take that issue off the table. ultimately, tho, the issue had to be addressed, and it was. Price: blood of some 250k americans spilt. sad, but that's the nature and condition of human life. Doesn't it break your heart to think of all those boys age 17 - 27, who gave their lives in the Civil War. As more and more parents encounter the reality of gay children they will learn that gayness is not a matter of condemnation. as more parents learn this, more and more children, g&s, will learn this. the love will spread & as it does society will come around. our duty is to be who we are so our parents and friends will learn that love dictates acceptance of all loving relationships. come out, come out, whereever you are! (on your terms, and at your time) Love beyond labels!

 

There really is no such thing as a 'activist judge'. A judge's ruling can't stand unless it follows the laws of judicial review. As long as the judge follows procedure, and makes his ruling within the structure of the court's regulations, it can't be challanged.

'Activist judges' is nothing more than another abused buzz word used by the far right to halt justice. other examples are 'gay agenda', 'terrorist lover', and most offensively and disgustingly, '9/11'. They are words meant to scare people, or abused, like 9/11, which is used to claim everyone else is to blame for it happening but them.

That is not to say liberal don't use buzz words, but they rarely do, and it ususally are the new politicians, unelected pundits, or the people who don't think before the speak (that douche who said republican healthcare means just die faster).

whenever a judge rules in the way the conservatives do not like, they cry 'activist judge'. examples of his is civil rights rulings, ruling and legal opinions on allowing women to vote, Scopes trial... the list goes on. the common factor in these cases is that the rules of the justice system were followed to the T... they just don't like to lose.

We have to remeber that there will allways be those people, and we can't give them any thought.

State by State is inheriently wrong for cases of civil rights. One of the purposes of having a supreme court is that they are suposed to step in, and grant us equal rights. It will have to go to the national level.

 

I agree with some of this. Here in the US we have a tri-partite form of government. The Legislature has jurisdiction to write laws. The Executive is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws. And the Judiciary is responsible for applying existing law to the facts as shown at trial. Call me right wing extremist si vous plais, however, the term "activist judge" is used to describe a judge who does not hesitate to formulate new law in the context of applying existing law to established facts. True not every thing is black and white, but there are degrees of gray involved.

While I fully believe that society should fully support all relationships based on love, I do not believe under our form of government it is the court's responsibility or role to define the status. It is properly within the realm of the Legislative branch of government to define the actions one must take to attain the legal status of "married."

That, and $10, will get you coffee and a roll at Starbux.

 

well, the whole reason we have courts such as the supreme court is that they are suposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. So, technically, this is why the courts are there. thanks to the 14th ammendment, it is technically illegal for states to legislate anything that gives rights to one group, or denys rights to another given to others. The problem is, people dont challange the illigality of that.

The Prop 8 trial is doing just that. It is pointing out the illigality and uncontitutionality of the law. The idea that one group of people have the right to use the ballot process to deny a whole other group of people equal right is both facist in nature, but distinctly undemocratic. The problem is, it is nothing new, and just reinforces how off target our political systems are.

 

Yes I was definitely going to point this out... the three most populous provinces (BC, Quebec, and Ontario) had, through court challenged, made same-sex marriage legal before it was taken up by the federal government. And the federal government here dragged its feet for months and months and months on the issue and eventually went to the Supreme Court for a "reference" so they could say "the Court made us do it!" and not have to take responsibility for making it the law of the land.