LGBT News I officially hate the US govenment....

They will eventually legalize it across the board. They're probably really just waiting for favor to shift to a safe enough place for them to do such a thing without it putting their political careers at risk.

That's usually how things go in the U.S.

 

To be fair, we have such a different legal system. I mean the laws are ALWAYS the same in the whole country here because it's so much smaller.

 

I do, but I don't.

 

I think its because laws like marriage were one of those things left up to the state's governments rather than the entire country. I could be wrong, but I think that's one problem. However I know that ever since Kentucky tried passing a gay segregation bill, the supreme court has started cracking down on anti-gay laws.

 

What a coincidence i hate my government too! we had same sex marriage at one point for about three days before it got canned, and those peoples marriages were revoked.

 

As soon as the Supreme Court takes up the case again. Even if Congress had the power to do something like that, the current Congress had a hard enough time renaming a Post Office and is too busy shutting down the government and creating manufactured crises to do that. That and legalizing gay marriage doesn't involve repealing the Affordable Care Act, so it's not going to even be brought up for debate. When they're not voting 55 times to repeal the ACA, the House Oversight Committee, led by Darrell Issa is running another partisan witch hunt over another bogus scandal that's been debunked numerous times (Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious) and turning the Oversight Committee into both a Kangaroo Kourt and a three ring circus. And after the 2014 elections, mark my words, the House will vote to impeach Barack Obama for using the powers he has as President, the power that every President, from George Washington on down had used: the authority to issue executive orders.

 

The way I viewed the state legalization system, it allowed more liberal states to get rights before the whole country was on board with it. But that does make it extra-bad for say, Utah and Arkansas and Texas and etc.

 

The way I understand it, in the States things in general seem to be left up to individual States a lot more often. I mean, in my law class we talked a lot about the differences between the system we have here in Canada and the system the States has when it comes to criminal law, and supposedly in the States even your criminal law is all over the place from state to state depending on where you are, whereas here its on a federal level and we have one set of criminal laws that affect everyone across the country. So, I mean.... laws in general vary so much in the States and I think its just how things are set up down there. The political climate is very different and while its definitely upsetting that people's rights are being withheld, especially when the only real argument against gay marriage is from religious people and church and state are supposed to be separate anyways, politicians do have to tread carefully. There would be a lot of backlash, probably, if the government down there were to legalize same sex marriage everywhere all at once.

 

Two words: Conservative Christians.

Republicans in congress are too involved in making Obama look bad than they are in trying to get real progress done. Our chance to get gay marriage in the next five years falls on the Supreme Court. After their rulings on Windsor and Hollingsworth, it'll be hard for them to say that any other state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, and will legalize it in every jurisdiction.

State's reserved powers should NOT be able to be used to oppress a minority. SCOTUS overturned that principle in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

 

I think this is a great and penetrating question that you ask. Why can't Americans get with the program? The reason Americans can't get with the program is that we have a very adversarial political culture. That means we view freedom as a zero (or very low)-sum game. The people who are against queer rights constantly talk about how the expansion of freedom will hurt their freedoms. Since we are such a "liberty" oriented culture, we never frame authoritarianism as wanting to control other people. We frame it as other people's (perceived to be illegitimate) freedom infringing on our (incorrectly thought to be legitimate) freedoms.

In short, 30% of Americans are evil.

 

This.

County councils over here do not have the power to create laws or to be selective about which laws they enforce. Every law has to come down from Parliament (England & Wales and occasionally Scotland & Northern Ireland), the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland assembly. Laws made in Scotland or Northern Ireland do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom either.

Something to note about the debate over here was just how good natured it was, despite the best efforts of certain groups and people. I think the only controversial moments since Jan 2013 were the ex-gay bus ads.

 

Join the club, I've officially hated the US government since forever...


But this is kinda a flawed reason to hate the US government, for whatever reason marriage is and has always been a state issue, states issue marriage licenses, not the federal government. The only way the federal government could get involved is by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, which is probably going to happen sometime within the next decade.

In the meantime we have a map of good states vs. evil states.

 

This.

 

I can totally see your point, but technically, Canada actually legalized it province by province until federal legalization in 2005. Canada, like the U.S is a federation of states, where laws are mainly divided among self-ruling state governments.

