Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Velveteen Ocelot

(130,696 posts)
14. Because, as the law now stands, it IS
Fri May 11, 2012, 08:58 AM
May 2012

a state matter - because there is no general federal legislation regulating marriage. Also, there is no federal statute (like the 1964 Civil Rights Act) or federal court decision specifically making LGBT a protected class. Since it is a state law matter there are now six states that provide for marriage equality. If the matter were turned over to this Congress to consider, you can bet same-sex marriage would be outlawed by federal statute in all states.

What needs to happen - and Ted Olson is going to be doing this, soon - is a court challenge of the anti-marriage laws in one of the states (I think Prop 8 in CA). In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court held laws against interracial marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and they will argue that the same principle should apply to same-gender marriage. I don't know whether this will fly with the current Supreme Court, but it seems to me that there is no other way to reach the desired result.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

du rec. nt xchrom May 2012 #1
I think I get it. vaberella May 2012 #2
Great if you spend the rest of your life in that state that recognizes you marriage HockeyMom May 2012 #5
I know. vaberella May 2012 #8
Bipartisanship? mmonk May 2012 #3
when ANYONE says "leave it to the states" they almost always mean "we'd lose at the federal level." unblock May 2012 #4
Stare Decisis HockeyMom May 2012 #12
that's true, but saying that it should be enforced through the courts cali May 2012 #6
It's the Constitution that did that, not the President. n/t pnwmom May 2012 #7
Exactly. Historically, it's been viewed as a power reserved to the states. pinboy3niner May 2012 #10
That decision already happened: Loving v. Virginia. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #11
You misunderstand his point. Skinner May 2012 #17
They don't need to. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #18
I agree. hack89 May 2012 #20
I don't understand your point. Skinner May 2012 #24
Congress has nothing to do with it. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #26
Ok, then. I agree. Skinner May 2012 #28
Religion should be taken out of marriage. LiberalFighter May 2012 #22
AMEN ! SoCalDem May 2012 #30
Maybe this is what he has to do... Zorra May 2012 #9
So we would have marriage equality but also military dictatorship? EFerrari May 2012 #27
Thanks. Yes, there is, however Zorra May 2012 #29
my two cents Ship of Fools May 2012 #13
Because, as the law now stands, it IS The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #14
Barney Frank... SidDithers May 2012 #15
Here is why: Because marriage has always been a state issue. Skinner May 2012 #16
I would think that the protection of civil rights would trump any claim that states have Bonobo May 2012 #19
Some day, the protection of civil rights WILL trump any claim that states have. Skinner May 2012 #23
Some federal laws are more about what states can't do loyalsister May 2012 #21
A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority Zorra May 2012 #25
I think the issue is two fold.......... mrmpa May 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If marriage is a civil ri...»Reply #14