Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Syriusly]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

View attachment 159722

Lol...I guess that statement came off that way. I didn't mean it the way you are taking it though.

I am not too concerned either way. If I sold the farm every time someone made a claim of an impending civil war I would be landless a million times over. lol

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in there about fag "marriage".

Absolutely correct. There is no 'fag' marriage any more than there is 'n*gger' marriage- there is just marriage.

And marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution- yet we all still have the right to marry.

No you don't have a "right" to marry. You dont understand what a "right" actually is so you make stupid arguments as if you do.

Actually you- and I- absolutely do have the legal right to marry- as cited by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

Not my problem that you are too stupid to know your rights.


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

Although Loving arose 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. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer 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,

In Griswold 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"

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

There is no right to marriage recognized by the federal constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

Although Loving arose 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.

Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections. Deviant sex practitioners do not. Loving was about race. All the convoluted spinoffs of that flawed premise hold no more water than a rotting sieve.

And, two adult individuals do not have the right to alter a contract to the demise of children who enjoy the right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract. And have enjoyed that right since time immemorial to 2015....taken away not by legislation, but by illegal judicial fiat of the USSC overstepping its powers and attempting to add new vitally-different language implied to the 14th Amendment without the permission of the Legislature (the governed). Which is sedition.

 

[WinterBorn]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

View attachment 159722

Lol...I guess that statement came off that way. I didn't mean it the way you are taking it though.

I am not too concerned either way. If I sold the farm every time someone made a claim of an impending civil war I would be landless a million times over. lol

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in there about fag "marriage".

Absolutely correct. There is no 'fag' marriage any more than there is 'n*gger' marriage- there is just marriage.

And marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution- yet we all still have the right to marry.

No you don't have a "right" to marry. You dont understand what a "right" actually is so you make stupid arguments as if you do.

There is no actual right to marriage. But there is a right to equal protection under the law. So, technically, you could remove gay marriage by removing all marriage laws from the gov't. Personally, I would prefer that, since the gov't has no business meddling in such personal affairs.

 

[WinterBorn]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

And being angry that your beliefs are not the law is one thing.

Threatening the murder of innocent people because they do not share your beliefs is quite another.

Sure, but it makes an excellent diversion form the fact that even if children are not born but merely anticipated, they still are implicit partners in the marriage contract. Just as if no profits exist between budding business partners the day they signed, those future profits are in fact part of the contract they signed.

If this is what you are basing your arguments on, your anger is misplaced. See my previous link and the numbers of children being raise in single parent homes or homes on their 2nd (or more) marriage. That is a greater threat to children than the relatively low number of same sex marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

Children were the reason marriage was invented; .

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

Like everything else you say.

It is true. If you don't know that....I suggest you educate yourself instead of making yourself look ignorant of history.

Unlike you I have read actual books of history.

Legal marriages- and that includes religious marriages- were created for many reasons- among them to legally control inheritances- and also to secure partnerships between families or even countries.

They were not created to ensure that children were raised by a mother and a father.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no right to marriage recognized by the federal constitution.

But there is a right to equal protection. So as long as straights have marriage, so do gays. I think there should be no need for a gov't license, but then I believe the gov't should not be meddling in a lot of things.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no right to marriage recognized by the federal constitution.

Yet we still have the legal right to marry.

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

Although Loving arose 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. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer 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,

In Griswold 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"

 

[Silhouette]

Although Loving arose 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.

Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections. Deviant sex practitioners do not. Loving was about race. All the convoluted spinoffs of that flawed premise hold no more water than a rotting sieve.

And, two adult individuals do not have the right to alter a contract to the demise of children who enjoy the right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract. And have enjoyed that right since time immemorial to 2015....taken away not by legislation, but by illegal judicial fiat of the USSC overstepping its powers and attempting to add new vitally-different language implied to the 14th Amendment without the permission of the Legislature (the governed). Which is sedition.

Unlike you I have read actual books of history.

Legal marriages- and that includes religious marriages- were created for many reasons- among them to legally control inheritances- and also to secure partnerships between families or even countries.

They were not created to ensure that children were raised by a mother and a father.

Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly...you should just tell the truth. You don't care about precedent or fact


..you want fags to be seen as the same as heteros and that is what drives your crusade against normalcy.

Feel free to point out where I haven't spoken the truth. I do care about both precedent and fact- which is why- unlike Silhouette- and yourself- I cite both legal precedents and the facts.

