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

[antagon]

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

loving v. VA went as far as race. hernandez v. robles pulls the brakes short of calling marriage definitions maliciously discriminatory at all.

 

[JBeukema]

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

loving v. VA went as far as race. hernandez v. robles pulls the brakes short of calling marriage definitions maliciously discriminatory at all.

All Google gave me was that New York said that fags can't marry. There was no mention of the precedent of LvV or any justification for sexual discrimination in the recognition of legal contract.

You've a link that provides their actual reasoning and decision? Because, as is, you've shown New York spitting in the face of SCOTUS and nothing more.

 

[antagon]

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

loving v. VA went as far as race. hernandez v. robles pulls the brakes short of calling marriage definitions maliciously discriminatory at all.

All Google gave me was that New York said that fags can't marry. There was no mention of the precedent of LvV or any justification for sexual discrimination in the recognition of legal contract.

You've a link that provides their actual reasoning and decision? Because, as is, you've shown New York spitting in the face of SCOTUS and nothing more.

loving was about race. the gay rights folks in NY tried to extend it to their cause. the loving decision called the ban on interracial marriage discriminatory, so the court upheld NY's ban claiming heterosexual marriage definitions weren't maliciously discriminatory.

Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

hernandez decision

 

[JBeukema]

loving was about race. the gay rights folks in NY tried to extend it to their cause. the loving decision called the ban on interracial marriage discriminatory, so the court upheld NY's ban claiming heterosexual marriage definitions weren't maliciously discriminatory.

total non-logic

it's discriminatory by any definition of the word and to argue that it's not malicious in its intent is absurd.

 

[antagon]

not my argument. discrimination is everywhere, that is why it's important to discern between malicious discrimination and otherwise.

what say you of the hernandez quote?

 

[The T]

Modern day so called self proclaimed "conservatives" are whacked out and have no clue as to the US Constitution.
These clowns want to use the US Constitution, a document founded and dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
IOW, these clowns that call themselves "conservatives" believe we do not need tax reform. We do not need immigration reform. We do not need an end to run away spending in Washington. We do not need to reduce the size of government.
We do not need any of those things.
What WE REALLY NEED is to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment and that solves everyone's heterosexual marriae and all the other problems listed above.
No wonder Obama is President. You pricks have lost your friggin minds over THE GAY BOOGEYMAN.
What a buch of flippin dumbasses Americans have become.
Let gays get married.
Who cares?

Careful big boy. You're treading on THIN ICE. Those mandates come from Society, and on whole LOCAL Lawmakers.

So you also oppose a Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage?

*I* oppose ANY Federal intrusion into Tenth Amendment issues.

Got it ace?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.

LOL... What color is the sky in your world?

Now just to be nice, let me ask you what you're basing this upon? And please... BE specific...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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...

No... She's not... She's a Progressive, so we know that she's a liar.

Such declarations are MEANINGLESS... What would be useful would have been for SOMEONE to ASK HER FOR THE BASIS FOR THAT POSITION.

From THAT ANSWER we'll find rationale which she'll use to conjure a false right for sexual devients to Marry... which will be the rationale that polygamists... and inevitably the Pedophiles will twist it further for the rationalization to accomodate their psychosis.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

Yes and No...

Yes: And it is the same form of discrimination which is applied when one determines that they will not engage in anal intercourse with their bestest good buddy...

Ya see contrary to PC Belief, Discrimination is a positive human trait; a function of the survival instinct; and that doesn't change with culture and their standards and mores.

No: "The People..." are entitled to establish standards which encourage and discourage certain behavior(s). Providing advantages to those who engage in those encouraged behaviors, be they taxes benefits or other special priviliges does not rob others of those advantages... as they are nto being denied the benefits; all they need to do to take ful advantage of those benefits is to engage in the behavior which is being encouraged.

What the advocates of the normalization or abnormality are asking for is the benefits provided to those engaging in the behavior being encouraged, be given to those who are engaging in the behavior which is being DISCOURAGED. They claim that DISCOURAGING THEIR BEHAVIOR IS NOT FAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY...

We disagree and agree...

We agree that it's discriminatory... We disagree that it's not fair. No one is forcing them to engage in devient, sexual perversion... They CHOOSE to engage in the behavior. They of course disagree... but the fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING genetically which sets the homosexual distinct from normal heterosexual beings.

Now where Genetics WOULD SHOW that Homosexuals are SHIMS... freaks of nature with a skin is locked in the body of a shirt... Then I would readily agree that the homosexual is entitled to special consideration; similar to that provided for other cultural minorities.

Of course, Science has invested enormous resources searching for the queer gene and has determined that such simply does not exist. So that ship has sailed...

 

[Richard-H]

Coming from a woman that's too damned ugly to marry?

Nobody is too ugly to marry...you just don't get to fuck a whole lot....

 

[Modbert]

LOL... What color is the sky in your world?

Now just to be nice, let me ask you what you're basing this upon? And please... BE specific...

Blue, how many of your brain cells are scrambled? Kagan is not nearly as Liberal as Stevens. Just looking at what statements Kagan has made and the sides of decisions that Stevens has been on shows this.

 

[Richard-H]

No: "The People..." are entitled to establish standards which encourage and discourage certain behavior(s). ...

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that? How about the Declarartion of Independance?

Does the "Unalienable right...to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." mean nothing to you?

Or are those rights only applicable to yourself?

You apparently think that you have the authority to dictate the behavior of others, in opposition to the principles that this country was founded upon.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

Yes and No...

Yes: And it is the same form of discrimination which is applied when one determines that they will not engage in anal intercourse with their bestest good buddy...

Ya see contrary to PC Belief, Discrimination is a positive human trait; a function of the survival instinct; and that doesn't change with culture and their standards and mores.

