...that constitutional clause refers to privleges and immunities offered by the Constitution, not individual state laws. As such...not applicable.

Can a gay couple married in DC be forced to testify against their spouse in another state?

California voted against because their State was already in such crisis the citizens felt their own monetary position would be in peril if they allowed the law to pass. I don't feel it had any bearing on the peoples thoughts toward gay rights.

Yes, in certain circumstances, the legislators/courts are going against "the will of the people". Not the first time, and not the last time. "America" does not need to support gay marriage. However, America is required to afford the same rights and privileges to all of it's citizens. The case "against homosexuality" does not demonstrate significant harms against society, simplifying this down to pure discrimination.

You don't like it. That's fine. You don't have to. You will, however, have to deal with it.

Ever hear of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority? Or are we gonna continue to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we're going to uphold?

When the Supreme court decided Loving v. Virginia, and stated that marriage was a civil right and that therefore interracial couples were legally entitled to marriage rights in the USA, 94% of American's polled disagreed. A large portions of American citizens continue to believe that individuals with different racial backgrounds should not be married. Civil rights should never be decided by popular vote.

James - this is WHY we are a Republic, which protects the minorities FROM the majority. To say AMERICA does not support gay marriage is wrong. A cross section of America does not, but dammit, I am American and I support it. People need to speak for themselves and ONLY themselves.

Dear TMB, do you always spread such propaganda and lies? No sir, the American public does not support gay marriage. In 38 votes, there is not a single state that voted to make it legal. Instead dear sir, citizens voted to protect the rights of a man and a woman to marry. If the american people supported gay marriage then the votes would be different. The house and the senate will be repub, as will the new president. This country is a disaster due to the ultra left wing failed principles of Obama. Have you read the components of the treaties that the pres is going to try and push through the senate? the law of the sea treaty, the international arms treaty? Sorry sir, i like my sovreignty, and i like the fact that our supreme court rules over americans, not the united nations.

That does sound silly. Why DID the Democrats do exactly that to the Japanese in WWII? In regards to the civil rights legislation of the 60's...why did the Democrats "overwhelmingly" oppose integration and civil rights? Wow, I'm really glad there were "narrow minded, Bible thumping, gun-toting..." conservatives to force integration and equal rights through Congress. Incidentally, 3-2 IS overwhelming in any election.

Ah James, the ole' Democrats opposed the civil rights laws mis-direction. If you wish to make arguments please tell the whole truth. I will listen much better.

The southern "democrats" who voted against the civil rights legislation en masse of the '60's immediately found a home in the Republican party. I'm sure you have heard of the "southern strategy"? I find it insincere to try to manipulate "facts" to fit your story. Just tell the whole story please.

Regarding the Japanese and the Communists, fear mongering and despicable.

The Dixiecrats were Democrats, and most returned to the Democratic party where they remained for life. They would include Mendell Rivers, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings, Richard Russell and Clinton's "mentor" William Fulbright.

franking, just false on it's face. Where are the "red" states and why? Try to answer honestly this time.

Until the SCOTUS steps in to fix it. Which means one of the group of 4 must go, Alito, Roberts, Thomas or Scalia. I really wouldn't miss any of those.

Then guess what, heterosexuals should only get civil unions and "marriage" should be left up to religous institutions or some nonsense. It's a ridiculous semantic argument. Either civil marriage is the business of the state, or it isn't.

James - do you even know the purpose of the courts other then throwing criminals in jail?

The supreme court will once again smack down all those liberal activist judges with a 5-4 decision, or better yet 6-3. They already smacked down Sotomayor and her Connecticut fiasco where she tried to prevent unbiased exams from being used to promote those that passed the test.

Men marrying men and women marrying women. Men taking artificial hormones to become more feminine and grow breasts. Women taking hormones to become more masculine. Transexuals, transvestites, bisexuals becoming mainstream lifestyle choices. How is such perversion being championed? Whatever happened to we were created man and woman, man to be with woman? It's undeniably true according to our history, to our faiths, and to our biology.

