QUOTE
This ruling is a victory for the Rule of Law. I'm glad the Justices didn't try to use their personal beliefs to rule the other way. Now this battle can return to where it belongs: the people and their elected representatives. It's time, then, to get enough voters to repeal the amendment. After all, if a majority of those who voted passed this amendment, a majority can repeal it through another vote.
Do you mean the law that the majority can strip any minority group of its Constitutional rights based on a whim?
If that is the case (and that was NOT what I was taught when I learned about alleged American freedoms), then clearly the next step is an amendment process to strip all Mormons of rights to "marriage" - after all, why should Satan-worshipping heretics have the same rights as real human beings?
Or better yet, to avoid any pesky problems with the First Amendment (is that still in force? It's so hard to remember what parts of our shredded Constitution remain), an amendment process to strip divorced people of the right to ever marry again. After all, the "Christian" definition of marriage, now encoded into our allegedly secular laws, does not allow for divorce, so why should we consider Cindy Hensley ("Mrs." John McCain) or Judith Nathan ("Mrs." Rudy Guiliani) as anything but whores?
QUOTE
Of course minority rights should never be put to a public vote but that unfortunately isn't the way things are done in the US.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! We cannot acquiese to this clearly unConstitutional process of majority tyranny - in California or any other state that has passed an anti-gay hate amendment. The Supreme Court, in
Romer v. Evans, ruled that states cannot pass laws or amendments to strip basic human rights (one of which is marriage - according to the same Supreme Court) from minority groups, particularly when the reason for doing so is pure animus against the group.
We therefore cannot simply use the same unConstitutional process to try and reclaim that which has been stolen. Not only should we be filing every possible federal case against these amendments, we should also be working to prove they are nothing but anti-gay hate statements by forcing their enforcement.
Currently neither the federal nor state anti-gay hate laws define the "man" and "woman" required for a valid marriage. Why should someone like Jamie Lee Curtis, who is intersex and genetically male, enjoy a same-sex marriage when I cannot, simply because she happens to be a man who looks like a woman. We should be filing challenges to every single marriage license issued in anti-gay hate states, demanding they not be provided until and unless the parties involved undergo genetic testing to prove they are the genders they present. We should be demanding the same genetic testing of every single member of Congress and their "spouses," to ensure our tax dollars are not being spent in a way that does not meet DOMA.
I say it is high time to ensure the breeders reap what they've sown. They created this mess when they decided to enshrine their superiority into law, and we should see the mess is plopped right in their laps.