Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
"We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
If there is only marriage then there is no discrimination. Unless you want to say that anyone and anything can marry anyone and anything else. In which case marriage means nothing. Which is the goal of homosexual activists.Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage. Judge Robert Shelby:
While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Tired yes, and entirely valid in this case. What you got? Oh right, the argument that keeps losing in court."We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
If same sex marriage applies equally then different sex marriage applies equally too. Thus there is no discrimination, only an attempt to change laws. ANd those laws can be changed, but only through legislative channels, not by judicial fiat.Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
The only protected class listed in the 14th Amendment are "persons", last I check homosexuals count as people.
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
On the emphasized part we actually agree, that's why you see me refer to it as Same-sex Civil Marriage which is more linguistically correct.
The rest of course is a failed argument, Virginia tried it in Loving v. Virginia and it lost.
>>>>
Marriage is not a constitutional right. You can quote 50 more people but you still can't refute that.
I am not quoting people- I am quoting the Supreme Court
Marriage is a right in the United States.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Zablocki v. Rehail
AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Stop with the damn pasting. I said there is no constitutional right to get married. You can't float the asinine argument that the SC equals the constitution without conceding that slavery and denying women's suffrage is also "constitutional". Nowhere does the actual document give the federal government a say in marriage. You can quote all day long but you can't put it in the constitution.
It doesn't work that way, obviously, since the laws in question have been found to be unconstitutional. Those laws don't stand no matter who passed them eh?If same sex marriage applies equally then different sex marriage applies equally too. Thus there is no discrimination, only an attempt to change laws. ANd those laws can be changed, but only through legislative channels, not by judicial fiat.Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
The only protected class listed in the 14th Amendment are "persons", last I check homosexuals count as people.
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
On the emphasized part we actually agree, that's why you see me refer to it as Same-sex Civil Marriage which is more linguistically correct.
The rest of course is a failed argument, Virginia tried it in Loving v. Virginia and it lost.
>>>>
"We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. The opinion was posted above. There is only marriage. And if there is only marriage then marriage must be defined by the appropriate agency. Which is the states and their voters."We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?It's absurd to suggest the 14th deprived the states the power to regulate marriage.
Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
What is tried, old, and discredited is argument that the anti-gay marriage laws are legit because they apply equally to everyone. That same argument was laughed out of court almost 50 years ago in the Loving decision.
Maybe if you gnash your teeth some more and claim their is no such thing as gay marriage it will come to pass. Wish in one hand and crap in the other...
There is no such thing as gay marriage. The opinion was posted above. There is only marriage. And if there is only marriage then marriage must be defined by the appropriate agency. Which is the states and their voters."We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
What is tried, old, and discredited is argument that the anti-gay marriage laws are legit because they apply equally to everyone. That same argument was laughed out of court almost 50 years ago in the Loving decision.
Maybe if you gnash your teeth some more and claim their is no such thing as gay marriage it will come to pass. Wish in one hand and crap in the other...
Which part of the Constitution was anyone in violation of? You just agreed that marriage applied equally.There is no such thing as gay marriage. The opinion was posted above. There is only marriage. And if there is only marriage then marriage must be defined by the appropriate agency. Which is the states and their voters."We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
What is tried, old, and discredited is argument that the anti-gay marriage laws are legit because they apply equally to everyone. That same argument was laughed out of court almost 50 years ago in the Loving decision.
Maybe if you gnash your teeth some more and claim their is no such thing as gay marriage it will come to pass. Wish in one hand and crap in the other...
You're correct to a point. There is no gay marriage, straight marriage, or interracial marriage, just marriage. If the state and their votes are going to deny marriage to consenting citizens then in needs to have compelling interests to do so. What has been presented so far by the social conservatives can hardly be described as compelling.
I could careless what the voters have to say when their will violate the Constitution. The voters in DC, via their elected representatives, wanted idiotic restrictions placed on guns in the city limit. Their will is meaningless because they were violation of the Constitution.
Gay marriage is a non issue as it affects no one. Charles Manson is legally getting married in prison. Another non issue the media is infatuated with. No conservative opposes gay marriage. Those that support more government regulation oppose gay marriage. Those that do not support more regulation do not oppose gay marriage. Most opponents of gay marriage believe gay folk to be sub human or worse. Get over it. Even if it was an important issue it would be maybe 137th on the list of priorities. Citizens are dumb asses these days. Education and healthcare costs are out the roof, energy costs are high, women are spitting out fatherless kids at alarming rates, taxes are still too high, government spending needs to be slowed and fools are focused on gay marriage. Folks have to have someone to look down. It ain't fashionable to work on keeping black folk down anymore.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. The opinion was posted above. There is only marriage. And if there is only marriage then marriage must be defined by the appropriate agency. Which is the states and their voters."We win in courts"Where is "gay" listed as a protected class in the Constitution?Strawman alert, I didn't argue such a position.
Of course the States can regulate Civil Marriage. However such regulation are subject to Constitutional guarantees. For example, the State of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. If states had unlimited powers to infringe on individual rights then from your position the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in Loving v. Virginia and should have upheld state bans on interracial marriage. History shows that didn't happen.
>>>>
Actually, since "gay marriage" is really a misnomer--you dont have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex--then gay marriage would apply equally. Which means there is no discrimination whatsoever.
And how well is that argument playing out in the courts? Not so good it seems.
Your reasoning above is exactly why a good hand full of the founding fathers were wary of every having a bill of rights. They were frightened; rightfully so I might add, that future generations would interpret only those rights specifically enumerated are rights, to the exclusion of all others unmentioned.
Yeah, that's like Argument #3 in your bag of tricks. Tired, old, discredited.
What is tried, old, and discredited is argument that the anti-gay marriage laws are legit because they apply equally to everyone. That same argument was laughed out of court almost 50 years ago in the Loving decision.
Maybe if you gnash your teeth some more and claim their is no such thing as gay marriage it will come to pass. Wish in one hand and crap in the other...
Gay marriage is a non issue as it affects no one. Charles Manson is legally getting married in prison. Another non issue the media is infatuated with. No conservative opposes gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a non issue as it affects no one. Charles Manson is legally getting married in prison. Another non issue the media is infatuated with. No conservative opposes gay marriage.
Wow, your paragraph was so full of blatant lying that I had to narrow it down to just a couple lines at a time.
Gay marriage affects children caught up because it guarantees to deprive them of one blood parent 100% of the time. This is detrimental to children and the state has an interest in protecting them with whatever incentives it sets up to achieve the best formative environment for them.
I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..Gay marriage is one of those issues which helps focus the people's attention away from the real issues...