Really, a Christian? You know gay marriage goes against the Bible, right?

Elizabeth, so does eating crabs and pork!

Thanks, John - me too!

Kenneth - that is YOUR version of God and YOUR version of the Bible. Thankfully, we are not a Christian Taliban nation. If you want to see what a country looks like that is ruled be religion simply look from the Mediterranean to the borders of China down to the desserts of Africa and the shores of the Indian Ocean. THAT is what it looks like. No thank you, Sir. I will take the US Constitution and the promise of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" over that religious mumbo-jumbo any day.

When has the event of marriage been declared a civil right by the constitution or the supreme court?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

Easy answer. Marriage yet to be taken up by SCOTUS. 14th Amendment, equal protection.

The implication of the Loving decision is that it's inherently a part of the right of procreation. If marriage is a right divorced from that concept, than we should allow mothers and daughters to marry. Plenty of them are raising kids together and they could use the tax breaks, too.

Spurious argument, Franking. The societal reasons for not letting mothers and daughters marry and procreate are in large part the genetic problems that result. It is not practical, of course, for government to allow marriage but prevent procreation. Given that, the rule of mother/daughter prohibition exists and the rule against same-sex marriage should not.

That's a completely different type of relationship and form of happiness. And, under the current definition of the law, two complete strangers of opposite sex can get married for whatever reason be it taxes, immigration or higher military pay. Besides there are completely separate sets of laws regarding incest.

I really like humor all seer! I am serious about that. I see a tight Obama win, I see Senate control for Dems, the House tightening. Another 4 years of gridlock too, then Hillary for 8 years with more gridlock. I am on the Weather Channel next!

I wish for the Bush tax cuts to expire, but Obama doesn't have the courage to do that, win or lose ;-((

Jeff, I heard Singapore is tax advantageous. Facebook...............

Jeff - no, you are wrong on the Senate. People - especially women - are ticked at the assault on their own rights. The Senate will stay Dem, and the House will go back to Dem's. As for President Obama, it's on the fence.

It would be ironic if Mitt Romney was elected and then managed to pass a law or amendment allowing for polygamous marriages. If one man and 3 women were all married, that would be equivalent to 3 heterosexual marriages and 2 homosexual marriages since the females would be married to each other too. hahahaha

Actually, my math was a little off. That would be 3 homosexual marriages! even better

@Sharon:
They were put here on earth soley for your amusement and also to help in keeping the canoe from tipping over.......

That your church will marry two men or two women is why this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion." Your church is free to do that, just as they're free to give free food to intact families earning over 250k a year, but that doesn't mean the state is discriminatory in not giving food stamps to those families.

I like your comment, Sharon.

Maybe the term activist judge applies when individuals such as Sotomayor are caught on tape and during speeches talking about activism from the bench then notice the camera and half-heartedly claim not to behave like that.

Your argument makes no sense in so many ways. 1) activist judges are those who believe the constitution can be loosely interpreted and even changed to suit their desires (i.e. equating deviant sexual behavior to a minority skin color). 2) Your church has the right to marry whomever it chooses. Your church could marry a woman and her poodle if it wanted to but that has nothing to do with it being recognized by the state. 3) You want your "religious beliefs" that homosexuality is a godly behavior and should be praised and promoted by our government imposed upon the majority of God-fearing people who believe that homosexuality is against God's will. So I can argue that you are imposing your religion on mine. 4) Homosexuals are to heterosexuals as blacks are to whites is not a valid comparison. You are comparing black people to sodomists. That's disgusting.

Again, you do know that gay marriage goes against the Bible, right?

all the whining about activist judges and they are pinning their hopes on the 5 who decided that corporations were people. Probably a safe bet , but sadly misplaced since they are going to be activist and set the come to christ folks above the rest of the citizenry in their zeal to break homosexuals on the wheel.