I do want Americans to be treated equally before the law regardless of their color, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

You don't.

That is the fundamental difference between us.

 

[Syriusly]

Although Loving arose 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.

Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections.

That is not my premise- that is citing the Supreme Court.


Zablocki v. Rehail


Although Loving arose 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.

I recognize that you just make crap up- but I actually cite the law, and cite the Supreme Court.

Everyone has Constitutional protections- everyone in the United States does.

Even though you believe that the Constitution doesn't count when it comes to homosexuals- that just is showing your hateful bias towards gay Americans.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

I defy you to find any recent legal precedent for that. And by recent, I mean during a time when women were not considered property when they marry.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Syriusly...you are beyond dumb. Comparing interracial marriage to faggotry is insane. They are not even close to the same thing. Ever.

 

[WinterBorn]

Although Loving arose 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.

Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections. Deviant sex practitioners do not. Loving was about race. All the convoluted spinoffs of that flawed premise hold no more water than a rotting sieve.

And, two adult individuals do not have the right to alter a contract to the demise of children who enjoy the right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract. And have enjoyed that right since time immemorial to 2015....taken away not by legislation, but by illegal judicial fiat of the USSC overstepping its powers and attempting to add new vitally-different language implied to the 14th Amendment without the permission of the Legislature (the governed). Which is sedition.

Unlike you I have read actual books of history.

Legal marriages- and that includes religious marriages- were created for many reasons- among them to legally control inheritances- and also to secure partnerships between families or even countries.

They were not created to ensure that children were raised by a mother and a father.

Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?

Then why are you always going on and on about gay marriage? Straight marriages are responsible for more children not having a mother & father than gay marriage ever will have. If the point of marriage is to protect children, why aren't you out here screaming about divorce laws?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Syriusly...you should just tell the truth. You don't care about precedent or fact


..you want fags to be seen as the same as heteros and that is what drives your crusade against normalcy.

Feel free to point out where I haven't spoken the truth. I do care about both precedent and fact- which is why- unlike Silhouette- and yourself- I cite both legal precedents and the facts.

I do want Americans to be treated equally before the law regardless of their color, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

You don't.

That is the fundamental difference between us.

I already pointed it out. You're just self unaware and can't understand what you are arguing is bullshit.

I already pointed it out. You are just another homophobic bigot.

Really no different than those anti-semitic bastards who argue that Jews don't deserve any rights also.

Lol....you don't have history on your side. Faggotry was a crime at one point. You can't argue the constitution defends the union of two same sex perverts as married when they were considered criminals by law by most states up until recently. No founder considered two fags as a marriage...they considered them to be hung from trees.

 

[WinterBorn]

Syriusly...you are beyond dumb. Comparing interracial marriage to faggotry is insane. They are not even close to the same thing. Ever.

Was end of interracial marriage based on the 14th amendment?

 

[Silhouette]

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

I defy you to find any recent legal precedent for that. And by recent, I mean during a time when women were not considered property when they marry.

Prior to 2015 is recent. The common understanding of bother mother and father being vital to children in marriage has been maintained from time immemorial to 2015 and beyond.

 

[WinterBorn]

Syriusly...you should just tell the truth. You don't care about precedent or fact


..you want fags to be seen as the same as heteros and that is what drives your crusade against normalcy.

Feel free to point out where I haven't spoken the truth. I do care about both precedent and fact- which is why- unlike Silhouette- and yourself- I cite both legal precedents and the facts.

I do want Americans to be treated equally before the law regardless of their color, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

You don't.

That is the fundamental difference between us.

I already pointed it out. You're just self unaware and can't understand what you are arguing is bullshit.

I already pointed it out. You are just another homophobic bigot.

Really no different than those anti-semitic bastards who argue that Jews don't deserve any rights also.

Lol....you don't have history on your side. Faggotry was a crime at one point. You can't argue the constitution defends the union of two same sex perverts as married when they were considered criminals by law by the most states up until recently. No founder considered two fags as a marriage...they considered them to be hung from trees.

And those same Founders did not consider women as equals either. That happened much more recently.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Fags are criminal deviants and always will be. They are sexual predators at their core.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

I defy you to find any recent legal precedent for that. And by recent, I mean during a time when women were not considered property when they marry.

Prior to 2015 is recent. The common understanding of bother mother and father being vital to children in marriage has been maintained from time immemorial to 2015 and beyond.

They obviously did not consider it vital, since the divorce laws created a situation in which 46% of children under 18 were in a single parent home. But you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that.