Gay Couples:Marriage Not a Right

[Nosmo King]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract that establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists.

Americans have a right to access contracts.

 

[Unkotare]

Marriage is a right....

Where is that written in the Constitution?

I didn't it was written in the Constitution. The courts have ruled time and time again that marriage is a right.

The Supreme Court?

 

[mdk]

Marriage is a right....

Where is that written in the Constitution?

I didn't it was written in the Constitution. The courts have ruled time and time again that marriage is a right.

The Supreme Court?

Indeed they have.

 

[Unkotare]

Marriage is a right....

Where is that written in the Constitution?

I didn't it was written in the Constitution. The courts have ruled time and time again that marriage is a right.

The Supreme Court?

Indeed they have.

Not really.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is a right....

Where is that written in the Constitution?

See # 14 Case law matters

 

[Idadunno]

Where does the Const say marriage is a right? It does not even mention marriage.

You sound like Scalia. Marriage is not a right, but the federal government will not recognize a partner to collect benefits unless the partner is a spouse. Your mom collecting your late dad's SS or pension (example). So, the federal government is saying that although it is not a right, it is a law when it pertains to certain elements of the federal government. As it is a federal law, then the question is can the government discriminate? No, it most certainly cannot. The 5th and 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantee a person the right to due process, which means the government cannot discriminate against a person and deny due process, which means that everyone is created equal in the eyes of the Constitution, which means that no one can be denied equality, which means that denying same sex couples a marriage license or not legally recognizing their official union is denying them equality and is discrimination thus a violation of their constitutional rights. Got it? Good.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[As a fact of Constitutional law, marriage is a right.]

AJT SAID:

“Where in the Constitution does it say this????”

It can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)

Turner v. Safley (1987)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

[Otherwise, citizens must first register before exercising their right to vote, and there are states and jurisdictions which require a license to purchase a firearm.]

AJT SAID:

“Registering to vote is automatic and does not require state approval.”

Incorrect.

Voter registration is not 'automatic,' if one does not apply to register to vote, he in fact may not vote.

One must document that he is a citizen, is at least 18 years of age, and that he retains his civil rights, such as not being a convicted felon.

 

[Idadunno]

[As a fact of Constitutional law, marriage is a right.]

AJT SAID:

“Where in the Constitution does it say this????”

It can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)

Turner v. Safley (1987)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley are case law and are not in the Constitution. Case law are cases that have been tried in court. I see what you are trying to say, but you need to organize your argument better. In Zablocki v. Redhail the court ruled that marriage was an alienable right and Turner v. Safley was about 1st amendment rights between prisoners and prisoners right to marry, etc.
The interpretations of the Constitution are often made by case law but the Constitution does not exist solely in the context of it. Amendments are often made because of something that is needed--that had not been a court issue. Amendments are also made to repeal other amendments when amendments are bad.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To: [email protected] http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
>
> How do we know that? States can deny marriage licenses for various reasons,
such as hereditary diseases.If marriage were a right, no license or state
approval would be necessary, just as no state approval is necessary to vote or
get a job or have children or buy an automobile.

Some possible reasons for denial:

http://www.obermayerfamilymatters.com/2014/02/a-license-to-wed-can-you-be-denied
-a-marriage-license/

. Those claiming that it’s not a right as a means of justifying the withholding of marriage from same sex couples keep repeating the same inane talking points. In doing so they do not provide any documentation to support their view, and they do not provide any sound logical, legal or philosophical argument. In addition, they have not responded directly to anything that I have presented. Therefor I will try again.

I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulated it.

In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individualshttp://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”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” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow

As of this writing, 36 states and Washington DC have said that same sex marriage is a legal right and by the time you blink again there are likely to be more. And while the SCOTUS stopped just short of saying that it’s a legal right, they did say that legally married same sex couples have a right federal benefits. The fact that marriage for gays is not yet a legal right in all jurisdictions is merely a function of the fact that the law is imperfect and not always fair. Because it’s imperfect we must continue to strive to improve it.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

 

[Unkotare]

Liberals have long abused the 14th Amendment as if it were some kind of "rights" printing press for whatever the left-wing flavor of the day happened to be. The Constitution deserves better, and so does the topic at hand wherever you come down on it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Liberals have long abused the 14th Amendment as if it were some kind of "rights" printing press for whatever the left-wing flavor of the day happened to be. The Constitution deserves better, and so does the topic at hand wherever you come down on it.

The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825


You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??


Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “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.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening. No one can tell me that these were all liberal courts.

 

[Unkotare]

As I was saying...^^^

Liberals have long abused the 14th Amendment as if it were some kind of "rights" printing press for whatever the left-wing flavor of the day happened to be.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As I was saying...^^^

Liberals have long abused the 14th Amendment as if it were some kind of "rights" printing press for whatever the left-wing flavor of the day happened to be.

That's it?? Nothing further?? No actual argument?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays Don t Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes It Was Always About Hating On The Gays Constitutional Accountability Center


Talking Points Memo

Thursday, June 18, 2015

By TIERNEY SNEED


Selected excerpts:


The leading opponents of same-sex marriage have been attempting to re-write recent American history, where decades of sneering public attacks on gays and lesbians, condemnations of their "lifestyle," and blaming them for a decline of America's moral virtue are quietly forgotten.
_______________________________________________________________________

Their argument, made in front of the Supreme Court, no less, is that gay marriage bans are not motivated by prejudice toward gays and lesbians, but by a more noble if newfound purpose
_______________________________________________________________________________

Sweeping cultural change coupled with past decisions by the Supreme Court have limited the options the states who continue to ban same-sex marriage have to defend those prohibitions. If gay couples are kept from marrying because of state-sanctioned "animus" -- an intent to deny certain people their rights -- there is little escaping a constitutional violation.

___________________________________________________________________________________

"[T]he State's whole point is that we're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation, or the choices of anyone," John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, said during the oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. "The State has drawn lines, the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. It's not meant to exclude."


"The states’ arguments don’t pass the straight face test, no pun intended," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based legal organization, said in an interview with TPM. "These are ridiculous arguments that are being made to cover up the fact that these discriminatory laws are motivated by a desire to keep gay people out of this important legal relationship."


To say same-sex marriage bans were never meant to "exclude" anyone is to ignore years of anti-gay sentiments -- vitriolic posters and inflammatory commentary -- not to mention the comments made by elected officials when defending their opposition to same-sex marriage and enacting gay marriage bans.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bad News for BIGOTS!!


Judge Rules Proposed CA “Sodomite Suppression Act” Is “Patently Unconstitutional Judge Rules Proposed CA Sodomite Suppression Act Is Patently Unconstitutional Human Rights Campaign

Today, Judge Raymond M. Cadei of the Superior Court of Sacramento County in California, prevented a proposed ballot initiative known as the “Sodomite Suppression Act” from moving forward in a ruling calling it “patently unconstitutional on its face.” The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) praised the decision striking down the initiative that sought to criminalize same-sex relationships and potentially threaten those convicted with death.

"Lest there was any doubt, a heinous California ballot initiative seeking to put gay people to death has been found unconstitutional," said HRC President Chad Griffin. "HRC thanks Attorney General Kamala Harris for her continued leadership in standing up for the rights and dignity of LGBT Californians, and Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei for recognizing that this barbaric initiative has no place on a ballot in California or anywhere else."