No: "The People..." are entitled to establish standards which encourage and discourage certain behavior(s). Providing advantages to those who engage in those encouraged behaviors, be they taxes benefits or other special priviliges does not rob others of those advantages... as they are nto being denied the benefits; all they need to do to take ful advantage of those benefits is to engage in the behavior which is being encouraged.

What the advocates of the normalization or abnormality are asking for is the benefits provided to those engaging in the behavior being encouraged, be given to those who are engaging in the behavior which is being DISCOURAGED. They claim that DISCOURAGING THEIR BEHAVIOR IS NOT FAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY...

We disagree and agree...

We agree that it's discriminatory... We disagree that it's not fair. No one is forcing them to engage in devient, sexual perversion... They CHOOSE to engage in the behavior. They of course disagree... but the fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING genetically which sets the homosexual distinct from normal heterosexual beings.

Now where Genetics WOULD SHOW that Homosexuals are SHIMS... freaks of nature with a skin is locked in the body of a shirt... Then I would readily agree that the homosexual is entitled to special consideration; similar to that provided for other cultural minorities.

Of course, Science has invested enormous resources searching for the queer gene and has determined that such simply does not exist. So that ship has sailed...

Where did you get your doctorate in genetic research?
Granny would have called your post "gobbly gook".
We have a different term in Georgia for it.
Bull shit.

 

[Gadawg73]

No: "The People..." are entitled to establish standards which encourage and discourage certain behavior(s). ...

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that? How about the Declarartion of Independance?

Does the "Unalienable right...to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." mean nothing to you?

Or are those rights only applicable to yourself?

You apparently think that you have the authority to dictate the behavior of others, in opposition to the principles that this country was founded upon.

All the while they claim they are "conservative".

 

[Gadawg73]

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

What do dependents have to do with marriage be it heterosexual or homosexual?
You can deduct dependents without ever being married.
Two parents can claim tax breaks assosciated with a child and do not have to be married.

no, that's age discrimination, gadawg. how far will it go?

can they file jointly, man? there has to be something to the hubbub over state blessing of marriage. can they get a permanent visa because their spouse is a citizen?

How in the hell is that age discrimination?

 

[bodecea]

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

Yes and No...

Yes: And it is the same form of discrimination which is applied when one determines that they will not engage in anal intercourse with their bestest good buddy...

Ya see contrary to PC Belief, Discrimination is a positive human trait; a function of the survival instinct; and that doesn't change with culture and their standards and mores.

No: "The People..." are entitled to establish standards which encourage and discourage certain behavior(s). Providing advantages to those who engage in those encouraged behaviors, be they taxes benefits or other special priviliges does not rob others of those advantages... as they are nto being denied the benefits; all they need to do to take ful advantage of those benefits is to engage in the behavior which is being encouraged.

What the advocates of the normalization or abnormality are asking for is the benefits provided to those engaging in the behavior being encouraged, be given to those who are engaging in the behavior which is being DISCOURAGED. They claim that DISCOURAGING THEIR BEHAVIOR IS NOT FAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY...

We disagree and agree...

We agree that it's discriminatory... We disagree that it's not fair. No one is forcing them to engage in devient, sexual perversion... They CHOOSE to engage in the behavior. They of course disagree... but the fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING genetically which sets the homosexual distinct from normal heterosexual beings.

Now where Genetics WOULD SHOW that Homosexuals are SHIMS... freaks of nature with a skin is locked in the body of a shirt... Then I would readily agree that the homosexual is entitled to special consideration; similar to that provided for other cultural minorities.

Of course, Science has invested enormous resources searching for the queer gene and has determined that such simply does not exist. So that ship has sailed...

Where did you get your doctorate in genetic research?
Granny would have called your post "gobbly gook".
We have a different term in Georgia for it.
Bull shit.

Gotta love it..."Discrimination is a positive human trait" So positive, people kill each other over discrimination...that's really positive.

 

[Gadawg73]

Careful big boy. You're treading on THIN ICE. Those mandates come from Society, and on whole LOCAL Lawmakers.

So you also oppose a Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage?

*I* oppose ANY Federal intrusion into Tenth Amendment issues.

Got it ace?

Well, you have the Mark Levin book front and center and he favors a vote on it.
That would be the Amendment ban vote.

 

[mal]

I know that for a time, it was illegal for a "mixed" race marriage. But does the constitution specifically cover "marriage" at all? I don't want to reread the whole darn thing. We had to read it in high school and that was nearly 45 years ago.

Not talking about court cases, but THE constitution.

The Constitution doesn't List EVERYTHING...

Don't be Absurd.

There is CLEARLY NO "Right" to "Privacy" that Allows for the Murder of Inconvenient Life in the Womb, but Damn it if it's not the Law and Referred to as a "Constitutional Right"...

Want that one Taken, rdean?... It's not in there... I Checked!



peace...

I LOVE getting Rep for things like this days later...



peace...

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

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"

Look to the 9th amendment.

People have more inherent rights than those listed.. Being married is one of them. Just like the right to have children is one of them. Theyre not all listed. Nor do they have to be.

The govt shouldnt be involved in any aspect of marriage at any time.

 

[gautama]

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.

Jillian, Words have meaning. I know that as a silly Obamarrhoidal twat who serviced Jerry Rubin the DERANGED ULTRALIBERAL fan of Charlie Manson that concept is beyond you.

However "marriage" has a very specific meaning for millenia. It's a union between MAN and WOMAN. PERIOD. It's not a union between two women, or two sisters....or between two men, or two brothers, between a man and a donkey, or a squirrel, or a chair or a potato, etc. .......

It is INCONCEIVABLE.......ESPECIALLY in the days of our FF that the term "marriage" would have been considered taken out of its traditional meaning in official documents. END OF STORY.