Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation
Views & Voices

Should states’ rights decide gay rights? Or any rights?

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Ernest J. Dronenburg, the County Clerk here in San Diego, has decided that he doesn’t want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Even though the State of California says he must, and the U.S. Supreme Court says he must (kind of), he is demanding that the California Supreme Court issue “an immediate temporary stay” on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

He says the law isn’t clear…

Mr. Dronenburg and his ilk are just some of the many reasons that the citizens of any state should not be allowed to vote on any issue concerning the human rights of other citizens.  It just never works out well for those who may fall in to the category of “the other.”

Consider the southern states that had state and local laws which instituted discrimination against blacks — laws that prevented blacks from voting, attending white public schools, owning houses in a white section of town, eating in white restaurants, drinking out of water fountains, riding on the front of buses…

Had the federal government not stepped in, well – you tell me – how many of you believe these laws would have been changed? Anyone?

The thing is, it just never ends.

The citizens of each state want what they want. The people with the money have the power, and they want to mold their cities and towns to their own little standards, with their own little rules, their own little prejudices, and their own little innuendos.

Those who struggle to keep their heads above the water have no money which means they have no power and their voice is very rarely, if ever, heard.

They are considered “the other,” and the laws are never structured to their benefit. In fact, laws are often structured to punish and keep them “in their place” and they are often forgotten and left behind.

LGBTQ citizens fall into “the other” category — based on the ick factor.

Some voters don’t understand, so they don’t care. Others listen to their religious leaders and vote however they are told to vote. Still others just think it’s a deviant, perverted lifestyle that we have chosen and however they can keep us down – that’s what they choose, and that’s how they vote.

The majority cannot rule when it comes to civil rights – for civil rights are human rights and the people who have the power, have the money and they want what they want, and that is not always what is right and just for everyone. 

The evil Proposition 8 here in California, which ended gay marriage, was fueled by religion and backed monetarily by religious groups. 

That’s not governing, that’s a Sunday morning church service.

Is same-sex marriage legal?  Yes, in some states. Just don’t marry in California and move to Arizona – it won’t be legal there.

Is abortion legal? Yes, it’s legal according to the government. But… try and get one in Texas or Mississippi or Kansas or Iowa

Do you see this as governing, or do you just see confusion?

Either way we must be ever vigilant, my friends – ever vigilant.

Opinions and advice expressed in our Views & Voices columns represent the author's own views and not necessarily those of LGBTQ Nation. We welcome opposing views and diverse perspectives. To submit a article, column or video, contact us here. Due to the volume of submissions received, we cannot guarantee publication.

Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , , , , ,

Filed under: Views & Voices

129 more reader comments:

  1. Absolutely not. Sadly, this is the way the SCOTUS is currently having this play out, though.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:33pm
  2. I don´t the each state should overwright what the federal government has declared unconstitutional. We are for the people, by the people.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:33pm
  3. Make up your phucking minds – people are getting sick of the “can we / can´t we” bullshit – I should be ale to decide who I love not the government !

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:36pm
  4. Depends… but churches should definitely not be involved, they´ve won a right as well “freedom” of religion

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:36pm
  5. Under the constitution we are all created equal….at least that´s what it says!

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:37pm
  6. Absolutely not! The rights of a minority are not subject to the tyranny of a majority.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:43pm
  7. States rights is a complete boondogle which is almost exclusively emloyed by the right when trying to limit rights ans most oftne in the south, which should in itself give you the answer.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:43pm
  8. Ugh fuck arizona I hate this state so much

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:46pm
  9. States rights means prejudice is codified.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:47pm
  10. Nope. It should be a federal issue that forces the states to allow the rights of these people to be protected. No voting on people´s rights, no rights being given in some states and not another, etc.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:48pm
  11. Government´s at ANY LEVEL shouldn´t decide our rights.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:54pm
  12. This debate over federal government vs. states has gone on since the founding of the country (ie. Articles of Confederation). This is just the lately incarnation of that…

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:54pm
  13. I want someone to explain to me what Gay Rights are please. Are we talking civil rights- human rights? Why is it being called gay rights? I have a gay son so dont attack me- I just want to understand

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 6:56pm
  14. Teresa Shiver – Your son deserves all the rights that you have – The right to marry in any state and have it legal in any state. The right to not be fired from his job for being who he is. You know – life – liberty – and the pursuit of his happiness – those rights..

