Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.

I have never said anything about arguing against a type of marriage because it is 'icky'. You (and perhaps Pops, although I don't remember for certain) created that argument yourself.

As I pointed out in the previous post, the USSC considered marriage a fundamental right prior to Obergefell and applied strict scrutiny in other cases based on that.

Again... we both agree there are certain parameters and moral lines that we don't cross on the basis of rationality (rational basis test). You may have the right to be in love with your Rottweiler, you don't have the "fundamental right" to marry him. When a right is fundamental... like for instance, the right to live... we must apply a different test, that is called the "strict scrutiny" test. It is the most stringent standard of judicial review used. It is the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a fundamental constitutional right or principle.

Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before, and it establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right. The opinion doesn't simply say it's fundamentally important, it is established as a fundamental right as a principle basis to find in favor of Obergefell. So now, marriage has been redefined to include a particular sexual behavior and ensconced into law as a fundamental constitutional right which must be viewed under strict scrutiny from that day forward. You cannot switch it back and forth on the basis of your predisposition toward the sexual behavior.

The next challenge, as I have stated, will come from polygamists. They are already challenging it. After they get their "fundamental right" the hebephiles will suddenly appear at the door, knocking for their helping of justice as well. Then the siblings.. then the zoophiles. You cannot stop the ride because you don't like it anymore. You've made marriage a fundamental right and something that can be redefined to include sexual behaviors that are out of the normal lexicon. You and I may find it repulsive and icky, it does not matter, it's now a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be denied on the basis of rationality anymore.

 

[bodecea]

Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?

Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts.

Think beyond your vibrator.

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.

And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.

Racist bullshit

Syriously....proud member of the KKK

You will have to explain what Syriusly's comment on you always talking about incest (which is true) has to do with the KKK.

 

[Boss]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell. It has been pointed out to you, including citing from previous rulings, on multiple occasions. Further, no new law was created by Obergefell. If you think that one was, what is its name? What is the text of this new law?

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, it built upon the previous determination that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

 

[Boss]

You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.

No, the courts had previously mentioned MARRIAGE as fundamentally important and may have even stated it as a fundamental right... they did not base their ruling on this, it was only the basis for scrutiny in the cases. In any event, marriage was not ever defined as same-sex union. So we can disagree on this, but it doesn't matter because same sex unions aren't marriage.

Further, no new law was created by Obergefell.

LMAO... Sure it was! Gay Marriage was legalized nationwide... where have you been?

 

[bodecea]

You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.

No, the courts had previously mentioned MARRIAGE as fundamentally important and may have even stated it as a fundamental right... they did not base their ruling on this, it was only the basis for scrutiny in the cases. In any event, marriage was not ever defined as same-sex union. So we can disagree on this, but it doesn't matter because same sex unions aren't marriage.

Further, no new law was created by Obergefell.

LMAO... Sure it was! Gay Marriage was legalized nationwide... where have you been?

That's not new law...that's striking down restrictions...Removing a restriction is not the same as adding a new law.

 

[Boss]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Well it appears to be a common sense statement about the male-female union formerly known as marriage. What does it have to do with two homos having gay sex and playing house?

 

[Boss]

That's not new law...

Tell that to Kim Davis.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Well it appears to be a common sense statement about the male-female union formerly known as marriage. What does it have to do with two homos having gay sex and playing house?

It is part of the Loving v Virginia DECISION way before Obergefell.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before,...

As pointed out before this is a factually incorrect statement. Prior to the SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.

No, the courts had previously mentioned MARRIAGE as fundamentally important and may have even stated it as a fundamental right... they did not base their ruling on this, it was only the basis for scrutiny in the cases. In any event, marriage was not ever defined as same-sex union. So we can disagree on this, but it doesn't matter because same sex unions aren't marriage.

Further, no new law was created by Obergefell.

LMAO... Sure it was! Gay Marriage was legalized nationwide... where have you been?

If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.

Marriage was defined as same sex in much of the country before Obergefell. More, the USSC struck down DOMA prior to Obergefell and that was about same sex marriage as well.

You can personally define same sex unions however you want.

 

[Silhouette]

If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.

Marriage was defined as same sex in much of the country before Obergefell. More, the USSC struck down DOMA prior to Obergefell and that was about same sex marriage as well....You can personally define same sex unions however you want.

When do children get a voice in defining marriage? They are, after all, partners in the contract.

 

[Boss]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Well it appears to be a common sense statement about the male-female union formerly known as marriage. What does it have to do with two homos having gay sex and playing house?

It is part of the Loving v Virginia DECISION way before Obergefell.

Part of it... but it's not the BASIS for the Loving decision. And Loving was about the institute of union between a male and female gender person. Same sex unions are no such union, by definition.

So I disagree that Loving established marriage as a fundamental constitutional right and even IF that is the case, they didn't establish same sex partnerships as marriage.

 

[Boss]

Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before,...

As pointed out before this is a factually incorrect statement. Prior to the SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa – State Judicially
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



>>>>

It does not matter what STATES do. They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!

We've had this absolute SHIT crammed down our throats against our will by activist liberal punks who are pissed off about George W. Bush and his God talks. You magically turned this into something we somehow all agreed on without knowing it. Then claimed a right to it was being denied. YES... you did pass it into law... you had to rewrite the fucking Constitution to do it, but by God you did it... take that George W. Bush and God!

 

[WorldWatcher]

It does not matter what STATES do. They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!

1. There is no such thing as a "national referendum".

2. Yes candidates have run supporting SSCM an and been elected.

3. Yes SSCM was passed by some State Legislatures and State Ballot Referendums prior to the Obergefell decision.

To say SSCM didn't exist before the Obergefel ruling is false. Which is what I addressed.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.

Nonsense. My dander is low and lovely. It's nice to see you admit that you are here to point out errors, I am here to have meaningful conversations. I would rather hear you address some of the points that have been made with regard to "strict scrutiny" versus "rational basis" test when it comes to constitutional rights versus collective societal values. We can't have that conversation if you are nit-picking over usage of informal pronouns.y.

Translation from Boss speak: "Stop pointing out my lies because it derails my tirade against homosexuals'

 

[Montrovant]

If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.

Marriage was defined as same sex in much of the country before Obergefell. More, the USSC struck down DOMA prior to Obergefell and that was about same sex marriage as well....You can personally define same sex unions however you want.

When do children get a voice in defining marriage? They are, after all, partners in the contract.

Except that they are not, of course.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.

I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions..

Boss keeps telling us that Marriage is what he says- and not what anyone else says.

Especially not what States and courts that he disagrees with says.

But the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right of Americans


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

AlthoughLovingarose 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.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer 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,

InGriswold 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

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.

Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.

It is now the law of the land.

If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Well it appears to be a common sense statement about the male-female union formerly known as marriage. What does it have to do with two homos having gay sex and playing house?

It is part of the Loving v Virginia DECISION way before Obergefell.

Part of it... but it's not the BASIS for the Loving decision. And Loving was about the institute of union between a male and female gender person. Same sex unions are no such union, by definition.

So I disagree that Loving established marriage as a fundamental constitutional right and even IF that is the case, they didn't establish same sex partnerships as marriage.

Nor was marriage as a fundamental right the sole basis of Obergefell. I honestly don't understand this line of argument.

Now, that same sex marriage was not part of marriage until recently, that is an argument I understand.