US Supreme Court rules that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional

[DnAuK]

What..you mean like the bleedin obvious. A gay person marrying another gay person of the opposite sex is a heterosexual marriage, in the same way heterosexuals marry. Who in their right mind would marry an opposite gender partner if your sexuality is gay. A heterosexual marriage is defined by opposite sexes, not how you conduct yourself sexually within the marriage, that's a given.

 

The ruling recognizes constitutionally and without discrimination that same gender couples perform same gender sex within a marital framework.

 

So, It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that gays haven't been discriminated against because no law has stopped them marrying,... you can't define 'gay' by a look .

 

I think you'd be surprised at how many gay men are married to women - due to peer pressure, to please their parents, or simply because they didn't know what else to do at the time. Things weren't always so open and acceptable you know.

 

As for the US being 10 years ahead...err...no. Most states have only just legalised, whereas we have at least had some form of civil partnership available for going on ten years.

[Jolly Wave]

Now if only the States could ban gun ownership they may be a small revolution over there

[unbeliever]

I'm all in favour of allowing gay marriage. The problem with what's happened in the US is they've taken the right to make the decision as to whether to allow it out of the hands of the individual states where it constitutionally belongs.

 

The Democrats and Republicans have been arguing about what the federal government in the US should do about the gay marriage issue for decades. Most haven't realised that the answer is very simple. That they should do nothing.

 

It was already very clear in US constitutional law that a marriage in one state must be recognised by all. The US supreme court only needed to remind the federal government that they have no business banning gay marriage.

 

Okay so it would have been a pain for gay couples in the 13 states which don't allow gay marriage to travel to one of the other 37 which do in order to get married. That's a shame. But the US has a system for making these changes which has just been bypassed, yet again, by a bunch of unelected judges.

 

I agree with them morally, that gay marriage should be permitted, but they've over-stepped their remit.

 

What should have happened under the US system is that a constitutional amendment should be been brought forward clarifying the matter of marriage such that any 2 consenting adults can marry. I like what's happened, but I don't like the way it's been done and that matters.

We don't have to compromise democracy to defend civil liberties.

 

This is all part of a disturbing western trend of talking about localism whilst centralising true power. It's dangerous even when it produces good results.

[cassity]

Putting aside the issue of same sex marriage and it's recent ruling..are there any on here who think its wrong because it weakens the historical concept of marriage?

[unbeliever]

Putting aside the issue of same sex marriage and it's recent ruling..are there any on here who think its wrong because it weakens the historical concept of marriage?

 

Nope.

Homosexuality is a problem for the Ambrahamic religions, older cultures were much more tolerant.

The Ambrahamic religions do not own marriage. It predates them by millennia. They don't get to define it for everybody else.