I Was Wrong. The Gay Rights Roe v Wade Has Already Happened

Interesting, isn't it that these days mainstream news helps to keep Americans completely in the dark about reality.

There has already been a Roe v Wade like decision from the US Supreme Court.

The country has just been ignoring it thanks to our wonderful Mainstream News Media.

Sure they are telling us now, but where were they after all the other anti gay marriage votes?

The Los Angeles Times reports that a 1996 decision after a 1992 law passed in Colorado.

And I bet that the gay community knew this, but it's dummies like the hetero grandmother writing this post that need to know.

Well, now one writer in one paper has written about the case.  And maybe it will spread and get talked about on weekend talk shows, if it won't be dealt with on the nightly news where most moms and pops get theirs.

I also recommend that Gays and Lesbians make sure their families and friends know.  Some of us really just don't.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled that one group can't be singled out for taking away rights.

Excerpt LA Times "A federal bailout for Prop. 8":

Writing for a 6-3 majority in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that it "is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws. It provides that gays and lesbians -- alone among consenting adult couples -- shall not have the opportunity to enjoy the rights, privileges and social approbation conferred by the status of lawful marriage. And despite their insistence that the initiative was "not an attack on the gay lifestyle," its proponents were remarkably candid about their disapproval of homosexual families. The amendment, they argued in voter guides, "protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage." It protects marriage "as an essential institution of society" because "the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."

But as California's chief justice, Ronald M. George, explained in his opinion declaring the state's previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does nothing to protect the interests of children. "An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation." Moreover, "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples."

The article also notes that 5 of the 6 votes for the decision are still at the court.  I'd say some people would be surprised which of the replacements might side with the majority.  Someone who'd like to come out into the open should he get hurt in the future, and not have to worry about the press noticing that his wife didn't appear at the hospital while he was there.
Read rest at source.