Could you imagine people voting for/against Civil Rights...

[ElectionsGuy]

...at a state level in the 1960's? Like a ballot stating "Should segregation be maintained the law of the land in [insert state]?" or "Should marriage between couples of a different race be illegal in [insert state]?"

lol, do people that make this argument seriously not understand this (the history behind this argument)? That the courts are there for a reason, that majority rule against minority rights is constitutionally unacceptable when said majority rule is depriving liberty and fundamental rights, and ultimately that it is a tired and terrible argument to defend the banning of same-sex marriage?

I'm sorry, but I'm hearing this argument come in, and I can't help but to make a thread about it, as it is unreasonable for anybody in 2015 to make that argument.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If same-sex marriage is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution then the Courts should be able to declare it to be so, rather than needing to rely on legislatures and direct democracy, but that begs the question as to whether it is.   

[eric82oslo]

If same-sex marriage is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution then the Courts should be able to declare it to be so, rather than needing to rely on legislatures and direct democracy, but that begs the question as to whether it is.   

The Constitution says that all people should have equal rights, thus how could this ruling not be constitutional? There's no good (or bad) argument out there to justify to classify people into first tier and second tier (something regretably Hitler and his socially darwinist allies believed in) as would have been the outcome if the court had ruled differently.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

If same-sex marriage is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution then the Courts should be able to declare it to be so, rather than needing to rely on legislatures and direct democracy, but that begs the question as to whether it is.   

I'm sure the Dixiecrats would've loved to deny blacks equal rights and representation under an imagined technicality as well. This clearly falls under the purview of equal protection.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If same-sex marriage is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution then the Courts should be able to declare it to be so, rather than needing to rely on legislatures and direct democracy, but that begs the question as to whether it is.   

The Constitution says that all people should have equal rights, thus how could this ruling not be constitutional? There's no good (or bad) argument out there to justify to classify people into first tier and second tier (something regretably Hitler and his socially darwinist allies believed in) as would have been the outcome if the court had ruled differently.

The Constitution does not have a blanket statement of "equal rights" in all instances.  If they did, then age restrictions on things like driving or holding office would be unconstitutional.  What it says is that all individuals must be given the "equal protection of the laws."