Killing Homosexual Marriage

[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.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.

Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. 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.

On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right. From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination. I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail. From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.". Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.

There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law. Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed. The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.

Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument. Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.

Monty, you're having trouble with words again, "Of fundamental importance" is not saying "a fundamental right". And again, stating something to that effect is not establishing a law based on it. Finally... even IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still the union of two genders, with numerous other qualifiers like consent, age, relation, etc.... not same sex unions.?

Says Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

This entire thread is just Boss's contrarian opinion fest, with Pop's trolling added in.

 

[Syriusly]

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.!

There you go- Boss doesn't care what States do.

Odd for someone who so pasionately argues about how horrible the courts were for overturning same gender marriage bans imposed by STates- he just doesn't give a damn whether States themselves decide to have inclusive marriage.

All that matters to Boss is Boss's opinion- citing himself- quoting himself.

 

[Boss]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Well....how do you plan on asking unborn children about whether they want their future parents to be married or not?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

It is always hard to tell when Boss is deliberately lying- and when he is just an ignorant ass.

Gay couples have been getting married in the United States since 2013- Obergefell didn't change the nature of marriage at all. What Obergefell did do was recognize that the rights of same gender couples are the same rights as opposite gender couples- and Boss hates that.

And Obergefell didn't 'establish' marriage as a fundamental right- that had long been established- as noted in Zablocki

By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry,

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

Poor Boss- still trying to equate equal rights for gay adults- with him wanting to marry his dog.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

children don't get a voice in defining any laws- note children are not allowed to vote.

And Children are not partners in a marriage- though sometimes they are the product of a marriage- they become participants in a family.

 

[Syriusly]

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.


>>>>

Seriously- how can anyone beyond a 6th grade education complain about there being 'no national referendum' on 'gay marriage'?

There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for a national referendum.

Boss once again displays his ignorance of the Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

No a "referendum" and "ratification" are two different things. Under the Constitutional Amendment process State "ratify" and amendment. Under a "referendum" there is a direct vote on an issue placed on a ballot before an electorate. There is no process for a national referendum on any issue.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

I assume you meant "Senate" when you wrote "State" and yes there have been plenty of elected officials that supported equal treatment for same-sex couples.

http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eas...ssional_Marriage__Positions_House_By_Name.pdf
http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eas...ssional_Marriage_Positions_Senate_By_Name.pdf

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

The Federal government recognizes Civil Marriages performed by States. The Federal government doesn't "do" marriages, the "recognize" (as in acknowledge the existance of) marriages perfomed at the State level.

So ya when State Legislatures and State Ballot Referendums approve of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples that does impact Federal recognition.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.)



>>>>

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!

Poor Boss- still all pissed off that gay couples can marry now- excuse me- his 'best friends'.

And still scared gay men are going to change the law so they can force him to have sex with him in public.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Seriously- how can anyone beyond a 6th grade education complain about there being 'no national referendum' on 'gay marriage'?

There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for a national referendum.

Boss once again displays his ignorance of the Constitution.

It's an attempt to use the "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy but fails in this case since attitudes have changed since the early 2000's and equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws actually has the majority position.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

Boss has some compelling points here. When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger... Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

Boss has some compelling points here. When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger... Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh Christ are you still here. To claim that parenting by gay people is bad for kids is stupid enough but to say that gay people should not be married for that reason is beyond moronic. Most of the kids who are in the care of gay people are not there because of marriage. They, however, can benefit by their parent's ability to be married and allowing them to have two legal parents. I have tried to educate you about that before but you are too obtuse and hateful too get it. It continues to be apparent that your disdain for gay people blinds you to the fact that discrimination against gays harms their children , How can you care so little about the children. Do you have a heart, a soul or a brain?

 

[Syriusly]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

Boss has some compelling points here. When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger..

Nothing like one bigot cheering on another bigot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

Boss has some compelling points here. When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger... Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deal with it!

 

[Faun]

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.

That's odd? None of my kids' names appear on my marriage license.

 

[Skylar]

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.


>>>>

1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.

Boss has some compelling points here. When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger... Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Save that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help any child. While denying same sex parents marriage does hurt their children.

So your proposal helps no child...but harms 10s of thousands.

No thank you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Deal with it people!

New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights

.............another lawsuit filed last week has the potential to eclipse Obergefell v. Hodges in terms of overall impact because it would affect more people, according to an attorney for the plaintiff.

In the face of Congress' longtime failure to pass explicit LGBT job protections, former Federal Aviation Administration employee David Baldwin's lawsuit is aimed at obtaining a federal decision — and eventually from the high court itself — saying anti-gay job bias is already illegal under existing civil rights laws.

This July, the EEOC ruled in Baldwin's favor, saying anti-gay bias qualifies as sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC's decision came two years after it ruled that transgender people are protected against job discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. And although both decisions were historic, they are binding only on federal agencies and don't necessarily protect non-governmental employees. Since the EEOC's decision in his case, Baldwin has sought to resolve the case with the FAA, but the agency never responded, prompting his lawsuit.

 

[mdk]

It appears homosexual marriage is still alive. Better luck next month, Boss. lol

 

[Skylar]

It appears homosexual marriage is still alive. Better luck next month, Boss. lol

Laughing.....even Boss has abandoned the hapless bullshit of the OP.

Can we call this thread debunked?