CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Man, you really don't get it do you? This is not a discussion about what will or will not happen. It is a discussion about what COULD or COULDNOT be done. Laws can be changed (however difficult, or politically challenging), and societies' views on various topics will change. While I would agree that right now marriage will likely stay as it is, that does not mean that it always will be. For example, there was a time that it was thought impossible to end slavery in this land, then it ended. Why? Because times, hearts, and minds change.
So, once you get over the concept that is likely not going to happen you will be able to continue to have a rational discussion about what could happen. Until then, you are right, we are at a stale-mate.

Yes a stalemate. But one parting thought. This is what you don't get. More than a discussion about what will or will not happen, or of what can and cannot happen, it is about why should it happen.

There were reasons to end slavery. There was a movement to end slavery. There are no reason and there is no movement to end marriage as we know it except in the minds of a small number of people on the lunatic fringe. We find ways of doing things when and only when there is motivation to do it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slyhunter]

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

What benefits/rights do they get?
Special tax privileges should not be given to those who are married that single people don't get.
Hospital visitation, isn't a government mandated right or benefit. It's up to the Hospitals to make their own rules on this.
Home ownership, any two or more people can jointly own a home without being married.
There should be no government benefit to being married that single people don't also get.

 

[Slyhunter]

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

You destroyed the sanctity of marriage, it's time to delete it completely now. Thank your fellow faggots for it.
Also time to end women sports teams. No woman will be able to compete with men who pretend to be women.

 

[Slyhunter]

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not in the constitution the government shouldn't impose it's will on it.
It is in the constitution that all will be treated equally, married, not married, or in group marriages. It is time to end the unfair marriage benefits.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

What benefits/rights do they get?
Special tax privileges should not be given to those who are married that single people don't get.
Hospital visitation, isn't a government mandated right or benefit. It's up to the Hospitals to make their own rules on this.
Home ownership, any two or more people can jointly own a home without being married.
There should be no government benefit to being married that single people don't also get.

So a single person should be able to file a joint tax return---with himself, visit himself in the hospital, and not pay the estate tax on his own estate that he inherits from himself --after he's dead? I get it, your saying that there should be no distinction between single and married people, so in effect there is no marriage. Good luck with garnering support for that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

You destroyed the sanctity of marriage, it's time to delete it completely now. Thank your fellow faggots for it.
Also time to end women sports teams. No woman will be able to compete with men who pretend to be women.

My, my you are angry! Thank you for admitting that it is same sex marriage and not about the role of government and the constitution or anything else. You're so damned flustered that you have to throw something in about sports and transwomen which has nothing to do with marriage but reveals your deep seated problem with all LGBT people. We'll you might as well get over it. Marriage equality is here to stay. And if you don't get over it, I DON'T CARE!


Oh, and if marriage is sacred, as it is for some, it is still just as sacred for most. It is only less sacred for those who will use religion as a weapon to discriminate against others.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

What benefits/rights do they get?
Special tax privileges should not be given to those who are married that single people don't get.
Hospital visitation, isn't a government mandated right or benefit. It's up to the Hospitals to make their own rules on this.
Home ownership, any two or more people can jointly own a home without being married.
There should be no government benefit to being married that single people don't also get.

So a single person should be able to file a joint tax return---with himself, visit himself in the hospital, and not pay the estate tax on his own estate that he inherits from himself --after he's dead? I get it, your saying that there should be no distinction between single and married people, so in effect there is no marriage. Good luck with garnering support for that.

Separate issue, but I think a pretty good case could be made that giving married people a tax break is in fact discrimination.

Not the current left description of discrimination which is "doesn't accept people they don't like" but the actual definition of discrimination which applies to the 14th, which is "all laws should be applied equally to all people"

 

[Slyhunter]

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

What benefits/rights do they get?
Special tax privileges should not be given to those who are married that single people don't get.
Hospital visitation, isn't a government mandated right or benefit. It's up to the Hospitals to make their own rules on this.
Home ownership, any two or more people can jointly own a home without being married.
There should be no government benefit to being married that single people don't also get.

So a single person should be able to file a joint tax return---with himself, visit himself in the hospital, and not pay the estate tax on his own estate that he inherits from himself --after he's dead? I get it, your saying that there should be no distinction between single and married people, so in effect there is no marriage. Good luck with garnering support for that.

