Gay Marriage Supreme Court decision ...?

Now that all the hoopla about the Supreme Court Gay Marriage decision is abated somewhat, it is time to examine why the dissenting justices were so pissed about this decision.

The one thing to remember about the Supreme Court is that it deals mainly with CONSTITUTIONAL issues. The rule of thumb is that if an issue is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, it then becomes a STATE issue; the individual states decide the issue.

In the Gay Marriage issue many states have decided the legality or non-legality of the marriage since our Constitution does not address the issue of marriage in any way.

As far as Scalia and the other conservatives on the bench, this was a state issue because it was not, in their minds, a Constitutional issue and that is why they decry this decision as a violation of democratic principles as practiced in this country.

The other justices did not see it that way and felt that the issue is addressed in the Constitution, not as a marriage issue but as a EQUAL RIGHTS issue as stated in the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to our Constitution.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law.

By denying certain people to participate in a legally binding contract that other people are allowed to participate in, violates the XIV Amendment...it is that simple.

I feel our Founding Fathers had an eye to the future when they crafted the Constitution and therefore had written some articles in general terms of basic principles.

I think no matter which way the decision went, the country as a whole was going to allow gay marriages period but the objection to this decision interests me and it will be fun exploring all the objections from all the objectors especially from the Catholic Church.

As far as the dissenting Supremes are concerned I understand that they do not want the court to tell the country how to think and behave but we have to remember that marriage between races was not allowed before the Supreme Court stepped in and said that individual rights were violated by this practice.

I am a firm believer in individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and am outraged at certain people trying to define and narrow those rights to conform to their own ideas of what those rights should be.

Truly these are historic times we live in but we still have work to do to make our society truly progressive and not mired in the darkness and ignorance of the past.