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 7:09pm
  15. Federal power trumps state power, honestly when DOMA fell, it should have been legal for gay couples to marry in any state or territory owned by the US

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 7:11pm
  16. the problem is the misinterpretation of what happened to DOMA when SCOTUS issued its´ ruling. DOMA did not fall, only part of it was struck down and that only applies in certain states. The other states are still free to apply their prejudices and hatred of ´gay marriage.´ the fight is far from over for us.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 7:44pm
  17. @TheresaShiver, good for you! calling it “gay” rights is th conservative way of making LGBT community folks sound like they are from a foreign planet, or a lesser species. We are all homo sapiens, human in our humanness, there are no differences!

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 7:47pm
  18. All law-abiding US Citizens should have the same rights in every state under the law of the Constitution of the United States of America. That includes equal marriage laws regardless of sexual orientation.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 7:56pm
  19. In the USA, no couple is required by law to have a wedding ceremony in a church-owned building. In fact, couples getting married are not even required to say marriage vows. A clerk in a County Court House here in Oklahoma told me that when a man and woman wanted to get married and filed an application for a marriage license, all they had to do next was to find someone authorized by the State of Oklahoma to sign the license and that someone file it in the court house where they got the license.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:01pm
  20. The fight is not over, I do not understand that argument that overturning all of DOMA would force churches to marry people they don´t approve of, OK first off if you say no then fine I will take my business elsewhere! I will not sue you and waste my money nor time cause there is always someone out there willing to do it. Scare tactics is all this crap is. Why do you people think I did not fully celebrate the section of DOMA that was repealed? Because it was not true equality or justice.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:27pm
  21. NO NO NO NO NO. Did they decide BLACK RIGHTS?? DID THEY DECIDE WOMENS RIGHTS? What the fuck is this with the STATES deciding whether to remain bigoted or not? Fuck NO!

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:36pm
  22. all rights

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:43pm
  23. Should other people have the power to decide a human´s rights in general? We need to think critically about that more as a nation in general….

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:47pm
  24. Absolutely not.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:56pm
  25. DOMA wasn´t struck down?? Now I´m confused… can someone please explain?

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 8:58pm
  26. Eqaul rights should be a Federal Law!!!

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:06pm
  27. If “Rights” were something that should be voted on, the south would still be segregated. However now we are like a Black man in 1950s Alabama who just wants a seat at a lunch-counter.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:16pm
  28. Yes. It´s how our system works. Each state gets to discuss, struggle, and decide.

    When a certain threshold of states reach consensus on an issue then the Fed / SCOTUS can weigh in, but before then it´s a process of winning over hearts and minds, which is working — even down south.

    If the FED / SCOTUS weigh in too soon there is backlash. This is counter-productive.

    Stay the course. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. It´s a process that must be navigated. Patience and persistence wins better results in the end.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:24pm
  29. //NO NO NO NO NO. Did they decide BLACK RIGHTS?? DID THEY DECIDE WOMENS RIGHTS? What the fuck is this with the STATES deciding whether to remain bigoted or not? Fuck NO!//

    Yes, the states did decide. It was a process for both of these issues. Once a certain thresholds of states supported each o these issues then the Fed was able to act, but not before.

    The eradication of slavery was a long process too. We did not just go immediately to Civil War. The struggle began long before the Civil War erupted. For example, the importation of slaves became illegal in 1808. The Civil War erupted in 1860, decades later.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:29pm
  30. States should have rights to determine a lot of their own laws, but not when they come to human rights.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:48pm
  31. As an outsider: for a country that bills itself as the United States, I´m not seeing a whole lot of unity. The idea of states´ rights seems ludicrous to me; handing over power of veto to a bunch of small-minded localists who have absolutely no business running a hot dog cart, let alone one of the most powerful nations on the planet, just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Now, all we need to support the revocation of “My town is full of bigots so nobody gets” rights is some evidence of the harm it does – oh, that´s right, a lack of basic national public transport infrastructure, the prevalence of singularly backward education policies (no federal government in a G8 nation could possibly consider Teach The Controversy to be a good idea), anti-gay malignity forming policy, and the laws of a bunch of weirdy-beardy millenia-dead cultists being given preferential treatment to those of a rational, secular government. That´s damaging. That´s seriously damaging to the health of both the United States and the states that are ostensibly united.

