Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually there is, it's called the 14th Amendment. If the US offers a privilege they can NOT take it away from you. The government OFFERS you the privilege of marrying an opposite sex partner., or same partner in states that choose to make that offer. Actually I should restate that, beings as this is a privilege the government COULD decide to no longer offer it to anyone. That would be legal.
Like I said this is a stupid argument to have, let gays marry IMO, but the fact is this Amendment is NOT unconstitutional, that is not an opinion it is a matter of reading and understanding the CON. That is no guarantee that it won't get over turned though, because we all know that on occasion judges ignore the rule of law to fit their own agenda; BUT this BIll violates nothing.
the 14th P&I applies to the states....not the federal government....
hence DOMA
What? I don't think so............
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
It applies the federal government as well as state governments DOMA is constitutional because it leaves marriage to the states where they belong. If DOMA had either made all states recognize gay marriage or disallowed gay marriages out right, it would have been unconstitutional.
the 14th P&I applies to the states....not the federal government....
hence DOMA
What? I don't think so............
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
It applies the federal government as well as state governments DOMA is constitutional because it leaves marriage to the states where they belong. If DOMA had either made all states recognize gay marriage or disallowed gay marriages out right, it would have been unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth amendment extends to the states the protections against the Federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth is designed, among other things, so states cannot strip equal protection and due process from its residents, which is what the Fifth protects us against from the Feds.
Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.
But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is a basic civil right....Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
It's rather sad when you have to force your agenda on the people by judicial fiat rather than the legitimate elected process.
I am so sick and tired of you totalitarians thinking you can force your will on the people. You can only push people so far.
Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.
But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is a basic civil right....Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Homosexuals have the same basic civil right as everyone else, to marry one person of the opposite sex. You should argue your position from a better position than it discriminates against someone based on gender.
Homosexuals are NOT a protected class under the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and so are not guaranteed "equality" The VA case you cited likewise concerns race, not sexual preference.
Hey Syrenn, are you paying attention to Bodecea? She's actually giving opinions of why she feels differently than me. That's called a debate you moron.
Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.
But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Marriage is a basic civil right....
How do you figure it is gender discrimination. Are you being denied something that men have? Men can marry someone of the opposite sex, so to can women, no gender discrimination there.
Please read the CON, the ONLY rights guaranteed in it are those enumerated within it, if it's not listed it's a privilege and not a right. The "right" of marriage is listed nowhere in the CON. Therefor it is NOT a right guaranteed by the CON. That's why there is an Amendment procedure. Before the 14th black didn't have ANY rights in this country, why? Because they weren't as of yet protected under the CON. Same with women suffrage and the 19th. Before it was passed there was no right.
Good lucking getting a CON Amendment for gay rights.
Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.
But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is a basic civil right....
How do you figure it is gender discrimination. Are you being denied something that men have? Men can marry someone of the opposite sex, so to can women, no gender discrimination there.
Please read the CON, the ONLY rights guaranteed in it are those enumerated within it, if it's not listed it's a privilege and not a right. The "right" of marriage is listed nowhere in the CON. Therefor it is NOT a right guaranteed by the CON. That's why there is an Amendment procedure. Before the 14th black didn't have ANY rights in this country, why? Because they weren't as of yet protected under the CON. Same with women suffrage and the 19th. Before it was passed there was no right.
Good lucking getting a CON Amendment for gay rights.
Of course it is Gender discrimination. Very clearly so. Do I have to explain the obvious to you?
BTW...the right to procreate isn't in the Constitution too. Are you saying it isn't a right?[/QUOTE]
.
It certainly is debatable whether it is a right that is protected by the CON. Hence why there has been talk of laws ordering sterilization of people who are on welfare.
Who said anything about this being discrimination based on Homosexuality...it's discrimination based on gender....and gender discrimination IS against the law.
But, in case you missed it in Loving V. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is a basic civil right....
Homosexuals have the same basic civil right as everyone else, to marry one person of the opposite sex. You should argue your position from a better position than it discriminates against someone based on gender.
Gender discrimination is illegal, you know, without a good reason. Got one?
What? I don't think so............
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
It applies the federal government as well as state governments DOMA is constitutional because it leaves marriage to the states where they belong. If DOMA had either made all states recognize gay marriage or disallowed gay marriages out right, it would have been unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth amendment extends to the states the protections against the Federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth is designed, among other things, so states cannot strip equal protection and due process from its residents, which is what the Fifth protects us against from the Feds.
That's a pretty narrow reading of the CON. I mean clearly Sections 1,3,4, and 5 refer to the federal government, I find it hard to believe that all but the 2nd did.
In fact I know it wasn't because part of the reason Section 1 of the 14th was included was to make sure that SCOTUS could not strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as being unconstitutional.
