Signe Wilkinson by Signe Wilkinson

Signe Wilkinson

Recommended

Comments (30) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    The California voters originally voted to stop gay marriage…..that was their right under the 10th Amendment!

  2. 4my10851cs

    4my10851cs said, about 1 year ago

    the people voted because they didn’t want it .. but not to worry the court will overturn it. Just like the cross on the hill…thousands of people want it hundreds don’t care but one or two don’t want it so the court says take it down

  3. AshburnStadium

    AshburnStadium said, about 1 year ago

    @PianoGuy24

    No, it wasn’t their right. The 14th Amendment clearly forbids such a law.
    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  4. Ransom D Stone

    Ransom D Stone said, about 1 year ago

    @AshburnStadium

    Exactly. That is what the bill of rights is all about!

  5. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 1 year ago

    Five justices + one four-headed single-brained abomination known as Thomascalialitoroberts.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    A lot of the time you do need a license to exercise your freedom of speech. If you want to hold a big protest march and rally, you need a parade permit.

  7. barefootanarchist

    barefootanarchist said, about 1 year ago

    The gub’ment could just get out of the whole marriage thing all together, like it was before the late 1800s before enacting marriage laws to prevent blacks and whites marrying. It’s none of their business, nor anyone else’s. If some dude in California wants to marry his gay lover, who cares? If some redneck from Alabama wants to marry his cousin, who cares? And if some bi-sexual from Texas wants to immigrate to Utah and join the mormons and marry his gay lover and his cousin, so what! Marriage is a decision made between individuals and no one else should have any say about it.

    On the other hand, churches and religions should be able to chose whether they want to perform ceremonies for “non-standard” weddings. That way if the church xy is full of bigots and will only do “one man- one woman” you can walk down the street to church yx that has more open views.

  8. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    Fair point. Marriage is not a right. It is a religious ceremony and/or sacrament, and thus should not be touched in ANY WAY by the government under the Separation Clause. However, there are a host of areas in which married people get protected or at least different status legally, including in the administration of benefits or levying of taxes (as in the case before the court right now).
    Therefore, by that logic, marriage should be totally wiped from the law books. There are advantages to having a single designated partner, since for reasons like insurance people have to be designated and it would be easier if there was a default, but if some special right accrues to those who commit to each other in some formal way, then it should be their choice and covered if necessary (e.g., for insurance) by some legal and civil bond.
    So get your religious scruples out of here, along with the Pope. They have no part in this. By the Constitution, it is none of their damn business.

  9. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 1 year ago

    ScottPM said, about 4 hours ago
    and to motivusmagnus..



    “Marriage is not a right. Are ’t any liberals concerns with the precedent that the gov has to give you a license in order to exercise a right? What if Bush said you need a license to exercise your freedom if speech, and then you had to get another license to exercise a second time.”



    you are incorrect on 2 points, THIS liberal is VERY concerned with legal precidents., the SCOTUS has found that marriage IS a fundamental right.



    14 cases back it up.

    http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/



    it may be YOUR opinion that marriage is not a right, but the SCOTUS does not agree with you. It’s also interesting to note that these decisions go from 1888 to 2003, with both liberal and conservative courts finding so. Seems to be a long history and broad consensus. So I guess another so-called argument of yours, FAILS.

  10. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 1 year ago

    in case you are incapable of clicking on a link:
    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.
    1.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
    2.Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
    3.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
    4.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
    5.Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
    6.Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
    7.Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    8.Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
    9.Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    10.Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    11.Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    12.Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    13.M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    14.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 1 year ago

    @PianoGuy24

    There is no right for one group of voters to take another voter’s rights .None at all.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    If marriage is no right what is it? Under the 9th Amendment anything not prohibited by the Feds are to the states and the people. To me it is people first not states nor the Feds.

  13. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, about 1 year ago

    Why is this even in the Supreme Court? Equality is a no-brainer. We have to stop this discriminatory nonsense right now. Today. This minute. America will not remain a great country if we deny equal rights to all.

  14. CharlieTuba

    CharlieTuba GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Can persons who aren’t either unambiguously male or unambiguously female (0.5% of the population) get married to anyone? Check out John Green’s (bestselling author) video on marriage equality and religion:
    http://youtu.be/uQw0eLzfGNI

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    @dannysixpack

    Danny, I was doing my post somewhat tongue-in-cheek, building on ScottPM’s point to a somewhat absurd — while still technically accurate — level.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (15).