Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[Syriusly]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..

Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.

Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.

You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't

So far you haven't been able to.

Clearly nothing. My R/C has been keen since I was a kid. I also recognize BS when I see it. What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so. Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose. It's a waste of time, money and leads to confusion and decay. On the topic of BS, the court decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right, not that " they couldn't prove it wasn't". Speak of reading comprehension, read this "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

So once again, in the name of twisting definitions and the Constitution as a liberal agenda, WHAT ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MARRIAGE BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES? Take note, the courts decided against gay marriage in the past, just as they have marriage between relatives. Can you comprehend that?

Clearly your reading comprehension is not 'keen' since you still don't understand my actual words

• What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so.

No- as I said:

Americans have a right to marriage.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages.

• Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose.

We all have the right to marriage- whether you think a couple getting married serves a societal purpose is immaterial- your rights to marriage can only be denied when such denial serves a societal purpose

Let me try this another way:

Americans have the right to own guns. The government can only restrict that right based upon a societal purpose- such as denying convicted felons the right to own guns.

But a law saying that women cannot own guns would be unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

My argument against it has always been the lack of a constitutional right to it, as well as major changes to law being done by state legislatures, not courts. (or federal legislature if the constitution so warrants).

I would have preferred the court say that while States cannot be forced to issue SSM licences, they would have to recognize those issued in other States.

Your argument is equally sound to mine and half a dozen others. Another sound argument is that two of the Justices presiding over Obergefell did so illegally ..

LOL- if Silhouette says anything is a 'sound argument' we all know it is one she is pulling out of her ass.

 

[Syriusly]

[
It's the one point nobody can contend and it seems all are reticent to discuss. And it makes me wonder why? Not because it has no teeth surely...

It has no teeth- it doesn't matter how much we discuss it- and point out it is your fantasy invention- you still wonder why we don't all agree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
Obergefell will be short lived. Mark my words.

Nothing is more reasuring that Silhouette predicting the demise of anything.

She has a perfect record in failure in making predictions.

 

[Syriusly]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..

Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.

Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.

You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't

So far you haven't been able to.

Why are you so hung up on what some hand picked political hack has to say about it?

Why are you so hung up on discriminating against Americans who want to get married?

 

[Syriusly]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

"Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy."

Says who?

Who are you asking- Dude or me?

Americans have a right to marriage according to some 90 years of Supreme Court decisions


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

Although Loving arose 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. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer 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,

In Griswold 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"

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Property.

You mean it was about how to distribute property to a man's wife and children if he died. In other words, it was still about reproduction.

 

[Syriusly]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Property.

You mean it was about how to distribute property to a man's wife and children if he died. In other words, it was still about reproduction.

How can it be about reproduction when the marriage contract applied whether there were children or not?

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Property.

You mean it was about how to distribute property to a man's wife and children if he died. In other words, it was still about reproduction.

How can it be about reproduction when the marriage contract applied whether there were children or not?

It applied to people who were viewed as capable of having children. Whether that view was accurate or not is beside the point. Human institutions aren't based on having perfect knowledge.

 

[Syriusly]

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Property.

You mean it was about how to distribute property to a man's wife and children if he died. In other words, it was still about reproduction.

How can it be about reproduction when the marriage contract applied whether there were children or not?

It applied to people who were viewed as capable of having children. Whether that view was accurate or not is beside the point. Human institutions aren't based on having perfect knowledge.

No- it applied to couples who were marrying- regardless of whether they were capable of having children.

Even if a man was known to not be able to father children, couples could be married off for purposes of state.

Marriage in the United States has components that have to do with reproduction, but is completely independent of reproduction.

States are fine with my 80 year old uncle marrying his 75 year old bride- if marriage was supposed to be limited to couples who could reproduce, then states would be restricting marriages.

Which is one of the many, many reasons why your arguments failed in court.

 

[Silhouette]

It applied to people who were viewed as capable of having children. Whether that view was accurate or not is beside the point. Human institutions aren't based on having perfect knowledge.

Importantly, a "gay marriage" contract legally kills a child's access to regular contact with either a mother or father for life. Single parents do not kill that opportunity. Once a "gay marriage" contract is sealed, so is the child's fate: in the proven negative....creating a contract involving children implicitly with onerous terms to them, where before there were none.

Even hetero divorce preserves a child's contact with both mother and father after that contract is dissolved. The courts so-saying that children's benefits of marriage supersede those of adults.

Obergefell was an illegal decision: citation: the Infancy Doctrine and contracts involving children.

Christians and non-Christians alike cannot be forced to participate in de facto child abuse or neglect.

 

[Silhouette]

And having so pointed this out ^^ ....the conversation screeches to a halt yet again..

 

[mdk]

Obergefell was an illegal decision: citation: the Infancy Doctrine and contracts involving children

Name one case in this nation where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Hint: you can't. You're lamely throwing legal shit against the wall in hopes of ending gay marriage and it isn't working. Seek help for your mentally ill obsession.