"There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[Pab Sungenis]

Remember who actually said those words. Hint: it wasn't a Republican. And it wasn't the President that appointed her, who is now making the case in the opposite direction.

[RC]

1. You might want to give us some background on this.

Names, links, something to make you OP actually worthwhile.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Here's all that needs to be said:

Senator Cornyn: "Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?"

Elena Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Let's see how she votes on Prop 8 and DOMA.

[Gman]

3. I tell them there is no constitutional right to any marriage

And their heads spin.

[tomfodw]

7. Actually, there is

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a Constitutional right to marriage. However, it has never ruled that this applies to same-sex marriage (nor has it ruled that it doesn't).

[Gman]

17. In the teabagger constitution interpretation, there is not mention of marriage

in the constitution. For that matter, there is no mention of privacy in the constitution, but the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise (Roe v Wade among others). But if it isn't explicitly mentioned, teabaggers don't think it exists. They hate judicial review. Therefore I like to turn it around on them.

[baldguy]

4. With an honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment there is.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. I agree.

I just hope Elena Kagan "evolves" like Obama did. Otherwise, we're really screwed.

And Mister President? A real liberal next time, please.

[RC]

6. Obama evolved towards the Right.

One case with which you disagree does not a Conservative make.

[Amimnoch]

8. She was answering a jackasses question, and answered it evasively while trying to be confirmed.

In typical lawyer fashion.

In rebuttal to the accusations she has stated that she was declaring the current state of law (which is accurate), and not stating her view on how the constitution should be read, nor how she would view it when challenges are brought up.

She was technically correct, and brilliantly eluded the trap that Cornyn was trying to set.

Some good reading:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49585/sg-kagan-breaks-her-vows/ed-whelan

[Zorra]

9. "She was technically correct, and brilliantly eluded the trap..."

I agree.
:thumbsup:

[DURHAM D]

10. +1

[chocolaterainbow]

23. I agree.

She had to say that to get confirmed just like President Obama has to keep homophobic positions in order to do good for the rest of the country.

[Creideiki]

25. How's that single-payer healthcare working out for you?

Even a public option? Even everyone able to buy into Medicare (at a higher rate than we already pay, that is)?

[TheWraith]

15. No. With the 14th, there's a constitutional right to equal protection.

There's nothing constitutionally that says that you HAVE to be able to get married. Ever, to anyone.

Where the 14th kicks in is when some people can get married, and others can't.

[Pab Sungenis]

18. Go read Loving v. Virginia

and then re-read your statement.

Where the 14th kicks in is when some people can get married, and others can't.

...which is the case in 44 of the 50 states.

[TheWraith]

20. I'm well aware of Loving vs. Virginia.

My point remains: nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate a specific right for marriage, ANYBODY's marriage. What Kagan said was technically accurate, albeit extremely evasive, since no one has ever suggested that there's such a specific enumerated right in the constitution. What IS enumerated is a right to equal protection of the law, which is what Loving vs. Virginia drew on.

[Pab Sungenis]

24. And Loving v. Virginia

established the Constitutional Right to Marriage.

Under your logic we don't have a Constitutional Right to Breathe.

[MNBrewer]

19. Thanks for stopping by GLBT.

and shitting in the thread.

[Unvanguard]

11. Elena Kagan will vote to strike down DOMA and--if it reaches the Court--Prop. 8 also.

Bank on it.

Ambiguous statements made by a political appointee in response to hostile questioning are of very little predictive value.

[Pab Sungenis]

12. We'll see.

I hope so.

But it's still sad that anyone who would ever make any comment similar to this in any context would be considered fit to be a Democratic nominee for the Court. We should not have to wonder whether or not Democratic appointees will do right.

Until she actually votes to overturn Prop 8 and DOMA, I will be suspicious.

[Unvanguard]

13. Obama would not have relied on statements she made during her confirmation hearing.

He and his administration had the opportunity to vet her privately. She also has a public record outside of government, which includes taking a strident stance against Don't Ask Don't Tell as Dean of Harvard Law School.

Confirmation hearings are pure theater these days. If she had meant something of substance by her comment, she would not have said it.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. Again, we'll see.

Remember that she was nominated while Obama was in "screw the queers" mode fighting in the courts to uphold DADT and DOMA and comparing our relationships to incest and pedophilia. Just because an unevolved Obama vetted her does not mean she will do what is right.

We'll see what happens when the time comes to vote.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

16. So-o-o-o-o There Is No Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage?

Then I'm here to tell Justice Kagan that there is no consitutional right to straight marriage, either. Bigot.

[Aerows]

21. You either have the same rights

Or no rights. That's the bottom line, and as a lesbian, I hope for the day when I can marry the woman I choose in any state. I currently don't have those rights in 44 states, so anyone who tells me that I do is incorrect.

This isn't a fight I'm going to give up anytime soon, and I will keep at it until any daughter or son born under the flag of the great United States of America can give their heart to the person they choose and wed them for all to see.

[QC]

22. +1

:kick: