High Court Struggles With Gay Marriage and California's Ban

, The National Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage advocates, hoping for constitutional recognition of their right to wed, encountered a cautious and sometimes skeptical U.S. Supreme Court during arguments Tuesday on California's same-sex marriage ban.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Not a liberal

    People often forget in a democracy there is such a thing as "minority rights". It seems even lawyers can forget that we have a U.S. Constitution and a State Consititution. If democracy is all about majority rule only, slavery would never have been abolished in the South, and inter-racial marriage would still be illegal. As for the concern that "predators" prey on children, there are plenty of heterosexual predators around. There are also plenty of heterosexual birth fathers molesting their own children. So by fuzzy logic perhaps we should ban all men from having children or adopting children, and actually, from getting married.

  • Sikntyrd2011

    When the liberals talk about disenfranchising the voters as a reason why they have not required voter IDs during elections, does it not disenfranchise voters when they have voted for something and won the vote, only to be brought to court and have it proclaimed unconstitutional? Time and time again, the liberals NEVER, EVER can accept that the majority of the voters have voted for Prop 8. I was always told that Democracy is about the will of the majority vote? Why are we going through this again? Why can't the liberals just accept that majority of Californians are for Prop 8 and it has nothing to do with discrimination AT ALL. I also think that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt a child of the same sex because there is a possibility that predators will use this method for victimizing a child. Only if the child is a biological child of one of the partners can they allow this. There are many things to consider with same sex unions. The politicians and judges should think twice before legalizing something that has not been thought out well at this point. Cause and effect. Same sex marriage or same sex union is the cause... what are the effects? Has anyone thought about that?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1364129993710

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.