5th March 2010, 5:21 AM
Yeah, I will agree that this is better decided by the Supreme Court than the White House or Congress. A Supreme Court case, rather than passing a law, would declare that this "right" of homosexuals to marry within their gender already exists and that the legislative branches of all governments (federal, state, and local) cannot take away this right. Rather than passing a law, the Supreme Court would instead interpret our most basic law of human rights to include same-sex marriages.
Though correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't abolition and women's suffrage guaranteed by amendments to the Constitution? I guess that's why I'm not totally against the intervention of the legislative branch so long as it's to secure the rights of homosexuals and not trample on them. Would it be Constitutional for the legislative branch to pass such a law dealing directly with the rights of a particular group? That's a matter of interpretation best left up to the judicial branch.
Though correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't abolition and women's suffrage guaranteed by amendments to the Constitution? I guess that's why I'm not totally against the intervention of the legislative branch so long as it's to secure the rights of homosexuals and not trample on them. Would it be Constitutional for the legislative branch to pass such a law dealing directly with the rights of a particular group? That's a matter of interpretation best left up to the judicial branch.