Marriage in the Context of US Constitution

[Unkotare]

Interesting that one goal of Marxism is the destruction of the family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why shouldn't such protections and privileges not be assumed contractually when two (or more) consenting adults enter into a civil union (marriage, if you prefer). As long as some legal instrument has been executed that obligates each participant to the mutual support of the other(s), I see no problem extending such protection even to related partners. Of course, legally binding contracts must also be legally dissolved if, or when, the partners of that contract deem it necessary.

And that would be an issue appropriate for the states to decide. They may deny access to marriage of more than two partners, or to persons too closely related, for example, because laws enacting such prohibitions are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons or suspect class is singled out for exclusion. Moreover, the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in prohibiting such unions, and do so free of animus.

None of that’s the case with regard to denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why shouldn't such protections and privileges not be assumed contractually when two (or more) consenting adults enter into a civil union (marriage, if you prefer). As long as some legal instrument has been executed that obligates each participant to the mutual support of the other(s), I see no problem extending such protection even to related partners. Of course, legally binding contracts must also be legally dissolved if, or when, the partners of that contract deem it necessary.

And that would be an issue appropriate for the states to decide. They may deny access to marriage of more than two partners, or to persons too closely related, for example, because laws enacting such prohibitions are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons or suspect class is singled out for exclusion. Moreover, the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in prohibiting such unions, and do so free of animus.

None of that’s the case with regard to denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Actually, that's exactly the case with same-gender unions. One specific group makes demands that should logically and legally be afforded all persons desiring the protection and privileges being demanded. Just because one "couple" is fucking each other doesn't mean that another "couple" whose relationship is not founded primarily through a sexual liaison should be denied the same legal protections as the fuckers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why shouldn't such protections and privileges not be assumed contractually when two (or more) consenting adults enter into a civil union (marriage, if you prefer). As long as some legal instrument has been executed that obligates each participant to the mutual support of the other(s), I see no problem extending such protection even to related partners. Of course, legally binding contracts must also be legally dissolved if, or when, the partners of that contract deem it necessary.

And that would be an issue appropriate for the states to decide. They may deny access to marriage of more than two partners, or to persons too closely related, for example, because laws enacting such prohibitions are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons or suspect class is singled out for exclusion. Moreover, the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in prohibiting such unions, and do so free of animus.

None of that’s the case with regard to denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Actually, that's exactly the case with same-gender unions. One specific group makes demands that should logically and legally be afforded all persons desiring the protection and privileges being demanded. Just because one "couple" is fucking each other doesn't mean that another "couple" whose relationship is not founded primarily through a sexual liaison should be denied the same legal protections as the fuckers.

No specific group is making ‘demands,’ one can not ‘demand’ something he already possesses. Equal protection is afforded to all persons, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling reason as to why not, which again is not present with regard to same-sex couples' access to marriage law.

 

[Katzndogz]

If gays already possess the right to get married, they have nothing to complain about.

What they don't have is the ability to force others to recognize their marriage.

 

[Cenotaph]

If gays already possess the right to get married, they have nothing to complain about.

What they don't have is the ability to force others to recognize their marriage.

Most gays probably don't want to either. We just want the option to be able to marry each other.

Kind of off-topic, though...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If gays already possess the right to get married, they have nothing to complain about.

What they don't have is the ability to force others to recognize their marriage.

In most states they are prohibited from marrying persons of the same sex. The fundamental rights of privacy and marriage are afforded to all persons regardless of gender or whether a couple can procreate or not. The issue isn’t the ‘ability’ to marry, but the right to marry whomever one wishes in the context of privacy without interference from the state.

Since same-sex couples seek access to marriage as it is now – unchanged or unaltered – as guaranteed by the Constitution, nothing is being ‘forced’ on anyone, since all citizens have equal access to the same laws.

That some in a given jurisdiction are opposed to, or offended by, allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law, or perceive equal protection as something being ‘forced,’ is illustrative of the need for the doctrine and the courts to continue to uphold the rule of law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Either they can marry or they can't.

You say both that they have the right to marry, and that they are prohibited from marrying. It can't be both.

Would gays accept "marriage" with the proviso that no one had to recognize that marriage unless they wanted to? Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

 

[jillian]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

Not to be disrespectful, but the issue of whether marriage is or is not a right has already been settled.

Loving v. Virginia

and there is no "inability" to recognize same sex marriage, only an unwillingness in certain quarters.

 

[Unkotare]

Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

 

[jillian]

Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

yeah, but it makes for a really good troll post that othr rightwingnuts can high five him for.

 

[Unkotare]

Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

yeah, but it makes for a really good troll post that othr rightwingnuts can high five him for.

Don't try to put your arm around me, lefty, just because katz is an idiot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Either they can marry or they can't.

They can not marry whom they wish, a person of the same sex.

You say both that they have the right to marry, and that they are prohibited from marrying. It can't be both.

They have the right to marry, and are prohibited from doing so per statute, in violation of the Constitution.

Would gays accept "marriage" with the proviso that no one had to recognize that marriage unless they wanted to? Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

It’s not a matter of gays ‘accepting’ anything, they are not required to barter for or strike deals to avail themselves of rights they already possess.