    But hey, I´m just a foreigner. What could I possibly know about anything? I mean, after all, I´m a communist, Ken. I´m from Europe. We all are over here. Communist homosexuals who want to convert you to Satanism and bugger you senseless with a bit of old pipe.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:58pm
  32. Sorry but you do not vote on people´s basic rights. An individual or a group may believe that certain groups are not entitled to rights which in a free society they are allowed to hold and voice but not impose on another group. Civil rights are just basic rights available to all, not to be voted on or dispense by the state but to be upheld by the government should some or a lot wish to infringe up them.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:05pm
  33. NO, next question

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:31pm
  34. no

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 11:11pm
  35. No. The patchwork of rights the USA has now only shows the reality that LGBT Americans are partial citizens of the USA, at best. As a gay man, this country will never get my loyalty or respect until we are all free and equal. Not too hopeful given the neofascist Republicans and the damned red states.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 11:33pm
  36. The Bible? Why should that work of fiction be shoved down my or anyone else´s throat or be the source for ANY laws or public acts? We Americans do not all believe the fanatsy of monotheism. I´d like to beleive we all believe in the Constitution, but some people like the Christian cake asshat makes me doubt it.

    Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 11:50pm
  37. They totally should. I mean, it worked great with other things. Like abortion, women´s sufferage/other rights and especially with slavery! States always /always/ know what they´re doing. The big judicial guys who “analyse, interpret, and uphold the constitution” are just quacks.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 12:03am
  38. NO the states should NOT be allowed to decide people´s CIVIL RIGHTS….and they should NEVER be put to the GENERAL VOTE either….and NO LAW, should be made to go according to the BIBLE!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 12:40am
  39. State laws should never contradict Federal law.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:05am
  40. No the states should not decide on civil rights. There is too much room for discrimination and prejudice. I read the article. I have seen them publicly vote against same-sex marriage in Virginia, and it is outrageous and sad. I agree with the writer of the article. If the federal government would not have stepped in, who knows how long it would have taken for african americans to have equality in the south.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:24am
  41. Hey Christian Cake Shop, do you follow everything the bible says?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:35am
  42. no. Human rights are human rights and should not be decided by states or votes.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:46am
  43. There are no anti-gay constitutional amendments in Colorado. In fact, the entire GLBT community enjoys full protection under the law here in the Centennial State

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:56am
  44. USA Constitution (does?) and should override each and every State constitution and all State laws!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 2:38am
  45. No American´s Civil Rights should ever be up for a majority vote sadly it seems it is.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 2:59am
  46. The Federal Government should decide one and for all and all governments below federal should suck it.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 3:55am
  47. I think Civil rights should never be hurt or touched, yet I see it all the time. Meanwhile privileges are being mistaken for rights. I see people banning the right to speech by censorship, yet they let drunk driving repeat offenders buy a car. They try to ban guns with the same ignorance they had on the blacks in the 1800s-1960s yet I hear people have a “RIGHT” to ride a bus that isn´t paid for by the state. In other words, if its on the constitution it shouldn´t be infringed upon but to it we should add rights to freedoms like Marriage choice of ur partner not by what someone who runs a multi-million dollar corperation in charge of a shit-hole thinks. They don´t care they just gonna run off with our money and still run a nation on their idealism.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 6:00am
  48. let´s take it slowly, i think the supreme court should decide on the matter when there are at least 30+ state that has legalized it… by rushing it LGBT+ americans might have a backlash… remember during the time of Roe v Wade there are still 46 states which have abortion on their books and we are facing the backlash now…

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 7:36am
  49. What gives some people the right to deny others the rights they have? What gives them the right to say “I can marry the person I love, but you can´t?” What gives them the right to deny another person employment or a place to live?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 3:53pm
  50. NO! In Texas, slavery would still be “legal” and interracial marriage would still be NOT legal!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:47pm
  51. Read the damn Fourteenth Amendment.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:47pm
  52. No because hicks and religitards will block it just like how they didn´t want to give black people equal rights back in the 60´s. Its up to the court and the Federal government to make sure positive change happens. Unfortunately our Supreme Court has some real tools on it that repealed the Voter Right´s act and are trying to take things backwards. They don´t have to like it all they have to do is shutup and have their bigotry go extinct

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:47pm
  53. states should have to abide by national,constitutional law, not make their own laws.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:47pm
  54. just like states rights gets to determine slavery, suffrage, labor laws, and other human rights issues…
    FUCK STATES RIGHTS

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:48pm
  55. Hell no!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:50pm
  56. States have no say in the US Constitution.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:50pm
  57. No. And the fact that they´re so hell bent on trying just proves how screwed up their priorities are. Who is it helping, banning gay marriage?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:51pm
  58. NO, unless it is the right to sever from the rest of country and float away…start with TX

