http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/

conspiracy to make it go even higher up and even more precedent-y
/tinfoil

"Precedent-y?"

I'll discuss.

I personally care little for the institution of marriage, which to me seems somewhat outdated. I don't oppose it, but nor do I actively support it.

For me, I'm not an expert on US law, but the problem in the UK, which may also be copied in the USA, is the inability of people do seperate the contractual, legal aspects of marriage, and the status of marriage as a religious ritual.

The solution seems clear:

1. Let people engage in whatever religious rituals they wish (providing those rituals do not harm others or violate other relevant laws). But do not grant those religious rituals any legal status whatsoever.

2. Seperately to (1) above, let individual adults enter into contracts with each other, which may or may not be called "marriages" and be founded on the same promises and exchanges as underpin a traditional marriage. Naturally this right would be extended to allow two adults of the same sex to form such a contract.

3. If people wish to arrange an event, religious or non-religious, to celebrate the signing of the contract provided for in (2) above, let them do so. If people wish to arrange such an event to co-incide with, or be part of a religious ceremony as described in (1) above, let them do so - as long as it is clear that (1) has no legal status and (2) is a seperate legal process.

Problems = solved.

@jamie: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

Seriously though, that's how it already works here, except some states don't allow gay people to do it because they (the states, not the people) suck.

@ ghug:

"that's how it already works here, except some states don't allow gay people to do it"

Wow. So, literally, in some US states, civil law still specifically discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual preference?

Barbarians.

Sexual orientation isn't a protected class (like race or sex) in most states.

Why not?

(It is in the UK, very specifically, under the Equality Act 2010)

Exactly, Jamiet.

Chaqa, it is in many, though it is often a court that decides, not representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#State_law

@ Chaqa: I said "why not?" Why is the USA, the land of the "free" still such a haven of bigotry, hatred and discrimination?

Jamiet99uk: In countries like Spain and France, the ceremony is already seperate from the legal paperwork handled by civil officials. I don't see how what you're proposing is anything new.

All this means is that the Supreme Court will actually have to decide this issue. Their too-clever-by-half way of just letting the lower courts deal with the issue can't work anymore, since there is now a clear circuit split.

Justice Kennedy has already shown himself to basically be on board for gay marriage. It's all over but for the crying.

I'd expect the Court to take this up sooner rather than later. Otherwise it'll spill into the next election, and the conservative justices could certainly do without that.

race and gender are things you are born with. Who's legs you choose to get naked between is a choice.

And government-recognized marriage is a legal construct meant primarily to make it easier to pass along certain benefits -- inheritence, things like that, or rights to who owns the kids....

Get the fucking government out of marriage, and let **ANYONE**, married or not, enter into legal aggreements as to who can pass what on to whom, and you end this mess.

Leave marriage to the church, as a religious ceremony, etc.

Eliminate "marriage" from the government, and allow anyone.....that means GROUPS if that is what it means...to enter into legal arrangements for inheritence, who can visit in the hospital and pull the plug, etc.

@Jamiet: I didn't say it was right. There are a lot of things fucked-up with regards to employment in the US. I was just explaining the current situation.

@krellin: I doubt people being gay is a choice. Did you at some point decide "I want to be straight." ? I know I sure as hell never had a choice to make, I just know I'm straight, never even crosses my mind to try dick.

krellin, "getting the government out of marriage" may be the lazy libertarian answer to the issue, but it's simply unrealistic. Making there be no legal consequences for marriage is *much* more radical than expanding the institution to catch people of the same sex who want a civil marriage.

Your proposal requires massive reform. We can't even get a pipeline built, and you want to literally rewrite huge swaths of the tax code. Also, effectively abolishing the civil institution of marriage sends exactly the wrong signal to society. Marriage is an incredibly stabilizing force in our culture. Eliminating marriage from having any legal importance gives people the impression it has no importance at all.

Simple solution to everything:
1. Kill all humans

The Bender Platform

krellin: You know what 'choices' are protected in U. S. discrimination laws? Among these are joining the military, getting pregnant, professing a religion, contracting HIV and going bankrupt. These are much more 'choices' than sexual orientation or gender identity – especially with sexual orientation, where the scientific evidence clearly points to individuals being born with their sexual preferences.

Who should decide that men or women cannot have sex together as long as they are consenting adults, surely a bigger crime that historically that has gone mostly unpunished is gay rape, especially against young children. The church is till in denial over their role this, how many of the clergy have been punished and/or sent to prison for these crimes? Not many
The hypocrisy of the church trying to shape our moral character by opposing gay marriage, whilst failing to effectively punish their own for gay rape, is bewildering and unbelievable.
Many faiths are built on the premise of 'do as I say, not as I do'.
The judges may think they are upholding some societal morality with their actions but of course they are doing no such thing, it is not openly gay couples who are causing the moral decay of society but the legal profession and the the religious leaders who turn a blind eye to gay rape but legislate against gay people.... #fuckreligion #gaypride

Have you read the opinion? On what are you basing the claim that the judges used social morality as a reason for their ruling?

If you support gay marriage you should be HAPPY that the Sixth Circuit ruled as it did. This means the Supreme Court will have to address the issue, and it's quite a safe bet that there are five votes for gay marriage there.

Actually, the majority opinion was that the people should decide. They are basically protesting against judicial activism. Why is that a problem?

Invictus - I am not looking at this from a US perspective but from a global perspective, we all know certain States or Countries are more anti-gay than others, my point is that if you are truly anti-gay then why are people not being punished for gay rape, in particular against children and teenagers below the age of consent.
For too long gay people have been victimized, shunned, abused by the state and religion, made to feel like social outcasts, whilst the people in positions of power have consistently got away with gay rape, in some countries the motto is 'boys for recreation, girls for procreation'. Religious leaders and the ruling class are in no position to dictate to us on morality. Gay is good, leave the kids alone.

Then you're not saying anything interesting. This is specifically about how the United States is adopting gay marriage through the courts.

You're also factually wrong. People go to prison for homosexual rape all the time. It is illegal, after all. No need to go off on some ridiculous anti-gubmint tirade. You'll have Cameron out of office soon enough. Relax for a second.

The real issue that is at stake is who holds the authority to define marriage.

We Christians understand that God is the author and initiator of marriage, and so it is His decision to define it as the union of one man to one woman. Mankind wasn't given the ability to override this decision.

Secularism simply denies this and says that man instituted marriage and it is up to man to decide, because secularism removes God from the issue.

Therefore, the issue of marriage isn't as simple as some want to make it out to be where anyone can simply do as they please in the name of what we define love to be.

So, Tru, is your issue just with use of the word? If so, that's just ridiculous, as the word has existed in some form since before Christianity and was not originally tied to any Christian belief. If not, what gives Christians the right to impose their beliefs about civil unions onto others? Nobody's forcing Christians to gay marry.

Nothing makes Christians more unhappy than love and equality.

I'm personally good with civil unions. I am not OK with "gay marriage" as I am not OK with calling an insult murder. Why does the LGBT community want to limit themselves to a historically straight institution?

What do you mean 'limit'? Marriage confers thousands of federal and state legal rights and protections. It's quite obvious why they want their relationships classified under it.
Married straight people made it into a boondoggle of an entitlement program and then wonder why other people want in.