"And to be honest, I simply don't believe that a lack of legislation authorizing gay marriage constitutes discrimination justifying federal intervention for "human rights" or "equal protection." "

If that were the only issue, maybe. But there are states who are actively passing laws and attemtpign to get constitutional amendments that *ban* gay marriage. It's not that gay marriage isn't spelled out as a right, but that it is under attack *by several states*. Dude, seriously, do you not keep up with the news in other states?

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx

State law and/or constitutional provision limits marriage to relationships between a man and a woman:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

That's 39 states, nearly 80% of them. It's an endemic problem and the Federal government must step in to declare these laws and amendments to be a violation of the US Constitution.

And it doesn't just provide a problem for gays moving between states or living in those states, but companies who conduct business in different states have to deal with enough issues without having to add the state requirements of what "couples" their HR departments can and cannot recognize based upon the state they are incorporated in and/or their employees live and do business in.

The government is explicitly prohibiting gay people from getting married in numerous states, not only that but prohibiting adoptions, and taking away the recognition of already existing families and their adoptees. That's what Amendment 1 in NC just did. It was very much 'government interference', creating a second class of citizens. This effects a whole multitude of things - from visitation rights, to inheritance, to health insurance, to protection from domestic violence, and many many other issues.

The question is, what is overwhelming benefit to keeping this a state-level issue? The main claim is that the issue is now 'divisive', and eventually, magically it will become undivisive if we just give it time, even in the deep south. And the argument is that we must pander to the lowest common denominator, as we can't make backward people do what they don't want to do when it comes to minority populations.

If this is our attitude, why bother having a constitutonal government at all? Rights should only be recognized when sizable majorities are good and ready to recognize them. Bring on Parliamentary Supremacy then. Get rid of this bastardized Montesquieu inspired gridlock government.

"violation of the U.S. Constitution"---under your ridiculously inflated interpretation of the 14th amendment's due process clause and/or the equal protection clause? Please. I'm seeing attacks on something that was previously nonexistent, so I'm really not seeing how this is a demonstration of discrimination or oppression. Obviously these individual states and the people of these states don't believe that they are doing anything wrong, and it's not the federal government's job to tell them that they are doing something wrong. If this was such a clear-cut case of discrimination I'm pretty sure that 80% of states wouldn't be participating in it.

I'm not a militant supporter of gay marriage (or really a supporter at all) but I'm sure not in favor of the federal government suddenly deciding this is an issue it has to solve.

Oh well, glad 10%+ of the population gets to be deprived of basic rights because you have qualms about federal jurisdiction.

this is a classic case where gay marriage is consistently losing on the state front so now the case must be made for a federal intervention.

personally, I wouldn't be opposed to civil unions, and I would agree that the states outlawing civil unions are indeed depriving gay couples of some of their basic rights.

Invictus is quite right about methodology, and it would be silly not to recognize this. Indeed, I have had the same point made to me by a leader of the legal gay marriage movement (though he did ambiguously favor a federal strategy).

Roe v. Wade permanently detracted from the level of political dialog in this country -- it created a permanent anger and venom (on both sides) that has made it more difficult to talk to each other with respect. It also, parenthetically, drastically damaged the Democratic party politically, since there are a great many people who sympathize with them economically but won't vote for a pro choice President while it's a federal issue.

Draugnar, you're assuming a lot in your various statements about the fourteenth amendment. It's certainly not true that any denial of a right to one group that another group has is an automatic violation of the fourteenth amendment. Actually, under current Supreme Court precedent, that is true only if the issue borders on a "suspect classification," of which the most prominent is race. Very importantly, in this context, sexual orientation has never been held to be a suspect classification by the Supreme Court. Now, that's exactly the decision that the California trial court made, and we'll see how that goes; but to say the least, it's gross over-generalizatoin to suggest that privileges being granted to one group that are withheld from another is an automatic Constitutional violation.

Clarification, "same point made to me" should read "same point made to a group that included me."

The Roe v. Wade 'argument' undermines your 'leave it to the states' strategy completely, actually. Since prior to Roe, only 13 states had legal abortion of any kind. There was no indication that this was going to change suddenly either.

"It also, parenthetically, drastically damaged the Democratic party politically, since there are a great many people who sympathize with them economically but won't vote for a pro choice President while it's a federal issue."

Compare that to the permanent gender gap which your Republican Party has to overcome, because it thinks very little of women voters. But I suppose we should only concern ourselves with reactionaries who get upset, nobody else.

" it's gross over-generalizatoin to suggest that privileges"

'Privileges'. Raising a family is a 'privilege' now. A privilege because Semck and his household won't be affected, and Christians don't care about anybody but themselves.

"But I suppose we should only concern ourselves with reactionaries who get upset, nobody else. "

*shrug* I'm not really that concerned about this aspect of it in the first place, to be honest -- I'm happy when people don't vote for Democrats. I just wanted to mention that it does have this side effect, for people's consideration. For better or worse, it is necessary, in order to rule in a democracy, to have the support of people with whom we disagree on a lot of things.

"prior to Roe, only 13 states had legal abortion of any kind. There was no indication that this was going to change suddenly either. "

Umm, in 1967, no state allowed abortion. In 1972, 13 did. I would say there kind of, you know, some momentum there.