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:51pm
  59. No, we are the United States of America. The southern religitards and republitards should not have the right to vote if they are old white men and women!! Lol!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:51pm
  60. i live in texas mike, its not even half as bad as some other states. texas has over 20,000,000 of all very diverse races. that would be a silly assumption. plus we dont pay state taxes here

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:51pm
  61. Rights are rights, not negotiable.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:52pm
  62. We need nation-wide legislation that covers ALL LGBT rights! LGBT rights are civil rights! LGBT people are not second rate citizens and deserve the same rights as everyone else!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:53pm
  63. No. It´s a minefield in a shitstorm with way too much hate thrown in!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:54pm
  64. There is more to LGBT rights than gay rights, for one, and no, civil rights should never be left to individual states.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:54pm
  65. That´s the funny thing about rights there rights ! Shouldn´t be voted on !

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:55pm
  66. No. If states had decided about slavery would it have ended ten, twenty more years, ever?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:55pm
  67. DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:55pm
  68. The only reason the states are now granting same sex marriages, is because they can no longer afford the law suits….. We only get rights when it affects the bottom line….. That´s Money Honey !!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:55pm
  69. You Should be Paying State Taxes !!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:57pm
  70. we are either all equal or we`re not

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:00pm
  71. this should be a federal determination

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:02pm
  72. I believe that a christian pastor (for example) should have the choice scince it is against their religion.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:02pm
  73. How many times are you going to post this?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:04pm
  74. Should states´ rights have determined civil rights? …

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:04pm
  75. No.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:06pm
  76. Pastors should have right to what Niki? Currently they think they have the right to stand in the way if our relationship legalities. I think they can believe as they wish and leave us alone. No way I´d want one to marry me either.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:06pm
  77. Who gives a shit about their religion, history is going to leave them behind (it already has long ago)

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:08pm
  78. Imagine having our own little states. Our own little fiefdoms where we would not have to struggle with our neighbors at all and could just live in peace.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:10pm
  79. No. If that was the case we would have total chaos. We would likely still have segregation in at least a few states. Civil Rights are not to be voted on.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:14pm
  80. HUMAN RIGHTS should NEVER be voted on! Especially not when the rights of a minority are being decided on by the majority! >_>

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:16pm
  81. last time we had states deciding “rights” for people, it was about which states would keep slaves. I thought we were past that.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:16pm
  82. I believe the 14th Amendment to make this quote clear. NO! :)

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:19pm
  83. no!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:22pm
  84. No. The bill of rights is meant to protect individual rights

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:26pm
  85. Unless it violates civil rights

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:33pm
  86. It´s in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution´s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. It´s why the rest of DOMA needs repealing.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:40pm
  87. I thinks that this is a civil rights issue, and thus a federal matter.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:43pm
  88. NO!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:44pm
  89. It is shameful that we even have to fight for rights that should be just part of our life´s like everyone else!!!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:45pm
  90. so sick of this…DOMA is done…let tax paying people have the same rights as everyone else…this is ridiculous that we are still having this conversation…

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:53pm
  91. NO NO NO NO…LISTEN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS A FEDERAL ISSUE, SO SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE. WASHINGTON NEEDS TO STEP IN AND GROW A PAIR..THIS COULD BE OBAMA´S LEGACY

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 10:59pm
  92. Steven Ratti you go boy. Right on

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:00pm
  93. Absolutely not…any and every American citizen right must be a matter of Federal law, whether for gays,racial minorities, women, religious minorities, all of it. States should be limited to issues that impact the welfare of that state,and even that should be regulated. Further, no state or Federal legislative body or group should be permitted to initiate,propose or put up to a legislative or popular vote any proposal that limits,denies or grants special American citizen rights to any particular group, but not to all. This may seem harsh, but the states are proving time and again that they are not capable of acting on the behalf of all Americans, and the right wing politicians are proving the same,as are voters who approve measures that deny rights to select groups of American citizens. I do not believe it was ever the intention of the founding fathers of this nation to have discriminatory and exclusionary measures put before the voters or the legislatures of this nation, and it should not be done now..This is intolerable behavior, and manipulation of this nation´s political and governmental system(s).What impacts one state impacts the entire nation,as well as the opposite. A state is just that, a state within the United States of America.The name of this nation says it all.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:00pm
  94. States should be the ones to decide because the ones who haven´t legalized gay marriage are not ready for it, nor will they ever be.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:00pm
  95. Not North.Carolina !