I think your all's definition of an activist judge is someone who you disagree with, kind of like your definition of a socialist

@Elizabeth. The bible is not the best document to look at for moral guidance in a literal sense. Here's a quote from Bishop Spong. "The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?" Elizabeth, the bible would have me stone to death my kids for being stubborn and rebellious (Deuteronomy). And it would have me stone my neighbor for talking badly about President Obama (Kings). I could go on with the people I can kill according to the bible. Many of its moral teachings and guidance are actually immoral and against the law. Why disregard the bible when it comes to killing kids but look to it for discriminating against gay people? Homosexuality exists in most 2 sex species where scientists have looked. It's throughout nature and nature is of God. Denying homosexual love is basically telling God he's wrong. Choosing to support legislation that causes needless pain and suffering to God's people is a sin.

And just what would a 5-4 decision mean?

You would leave this large decision to 9 people who always vote on partisan lines? Imagine a 5 to 4 vote going in either direction. Do 5 people get to prohibit gay marriage in New York? Or do 5 people get to mandate its accceptance in North Carolina? And think of it this way. There's a 4 to 4 split. One person then gets to make this decision for the entire nation. It doesn't seem right to me.

It would mean that we had 4 gay justices, 4 straight justices and 1 bisexual justice who had a crush on one of the others.

I see Jeff on Jay Leno or SNL soon.

If it would be 5-4 the other way, libs would be all in favor of that 1 person deciding for the whole country. What hypocrites.

3 guys + 6 gals + 3 sheep + 2 goats + couple of gerbils = Armageddon

Give me a sign about tomorrow's Preakness.

Solar eclipse? Already know about that. Which natural disaster will you pick? This is what we have to deal with? How many more will you predict? Simply nuts!

Joe, bet the winner.

Wake up, name branding from 200 years ago has no place today!

Sure they weren't Tories?

actually nicholas it was the southern democrats, you know they basis for todays republican party and the tea party morons. that democratic party that you are talking about, right?

Paul, it will change all of our lives in big ways. Will religious organizations be forced to recognize homosexual marriage or be charged with discrimination? Will my children be forced to learn at a young age about gay sex because it will be considered equal to straight sex by the law? Will members of our armed forces be forced to share showers and bunks with homosexuals? (Oh yeah that's already starting to happen) Cases of HIV and other sexual diseases like syphilis will necessarily rise because of the embrace of this behavior. This will further deepen us into debt as HIV is incredibly expensive to treat and many will be on government insurance. I can play this out over time and it leads to nothing but necessarily and unavoidable bad consequences. This will change all of our lives for the worse.

These are my responses.

1. No. Will not ever happen.
2. Do your children have to learn about straight sex at a young age in school now? The term age appropriate comes to mind.
3. Members of the armed forces have been sharing showers since the dawn of time with homosexuals. Jst a fact. When a woman gets "hit" by a man whom she has no interest in, she simply says no. You can do the same and thank him for the compliment! :-)
4. This "behavior" is recognized not to be a behavior by all major mental health organizations. Just a fact.
5. These people already live together, have sex together, and that will never change. Just a fact. Let them get married.

I can go on and on Kenneth, and I will not stoop to calling you names, sadly others may do that. But your fears will or will not disappear and your acceptance of equal rights will or will not come to you, but your children and grandchildren hopefully will live with homosexuals without blinking an eye.

I am sure we will not agree, but nice talking to you.

Full disclosure - married 33 years, 3 adult kids taught to accept people for what they are, heterosexual.

there are more heterosexauls with std's than anyone else. hence they cause the increase.

