Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Forgot password?
Blogs > redmustang91 > Wild Red Mustang thoughts!

Gay marriage  

redmustang91 64M
Ask me for a photo
7761 posts
10/18/2014 6:44 am

Last Read:
10/29/2014 3:15 pm
Gay marriage

I have been a long time supporter of gay marriage. Since the fifties and sixties. Marriage is such a pain, why should straight people be the only ones to suffer?

So I have welcomed the inevitable. Now about 30 states have the right as the Oct. 7, 2014 Ninth Circuit case over Nevada and Idaho held gay marriage bans unconstitutional. The decision came out one day after the US Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from other circuits. The US Supreme Court seems to be waiting so it can lead from the rear and bless the result after it has occurred.

So I read the Ninth Circuit decision, which is 84 pages long with three full opinions, as there are two long concurrences which have different reasons for the same result. The first main opinion is well written, logical and very funny.

The problem with trying to justify a ban on gay marriage is that the arguments are so stupid they are hard to explain or sometimes even understand.

The US Supreme Court created the dilemma in a number of prior cases. The argument that states should have the right to decide who can marry under notions of federalism got killed back in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. The US Supreme Court held unconstitutional Virginia's ban on interracial marriage. California Supreme Court killed the ban on interracial marriage in 1948.

Another case by the US Supreme Court held a prisoner, with no right to conjugal visits, could not be barred from the right to marry. So if prisoners have a fundamental right to marry, what about law abiding gays?

Then the US Supreme Court in 2003 held that<b> homosexual </font></b>adults, in private and consenting, have the right to commit sodomy, and Texas cannot make that sexual activity a crime. So if gay sex by adults in private is not illegal, then why not allow gays to have sex in marital bliss? Scalia argued in dissent in the Texas case if gay sex is not illegal, then gay marriage is logically mandated. He was right.

Become a member to create a blog