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:02pm
  96. I say leave it to the voters

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:03pm
  97. You can´t leave it to voters. If we did that, blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:06pm
  98. Being gay is not just about sex,except in the minds of those who refuse to accept that reality.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:13pm
  99. No,Carlos, states should not be the ones to decide the full American citizen rights of gay Americans any more than they should be the ones to decide the American citizen rights of Anerican blacks,Latins,women,Jews,muslims or any other American citizen.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:17pm
  100. you don´t vote on rights. They belong to you as human beings. It is absurd for the ruling elite to think they can ´grant´ them to anyone.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:18pm
  101. Carlos are you serious?

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:18pm
  102. I DON´T NEED FOR THOSE AGAINST IT TO ACCEPT IT. NOR DO WE NEED THEIR APPROVAL

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:20pm
  103. No one´s civil rights should be up for a vote.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:20pm
  104. Anyone who doesn´t think another group of people should have equal rights should volunteer to give up theirs first.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:20pm
  105. The rights of a minority must never be subject to the whims of a majority. In matters of rights it is never majority rule, it is equal rights for all. You cannot vote on whether to allow other Americans the liberty of exercising the same rights you already enjoy.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:36pm
  106. CIVIL HUMAN RIGHTS…..SHOULD NEVER BE PUT TO THE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON…..as others have said: if that had happened before….there would STILL BE “SLAVES”…..WOMEN WOULD HAVE 0 RIGHTS…..INTER-RACIAL COUPLES WOULDN´T BE ABLE TO VOTE……HOW WOULD HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES like to have their RIGHT TO MARRY be put to the VOTE?……Pat Burch or Stacie Bonner; PLEASE POST THIS STORY IN THE “LOVE IS LOVE” group.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:38pm
  107. I´m pretty sure we answered the question of states´ rights pretty clearly in 1865. We are “one nation” not a loose federation of independent states. That time is past, get over it.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:45pm
  108. Umm NO ! Equal rights, thats all, thats it !

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:45pm
  109. i don´t like the idea of per each state voting, i think it shold be a national vote….

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:52pm
  110. when do you think Mississippi would have allowed Blacks to vote if left up to the States, and now Mississippi is one of the most integrated States in the Union.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:55pm
  111. I think it needs to be made national & federal law. It´s not right for citizens of the same country to be granted or denied rights according to the state they live in, or to be legally married in one state, then have it not recognized and their rights violated in another state.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:55pm
  112. We do NOT vote on rights!!!! they are granted Equality ! no questions asked!!!!

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:56pm
  113. Uniform code of civility please.

    Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:58pm
  114. by calling it Gay Rights we are setting ourselves apart from the rest of the country. How about Human rights?

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 12:42am
  115. What a noble idea @Richard. Sadly marriage is only denied to gay humans, so the fight needs to be about gay rights.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 12:52am
  116. No. They shouldn´t.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:01am
  117. No more, the Constitution says we are all free and have the same RIGHTS.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:40am
  118. It should be decided by SCOTUS. If we go by state legislation states like Texas will never be free!

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:45am
  119. And Liberty and Justice for SOME! Man what happened to America ? how come this CULTure ALWAYS needs Someone to SHIT on to feel good about it self? How Embarrassing… anyone else feel ashamed of your CUNTtry?

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:59am
  120. So glad I live in DE….my partner and I got married!

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 2:20am
  121. Nope.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 2:21am
  122. states rights = redneck bullshit

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 3:16am
  123. I guarantee by the 2016 election Gay Marriage in Colorado will happen.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 3:17am
  124. No. The Federal government should override this. It is a civil right. If the bigot churches don´t want to marry gays, so fucking be it. But the government should have no say, EVERYWHERE.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 4:25am
  125. I had a good lesbian friend who fought in Iraq, who would say she “wasn´t covered by the Constitution”, and she was absolutely right, until all states recognize equality, the same will be true for all of us,

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 5:33am
  126. I thought rights were automatically given to us… Huh, silly me for thinking that.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 5:58am
  127. 10th amendment, that is all I need to say.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:43am
  128. No they shouldn´t be. If citizens are allowed to move freely from one state to another then it doesn´t make sense to have different rights in different places.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 9:22am
  129. Allowing the states to decide would result in 50 different interpretations ranging from full Legality (New York, etc.) to full illegalization/criminalization (Indiana). If it´s left up to voters in each city/county/parish/etc. it gets even murkier.

    Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:16pm