Countries like the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, France, and England have powerful, central federal governments where there are weak to non-existent state governments. We don't have that kind of federal power here. In a federation like the U.S, Canada, Brazil, Belgium, and Australia, gay marriage is either interpreted as a state/provincial law (U.S, Canada, Australia), or a federal law (Brazil and Belgium).

It'll take time, don't worry. As in the case of interracial marriages, gay marriage will be legalized with a SCOTUS court order, most likely by the end of 2018.

 

I would think if Obama had another term this federal legalization would come to fruition. he has done so much for the LGBT & poor Caste of people that it is amazing. 2 years ago my views of his presidency were different... but now that he 1. Reformed Healthcare (I can actually afford it now!) 2. Started paving the way for national LGBT equality 3. eased immigration laws (Not to be racist, but the Ghettos around here are filled with lazy government hand-out people when our Latino community works 2-3 jobs at once...it's silly to kick them out of the country) 4. Increasing minimum wage (Md is doing anyways but still a nice gesture). 5. he is pro-Marijuana (while I don't use it, but it is a big problem in Maryland... our police spend millions a year on Marijuana related crimes, it's absurd

I think if we vote Democratic in the next presidency, our next president will follow his footsteps to further the nations acceptance with the LGBT community.
However I am pretty sure I remember reading that our Federal government will view all same-sex marriages as legal and valid regardless if each individual state does or not

 

If I'm not mistaken, there was something that was put in the congressional law that says gay marriage can only be decided state by state. You should NOT hate Obama because of how the law is working, but instead blame the asshats who are behind DOMA. Honestly, the only way it will be legal in the whole country is if the Supreme Court steps in and makes a final ruling.

 

There aren't laws that make it harder, there're laws that make it impossible.

We are the oldest constitutional democracy. To that end, if the USSC (United States Supreme Court) decided to hear a writ of certiorari from a State Supreme Court of a Federal Circuit Court, then a resolution might be imposed-- assuming the USSC panel of Justices ruled in favor of the issue of gay marriage. And through the doctrine of stare decisis and precedence, all the lower courts there thereafter adhere to their ruling.

However, it isn't that simple. Courts do not (nor should they trouble themselves with) hypotheticals. Furthermore, individuals in the US are already excessively litigious, thereby reducing the probability of a higher court (Appellate, State Supreme, Federal Appeals, Federal Circuit, etc.) hearing an issue. And last but not least, the opportunity to have an actual, legal debate that is not frivolous is very, very hard.

You see, the federal court cannot take all cases. They are "specific" courts with standards what cases may be brought before them (federal questions, diversity of citizenship, etc.). State courts are "general" and hear far more cases.

Because marriage is a State issue, it cannot be immediately brought to the Federal courts (State courts hear all claims and questions regarding the State and the Federal government hears all claims and questions regarding the Federal government, with exceptions).

And, assuming that you succeed in a trial court, appellate court, and State Supreme Court, then the State would simply change their (1) constitution to reflect the ruling or (2) allow the judicial branch's findings to set a precedence for the other branches to follow (by ensuring the legislature's statutes and the executive's administrative agencies conform to the judiciary's ruling). Then, problem solved! One state at a time.

For better or worse, the idea of Federalism (separate States, unified under a Federal government) is inherent in our country. I don't suspect this will change, nor has it since our nation's founding. The concept is that people are ennobled to move within and about the US' boundaries and change their citizenship so that people can move to an area that suits their interests.

Hope this helps make a bit more sense. Yes, it sucks. But I think it's more valuable to follow our nation's traditions of Federalism and let the States be as red or blue as they want.

 

That's the way the US gov is set up. Sometimes it's a blessing and sometimes it's a curse. But remember that we're not socialists like Canada, and we're not a small island like the UK. It's hard to get widespread support when there are Americans who live in such diverse areas, with diverse beliefs, culture, values, and political views. If you support gay marriage, then of course you'd want the national gov to pass a national law allowing for same sex marriage, but you'd change your tune if the law was a national and indefinite ban on same sex marriage.

By change happening a state at a time, it also gives people time to adjust, to see if a law works out in another state, a kind of experiment, before implementing it in their own state.

 

Just to note, marriage in Australia is under the control of the federal government after the High Court ruled that the ACT's Same-Sex Marriage bill couldn't co-exist with the Federal Marriage bill.