Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.

Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.

The document actually says

AMONG THESE, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

'among these' means that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are merely examples of a larger group.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Your right, gays have the liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex and attempt to be happy in that union. What the government can't do is tell churches who they will recognize as married. That clearly violates the separation many of you are so keen on pointing out all the time.
 
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Your right, gays have the liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex and attempt to be happy in that union. What the government can't do is tell churches who they will recognize as married. That clearly violates the separation many of you are so keen on pointing out all the time.

Then why were miscegenation prohibitions ruled unconstitutional, if people had the liberty to marry someone of their own race?
 
Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.
Stevens is a sign of how far right republicans have gone. Stevens was appointed by Ford and was a conservative.
Goldwater was Liberal compared to Cons today.
 
Last edited:
Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...

:)

peace...
Possibly, her statement was based on her interpretation of the law and not her personal preference. A mark of a good judge is to form legal opinion based on law and not personal preferences. Political junkies seem to forget this and would rather believe that judges rule based on personal opinions and political philosophy. This is why predicting how a candidate judge will rule is very dicey, yet we will spend endless hours taking apart every aspect of a candidates life to determine how they might rule on this or that.
 
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Supreme Court has long held marriage to be a fundamental right, so supremely important that even inmates on deathrow have the right to marry the person they want. So if they now declare marriage no longer a right, then yes the state could define exceptions to who could get married. That's not going to happen, thus it is a matter of how soon will SCOTUS make same-sex marriage a right. In the Perry federal challenge, there are several federal questions being raised. One very important one is whether excluding same-sex couples from the civil institution of marriage violates the Equal Protection, Full Faith and Credit and Due Process provisions of the 14th Amendment.

As far as OP, she's right. There is no (current) constitutional right to same-sex marriage, rights only exist when SCOTUS says they do. And until they do, she is 100% accurate. So her answer means nothing, I expect her to back marriage equality.
 
Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.



The document actually says

AMONG THESE, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

'among these' means that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are merely examples of a larger group.

Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"
 
Last edited:
Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...

:)

peace...
Possibly, her statement was based on her interpretation of the law and not her personal preference. A mark of a good judge is to form legal opinion based on law and not personal preferences. Political junkies seem to forget this and would rather believe that judges rule based on personal opinions and political philosophy. This is why predicting how a candidate judge will rule is very dicey, yet we will spend endless hours taking apart every aspect of a candidates life to determine how they might rule on this or that.

A judge is going to rule based on their education, personal experiences, political philosophy, facts of the case, presentation, arguments and a host of other factors. They will give more weight to some of these over others on a given case. THAT is where the difference in rulings takes place. If none of these things mattered, if it was just cut and dried, then votes would always be 9-0.
 
Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

1. Well the fifth amendments due process clause states no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

2. There is no mention of marriage in the Consitution. However if you see reference Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Supreme Court has said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Of course that case involved a law that forbid people of different races from marrying. Still gay marriage presents a very interesting Equal Protection/ Due Process issue that needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
 
Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

1. Well the fifth amendments due process clause states no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

2. There is no mention of marriage in the Consitution. However if you see reference Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Supreme Court has said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Of course that case involved a law that forbid people of different races from marrying. Still gay marriage presents a very interesting Equal Protection/ Due Process issue that needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Thank you for being honest
 
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

To say nothing of a violation of your asshole.

Don't say that to a man who, only yesterday, had a colonoscopy . . . .
 
Good point Bill, it is an interesting argument and whether sexual orientation will be subject to suspect classification or not. Also if you read Lawrence v Texas, even Scalia's dissent pointed out that this holding really sets the stage for marriage equality. Here's my favorite part of the landmark opinion:

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

I do think the five votes on there on the court, even with Kagan. So if the anticipated schedule is accurate, the case reaches SCOTUS in fall 2012 and a decision due by early 2013. That's right around the corner. :clap2:
 
Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.



The document actually says

AMONG THESE, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

'among these' means that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are merely examples of a larger group.

Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," Loving vs. Virginia. Marriage as a right is constitutional law.
 
Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

1. Well the fifth amendments due process clause states no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

2. There is no mention of marriage in the Consitution. However if you see reference Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Supreme Court has said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Of course that case involved a law that forbid people of different races from marrying. Still gay marriage presents a very interesting Equal Protection/ Due Process issue that needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Thank you for being honest

So would you then argue that every single marriage recognized by state governments should be voided? I mean marriage can be a tenth amendment issue but the equal protection clause and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution still applies to states who decide heterosexual couples can marry. And its clearly a substantive due process and equal protection violation when you afford the rights and benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples.
 
Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.



The document actually says

AMONG THESE, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

'among these' means that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are merely examples of a larger group.

Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," Loving vs. Virginia. Marriage as a right is constitutional law.

Convenient and Selective... Add this in from the Ruling:

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival..."

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.

:)

peace...
 
Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.

I thought we dealt with this issue.

The right to marriage has been held to be a fundamental right .... which makes it covered by the constitution.

You're supposed to look at what the constitution is supposed to do... which is protect individual freedom as much as possible.

where any of you got the idea that the constitution is self-limiting is beyond me. that concept doesn't exist.

you all are more focused on what government can and can't do. look more at what PEOPLE can and can't do since that's what the document really exists for.
 
Where does the constitution say that again? Mind giving me a reference so I can go read where it says that in the constitution?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution guarantees marriage rights to anyone since that is what the title of the thread is about.

Keep trying to get around the question and I'll keep re-posing it to you.


Like I said at least this woman shows she has a basic understanding of the constitution when she said "there is no federal constitutional right to.....marriage"

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," Loving vs. Virginia. Marriage as a right is constitutional law.

Convenient and Selective... Add this in from the Ruling:

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival..."

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.

:)

peace...

The poster wasn't talking about same sex marriage. Go fantasize somewhere else.
 
So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?
 
Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.

:)

peace...

Gay marriage is 'deviant coupling" IN YOUR OPINION. In the real world, the constitution doesn't allow you to decide whose liberties offend your sensibilities.

And your view of Loving is rather limited. There is nothing about that case that limits it to its facts. Before the Court could arrive at a determination of whether anti-miscegenation laws were impermissible, the question first had to be asked whether or not marriage was a fundamental right. The answer to that question determines the level of scrutiny the Court could give to the legislation. If it was a fundamental right, then they would impose strict scrutiny, which means that there has to be a really, really good reason for government to interfere with the right.

It was held in Loving v Virginia, and the cases on which it relied, that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There is nothing saying it is only a fundamental right for a man and woman who wish to marry.

Sorry honey.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top