Otherwise, the 14th Amendment applies only to the Federal government, state governments, and local jurisdictions, not private entities. With the exception of private business concerning public accommodation laws, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, religious organizations, private organizations, and private citizens would not be compelled to accommodate same-sex couples. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

 

[jillian]

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

yeah, but it makes for a really good troll post that othr rightwingnuts can high five him for.

Don't try to put your arm around me, lefty, just because katz is an idiot.

agreeing with someone on the rare occasion they get something right is not "put[ting] your arm around [them]", notwithstanding your inability to discern reality.

 

[Katzndogz]

Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

No. In the real world, that's not equal rights. But it is what they want. Ultimately what gays and lesbians want is acceptance and if they get it legally, they will someday get it socially.

More than half of their complaints are for legal rights and benefits they already have. They can get the rest easily enough, but it won't be marriage and it won't be the social acceptance that marriage brings. It won't be recognition of their couplehood or of their constructed familes.

 

[Cenotaph]

Will it really get a couples invitation to Aunt Sally's house for Thanksgiving dinner with the family? Or should Aunt Sally be prosecuted for not giving them equal rights?

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

No. In the real world, that's not equal rights. But it is what they want. Ultimately what gays and lesbians want is acceptance and if they get it legally, they will someday get it socially.
.

I was never under the impression that you represented the gay community's beliefs...

 

[Katzndogz]

That's not what "equal rights" means, you idiot.

No. In the real world, that's not equal rights. But it is what they want. Ultimately what gays and lesbians want is acceptance and if they get it legally, they will someday get it socially.
.

I was never under the impression that you represented the gay community's beliefs...

Not any more than gay activists represent the beliefs of every other American. Not even when they say that a majority of the public supports marriage equality, whatever that is. I pay attention to what their representatives do say.

Give them marriage, AND legal protection to everyone that doesn't intend to recognize that marriage as legal. See how that works.

 

[Cenotaph]

No. In the real world, that's not equal rights. But it is what they want. Ultimately what gays and lesbians want is acceptance and if they get it legally, they will someday get it socially.
.

I was never under the impression that you represented the gay community's beliefs...

Not any more than gay activists represent the beliefs of every other American. Not even when they say that a majority of the public supports marriage equality, whatever that is. I pay attention to what their representatives do say.

1. They're not supposed to represent the beliefs of every other American. That's not what they're there for.
2. According to multiple polls, the majority of Americans do support gay marriage.

Give them marriage, AND legal protection to everyone that doesn't intend to recognize that marriage as legal. See how that works.

Unless it's apart of their job, then they don't have to recognize it as legal.

 

[Katzndogz]

I was never under the impression that you represented the gay community's beliefs...

Not any more than gay activists represent the beliefs of every other American. Not even when they say that a majority of the public supports marriage equality, whatever that is. I pay attention to what their representatives do say.

1. They're not supposed to represent the beliefs of every other American. That's not what they're there for.
2. According to multiple polls, the majority of Americans do support gay marriage.

Give them marriage, AND legal protection to everyone that doesn't intend to recognize that marriage as legal. See how that works.

Unless it's apart of their job, then they don't have to recognize it as legal.

If the majority support same sex marriage, then how come out of 32 states where it has been proposed 32 states have rejected it?

Propose a Constitutional amendment, that will come up for vote in all 50 states and have to be passed by 2/3 of them. Since 32 states have already voted against the issue, how likely is it that a majority will vote for such an amendment? Even Barney Frank wasn't so deluded as to propose such an amendment.

If a photographer doesn't want to photograph same sex weddings he shouldn't have to. If a counselor doesn't want to counsel same sex couples, she shouldn't have to. If an Innkeeper doesn't want to rent a room to a same sex couple they shouldn't have to.

To be fair. The owners of gay businesses could prohibit bachelorette parties if they so choose.

 

[Cenotaph]

If the majority support same sex marriage, then how come out of 32 states where it has been proposed 32 states have rejected it?

That's a good question.

Propose a Constitutional amendment, that will come up for vote in all 50 states and have to be passed by 2/3 of them. Since 32 states have already voted against the issue, how likely is it that a majority will vote for such an amendment? Even Barney Frank wasn't so deluded as to propose such an amendment.

I have no idea.

If a photographer doesn't want to photograph same sex weddings he shouldn't have to. If a counselor doesn't want to counsel same sex couples, she shouldn't have to. If an Innkeeper doesn't want to rent a room to a same sex couple they shouldn't have to.

Of course they don't have to. They would probably just get fired or get their wrist slapped. That is... assuming they're not the boss or that they're not self-employed. In that case, if they are, then they're just being stupid to deny perfectly good business opportunities.

To be fair. The owners of gay businesses could prohibit bachelorette parties if they so choose.

Yup, and according to the one link you people keep spreading around, one such instance actually did occur... It seems rather silly from both sides. A heterosexual bachellorette wanting to utilize the resources of a homosexual-oriented business and the homosexual-oriented business denying perfectly good business for such an asinine reason.