Wait wait wait... Kenneth, really? A committed relationship will cause a rise in STD's and HIV? Seriously? Your logic is flawed, my friend. Has STD's and HIV increased in countries that for a decade have allowed same-gender marriage? Ummm... no. It hasn't. Have those countries come crashing to the ground because of same-gender marriage? Ummm... no. Again, your logic is flawed. Guess what? I am gay. I was gay when I served in the Army *AND* the Air Force. I never 'hit' on a single soldier. Never had a need to (I was dating my Colonel while in the Army). Now, I have a loving spouse of 13 years who has been the 2nd dad to my two teenage sons who live and were raised by.... *US*! Both born of hetero unions... one where the mother was a drug addict and a boose hound and the other where she let her boyfriend physically abuse the 2nd kid. Ok, so here we are, two gya guys raising kids damaged by HETEROSEXUALS. And you want me to believe that *gays* are the downfall of society? Seriously??!?!?!?!?!?!? I would say the opposite considering I have had foster kids come through my home that were ALL abused by STRAIGHT parents. Give it a rest.

+100 points for best answer. not sure why the rest of the group doesn't understand that

i agree with your comment, but remember this article is really about divorce so this is why there needs to be a legal contract of marriage.

Sorry Paul, this is not rainbow world. Equal opportunity to succeed is different than being a right. You can go to college, yet party and flunk out. That does not give the flunkee the right to the same salary as those that took advantage of their opportunities. Please tell us where in the constituiton that marriage is considered a right, or even a civil right. It is not. Therefore it is up to the states to decree laws involving such until a lawsuit brings it to the supreme court. Until then states have the right to pass laws banning subsequent marriages, which 38 already have. Your altered views on humanity are quite the shame because you believe in the same views as your savior obama of equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. Please explain sir how a civil union granting gays all advantages of property rights, inheritance, visitation/last will and social security transfers upon death would place them at a disadvantage. I am all for those things, even given same-sex couples healthcare, however i disagree that a minority has the constituional right to change the definition of marriage, which has been between a man and a woman before civilized cultures passed laws defining the benefits of such a union.

One aspect of this banter is that it provides a modicum of comedy relief. Here you are Paul vehemently voicing your beliefs in gay marriage as a civil right, and that it is against the constitution and moral compass to discriminate in that fashion. Meanwhile, you support a president that yanked vouchers away from DC schoolkids that were economically disadvantaged to protect the teachers unions that support Obama. So which one is it Paul? Don't discriminate against gays, but go ahead and yank the equal opportunity that school vouchers give to children in public education systems that do not provide opportunities. Reference Louisiana on this one Paul. After Katrina, charter schools sprouted up in the state, and those schools not governed by teachers unions are having tremendous success. Explain that hypocrisy concerning equal opportunity.

Building a home and a family. How does a gay couple procreate and produce offspring?

hmmm adoption and artificial insemination come to mind, the same thing that couples who are infertile do. Guess that was too much of a stretch for you escargot or whatever

It's only different to you because of your preconceptions and bias. Separate but "equal" is societies way of dodging the true issue, which is that same sex couples are being discriminated against. I've watched same sex couples get torn apart because of immigration laws that specifically only provide citizenship for the spouse of a US citizen. How would you like it if you loved a woman from Brazil but couldn't live together here on US soil because she was being deported? If they want to call it something else, then there will always be a distinction between the two. It's discrimination.

So then it must be discrimination when we deport other illegal aliens for violating our laws too?

No discrimination.. just no laws for the behavior.. so make new ones thats all to provide for the common good of all citizens.. just don't hijack marriage laws.. make gay laws.

I really think we should distinguish gay unions as a new institution and legal concept! Would be a great compromise to most even though the gay community will never be satisfied, just like any group that constantly complains! You can't have everything in life.

So those that follow the rule of law have no empathy? If you sneak into a country illegally and fall in love and cannot marry, whose fault is it? I do not have to move to Texas. I will simply vote against the referendum for gay marriage and will watch as the supreme court votes 5-4 against it in the future.

Tom, I would agree except even when people suggest that the Jesus Juice Crew Goes crazy about that.