Single person should get a deduction in tax rate that equals one persons tax rate on a joint tax return.
Single person should be visited in hospital by anyone the Hospital says it's alright to visit. The government has no say in the matter.
Single people should pay the same estate tax in an inheritance that married people do, or I should say married people should pay the same as if they were single.
It is not the governments business who is married to whom. Group marriages should be like corporations. Line marriages where you don't have to worry about inheritance because you keep marrying them into the family young and have joint ownership of everything. The future is here and you faggots forced it upon us.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Do you understand that a marriage license is in fact a contract? Thus the need for a divorce to dissolve said contract. The ONLY thing we are saying here is do away with the license to enter into said contract.

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the cotus says so

 

[oldsoul]

There are no reason and there is no movement to end marriage as we know it except in the minds of a small number of people on the lunatic fringe.

You say that as though being on the "lunatic fringe" is somehow a bad thing. Let me remind you of a few people considered, at one time or another, to be on the "lunatic fringe":

• Christopher Columbus
• Socrates
• Martin Luther
• Leonardo Da Vinci
• Steve Jobs

And that's just to name a few off the top of my head. So, if I am, indeed, on the "lunatic Fringe", then I guess I am in pretty good company.
Granted there are many ideas that come out of what some define as the "lunatic fringe" that never become mainstream, however, I would challenge you to find just one truly revolutionary idea that did not originate on the "lunatic fringe".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do YOU understand that a marriage license-call it a contract or whatever- is issued by the government and is the only document that compels legal recognition of the marriage for purposes of benefits, rights and responsibilities by the government and other third parties?

Do you understand how idiotic and useless the whole idea is ?

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the cotus says so

Really? Where? When? And it the SCOTUS

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It certainly is idiotic to allow the government to define what marriage is, on that we agree.

The bottom line is you want to FORCE people who are opposed to a government sanctioned gay marriage to accept it, that is the ONLY reason to oppose what we are suggesting. The ONLY reason.

The government could have a contract and call it alphabet soup, who even cares what they call it, as long as benefits are given fairly to all.

The words "marriage license" are not something magical that the state hands out.

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the cotus says so

Really? Where? When? And it the SCOTUS

Where does COTUS say that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage? How about in that little area where it says "Powers not delegated belong to the states and or people?"

Sheesh, have you even READ the Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wrong. ."acceptance is what goes on in each individuals own head. I am not so naïve or delusional as to think that I can force anyone to accept anything.

What I do want is to preserve marriage as we know it and for it to be available to all-straight and gay alike. No one has to accept that but they do have to abide by the legal aspects of it.

The same sex marriage issue is not the only reason why I oppose this idiocy- but it is the primary reason why those who push to abolish marriage do so. . Marriage as we know it- including the word it self has a deep and universally understood meaning for many people. It is just ridiculous to mess with it

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the cotus says so

Really? Where? When? And it the SCOTUS

Where does COTUS say that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage? How about in that little area where it says "Powers not delegated belong to the states and or people?"

Sheesh, have you even READ the Constitution.

I damned sure have read the constitution. I have a copy on my desk,. Why do you people always cite the 10th Amendment and pretend that the 14th does not exist? . Powers reserved to the states are noy absolute include the power to regulate marriage. If you disagree with the ruling on same sex marriage you also have to disagree with the ruling on interracial marriage. Let me know when you're finished squirming on that one.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

wrong, the primary reason is government has no business being in marriage . NONE

Because you say so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the cotus says so

Really? Where? When? And it the SCOTUS

Where does COTUS say that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage? How about in that little area where it says "Powers not delegated belong to the states and or people?"

Sheesh, have you even READ the Constitution.

I damned sure have read the constitution. I have a copy on my desk,. Why do you people always cite the 10th Amendment and pretend that the 14th does not exist? . Powers reserved to the states are noy absolute include the power to regulate marriage. If you disagree with the ruling on same sex marriage you also have to disagree with the ruling on interracial marriage. Let me know when you're finished squirming on that one.

Man you REALLY arent getting this.

IF a state issues a license , yes the 14th applies and the federal government can FORCE states to issue licenses fairly.

IF a state does NOT issue licenses, the 14th doesn't apply b/c EVERYONE is being treated equally, as in NO ONE gets licenses.

IF a state just says "we don't require licenses to get married in our state" there is NOTHING the feds can do about it.