Roe v. Wade was a court case. If the states maintain individual rights, another court case is bound to happen. There is one in appeal right now where a Federal court declared California's amendment to their constitution to be in violation of the US Constitution. That will, eventually, reach the SC and become the Row V. Wade of gay marriage. So the division and detraction from the dialog *is* going to happen. I believe having a true amendment or Federal law that trumps all such state constitutions now will force the situation and be a positive action in the long run.

"'Privileges'. Raising a family is a 'privilege' now. A privilege because Semck and his household won't be affected, and Christians don't care about anybody but themselves. "

I was referring to government recognition of marriage, putin. Any gay person is still allowed to live with any other and call themselves married if they want. As for adoption, that may be the issue coming the closest to having a good legal argument for it.

Putin - Please quit lump;ing all Christians together. Not every Cheitian believes in violating the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit if happiness to others just because they are different. And yes, I know that phrase is not from the Constitution, but it is a key phrase in a major "politcal" document of it's day and the rights declared therein are guiding principles used in the forming of the US Constitution.

Well, Draug, an amendment would have to go through 38 statehouses. How is that going to happen, exactly? As for a federal law, it would probably be unconstitutional, though there is some chance it could stand up under the fourteenth amendment's fifth section.

You're right, though, that the Prop 8 case will make it to the SCOTUS, probably next year, although possibly the next. It's highly likely to be a 5-4 case, but as usual it's hard to say where Kennedy will come down. He wrote both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, so he's fairly friendly to gay rights; on the other hand, overturning prop 8 would be a step farther than the kind of thing he usually does.

Incidentally, given how strong this week's NC amendment was, there's a nontrivial chance it will be struck down under Romer, I would think, regardless of what happens with gay marriage law generally. Again I could be wrong though.

"I was referring to government recognition of marriage, putin. "

And marriage entitles couples and their families to a long list of rights, Semck. I suppose pretending otherwise is convenient for your argument, but it's disingenuous.

"Umm, in 1967, no state allowed abortion. In 1972, 13 did. I would say there kind of, you know, some momentum there."

Considering the laws in all but four of those states were extraordinarily restrictive, no, not really.

"And marriage entitles couples and their families to a long list of rights, Semck."

True, putin, but gay marriage advocates have been fairly uniform in making it clear that they wouldn't accept even ALL of those rights with the word marriage removed.

It will happen by first having SCOTUS shoot down all the state level amendments abridging the rights of the LGBTQ community to marry. Then, when the states are forced to at least provide for civil unions, they will be more accepting of callign that union a marriage and recognizing there can be no separate but equal.

The issue I take with the "the issue will be more settled if it moves along in a state by state way" is that you're ultimately saying "We'll let the most conservative, most reactionary people set the agenda, so that we won't have to really work very hard to maintain equality down the line." The problem is this. 1 It isn't right to wait for the most backwards people to catch up to the rest of the world. America has been pandering to the bigots for far too long.
and 2, Much more importantly, the idea that if we do it a certain way, we won't actually have to fight to maintain equality down the road is hopelessly naive. There has never been a civil rights issue in the states which hasn't been a hugely divisive issue. Equality is always a constant fight, we're never going to settle this issue (or any other) and have it go away for good.

Sure we will. Line everyone who falls outside the accepted norms (gays, skin heads, bigots, athiests, you name 'em) up against a wall and shoot them. Of course, then we will have a new set of norms to conform too and the next round may be redheads or fat people or those with physical or mental disabilities. So then we shoot all them too, until only those considered perfect in every way remain.

Oh wait, Germany tried that once, didn't they...

"True, putin, but gay marriage advocates have been fairly uniform in making it clear that they wouldn't accept even ALL of those rights with the word marriage removed." - Semck for the last time, if you have to be kept separate, then you're not equal.

Who was that last comment @ draug?

Mafia +1 again. I believe SCOTUS made this same declaration: that separate but equal is not and can not be accepted.

I was affriming your statement, Mafia, by pointing out the only way to make everyone think the same was tried once before and resulted in one of the worst regimes to ever rule a nation trying to rule the world.

Assuming I understood your comment correctly Draugnar, given that gays were among those persecuted by the Nazi regime I find that comparison highly offensive. Also uhhh, Godwin's Law?

Oh! I took that completely the wrong way round. I though that, contrary to everything else you were saying, that the LGBT rights movement was trying to be the thought police. My mistake.

@Mafia - I was backing what you were saying, dude. The only way everyone would ever agree is if everyone were the same. Therefore, we'd have to be a monster regime (e.g. Nazi Germany) and kill everyone who didn't conform.

And yes, we reached Godwin's Law, but as a natural order of things. It really was a valid statement particularly because the Nazis persecuted and killed *anyone* outside the norms. Jew, handicap, gay, Russian, Pole... If you weren't cleary of the Nazi party, you weren't human by their definition and were worthy of nothing but extermination.

Mafia,

"Semck for the last time, if you have to be kept separate, then you're not equal. "

Please read what I'm saying before you make dramatic stands against me, Mafia.

I did not claim that this was equality. I was making the point that putin's point to me about additional rights was irrelevant, because the issue would remain, according to gay marriage leaders, even if those were all granted.

@Draug, "I believe SCOTUS made this same declaration: that separate but equal is not and can not be accepted."

They have said that only in the context of race and other suspect classifications. It is key to remember that for this kind of result to be applicable to a new area, such as sexual orientation, it must first be found a "suspect classification." It is NOT true that the Supreme Court has ever said "separate but equal" is illegal generically.