Escariot, On what basis do you figure SCOTUS will invalidate gay marriage in Maryland if it passes referendum? The law was passed by both houses of the general assembly, signed by the governor and brought to the ballot by citizens. The law was validly passed according to the Law of the Great State of Maryland! If you believe the Federal Defense of Marriage act is going to stop it you are mistaken. The F-DOMA is Un Constitutional since there is no where in the US Constitution which allows the Federal Government to define marriage!!!!! Since that power is not reserved for the Federal Govt. it is given to the states! I doubt SCOTUS will ever touch it unless it has to do with a married couple in one state being denied married privelages in another!

them folks in africa might have it right by executin those gay people. god dont like it.

If marriage is redefined legally, and considered a civil right, then what is stopping people from marrying multiple partners, underage partners, partners of the same immediate bloodline, partners of the animal species?

You appear to have racist beliefs. To answer your question, yes. That means they recognize criminals, non-criminals and idiots too. They tend to stay from the first and latter. Have a great day!

He is an ideologue, and those like him do not have "wisdom". Wisdom comes when one has an opinion or philosophy that is malleable in light of changing truths and facts. Ideologues ignore facts that do not support their opinion. A good example of this is how msnbc edited the 911 tape in the Trayvon Martin case. Another example is how paul "limousine liberal" espouses gay marriage as a civil right yet supports dems that squash educational opportunities for minorities and those in poverty to protect teacher unions that pump money into democratic coffers. It also occurs when Paul ignores the fact that dems appointed frannie and freedie ceos that contributed to the housing crisis, and how frank, todd, and obama prevented those companies from being regulated by congress.

@Hyattsville
Who's Marry and why do they have a right to her?
Go Gays? A team from San Fran no doubt! Got your pom poms?

Hyattsvillecouldnotbequeerer, your ignorant blabber is blase but expected. Your material is bigoted. You wonder why gay marriage consistently gets voted down? It is attitudes such as yours. The constituion never states that marriage is right, nor is it regarded as a civil right elsewhere. Your immediate replies of homophobia and bigoted remarks only ensures that people such as myself will continue to vote down gay marriage and support the fundamental union of a man and a woman. Without gays, procreation would continue to occur. Enjoy your rainbow, while it lasts. The rest of us live in the real world. Fundamental marriage 38, gay marriage 0.

Look at you guys all angry. It's pathetic. Your arguments are based on hate and ignorance. You've done nothing but trash this thread from the beginning. Every time someone argues against you sensibly, you completely ignore the logic and continue rambling anti gay nonsense. I'm just sick of getting emails with your bigoted remarks on a tired old thread. Give up. We all know your opinion. We all know you are bigots. Don't you have something better to do than attack people who have nothing to do with you? Gays have existed since the beginning of reproductive life, and it doesn't matter that they don't reproduce because the complex genetics are recessive.

So, according to your post above, we should impeach Barack Obama because he crossed the separation of church and state by trying to force religious institutions to pay for abortions. I am glad that we agree. Also, the vote on healthcare using reconciliation should also lead to the impeachment of Barack Obama because 60+ percent of Americans opposed it. But strangely sir, I do not see your posts concerning those issues. Why? Because you are a hypocrite. Once again sir, if marriage is a civil right, why can't children marry their grade school sweethearts? Why can't relatives marry? Why can't people marry multiple individuals? My bad, because never has marriage been considered a civil right. So, let David move to europe, because right now the record is states 38, gay marriage 0. By the way David, since you are so brave and mighty on the internet, why have you not protested every mosque and islamic community center for their views on gay marriage? My bad, just like all liberals you sit behind your computer screen thinking that you know "what is right, what is better" for the rest of us americans that oppose gay marriage. When the supreme court rules 5-4 that marriage is a privilige, and not a guaranteed civil right you will be crying like the liberal baby you are about the scotus. Don't let the door hit you on the ass when you leave for europe david....