I feel that is exactly what would have to happen here to protect gays "rights" to marry gays.
The Fourteenth amendment extends to the states the protections against the Federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth is designed, among other things, so states cannot strip equal protection and due process from its residents, which is what the Fifth protects us against from the Feds.
That's a pretty narrow reading of the CON. I mean clearly Sections 1,3,4, and 5 refer to the federal government, I find it hard to believe that all but the 2nd did.
In fact I know it wasn't because part of the reason Section 1 of the 14th was included was to make sure that SCOTUS could not strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as being unconstitutional.
I feel that is exactly what would have to happen here to protect gays "rights" to marry gays.
I love how you're saying I have a 'narrow' reading of the Constitution. That has to be a first.
The Fourteenth does several things; the part of the Fourteenth that is relevant to this thread is the due process clause and the equal protection clause that extends the Fifth to state level.
Look:
The fif
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That bolded part is at the Federal level.
And the fourteenth (sec 1)
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.
It's like the same.
eta:
also, I just finished reading Lawrence v Texas. I love how Kennedy closes it:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.
It's rather sad when you have to force your agenda on the people by judicial fiat rather than the legitimate elected process.
I am so sick and tired of you totalitarians thinking you can force your will on the people. You can only push people so far.
Homosexuals have the same basic civil right as everyone else, to marry one person of the opposite sex. You should argue your position from a better position than it discriminates against someone based on gender.
Gender discrimination is illegal, you know, without a good reason. Got one?
Yes, I would like you to explain to me how saying the state will only recognize one man and one woman as a marriage is gender discrimination. Now you would certainly have a case if a state said ok we'll allow 2 women to get married, but not 2 men, but as is , you don't.
That's a pretty narrow reading of the CON. I mean clearly Sections 1,3,4, and 5 refer to the federal government, I find it hard to believe that all but the 2nd did.
In fact I know it wasn't because part of the reason Section 1 of the 14th was included was to make sure that SCOTUS could not strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as being unconstitutional.
I feel that is exactly what would have to happen here to protect gays "rights" to marry gays.
I love how you're saying I have a 'narrow' reading of the Constitution. That has to be a first.
The Fourteenth does several things; the part of the Fourteenth that is relevant to this thread is the due process clause and the equal protection clause that extends the Fifth to state level.
Look:
The fif
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That bolded part is at the Federal level.
And the fourteenth (sec 1)
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.
It's like the same.
eta:
also, I just finished reading Lawrence v Texas. I love how Kennedy closes it:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
OH good Lord I can't believe someone actually took a case to the SCOTUS to fight for their right to get their fudge packed
NONE of those are FAR left Rw.......they are "LEFT"....but not far left.....if they were far-left they would all be out of control.....like the "entitlement" programs in Ca....far left....and out of control....If "civil rights" were put up to a vote, many people in certain parts of this country will still wear "price tags".
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-conservative-exceptionalism.html#post2425152
Beside, I can name dozens of contributions to the US from the gays, but from the "conservatives"? The only contributions I can name are not really positives. Iraq, letting Bin Laden go, the Katrina clean up, Confederate day, the rape of education, Bush, mine safety deregulation, oil drilling deregulation, the economy. Oh, they do breed. So, I guess, "cannon fodder" is a "plus".
name something from the FAR-LEFT Dean that helped this Country....so far in my State all the programs from your kind of people,those ones WAAAAAAAY out there beyond the left field bleachers....havent done to well....you know all those Entitlement programs....dont work to well....so yea Cannon Fodder.....your breed knows it well....matter of fact....Cannon Fodder is something the FAR-left has given America....you guys invented it.....
FAR Left ideas that helped the country?
Abolition
Womens rights
40 hour work week
Civil rights
Gay rights
Environmental protections
Its no ones business who anyone wants to marry so long as they are of legal age. If gay's want to marry that's up to them. The STATE should not oppose that and should recognize it as a legal and binding marage. If the church doesn't want to "recognize" it that's fine too.
Exactly...all marriages should be Civil Unions which is a legal contract between two consenting adults.
Let marriage be handled in the church
OH good Lord I can't believe someone actually took a case to the SCOTUS to fight for their right to get their fudge packed
NONE of those are FAR left Rw.......they are "LEFT"....but not far left.....if they were far-left they would all be out of control.....like the "entitlement" programs in Ca....far left....and out of control....name something from the FAR-LEFT Dean that helped this Country....so far in my State all the programs from your kind of people,those ones WAAAAAAAY out there beyond the left field bleachers....havent done to well....you know all those Entitlement programs....dont work to well....so yea Cannon Fodder.....your breed knows it well....matter of fact....Cannon Fodder is something the FAR-left has given America....you guys invented it.....
FAR Left ideas that helped the country?
Abolition
Womens rights
40 hour work week
Civil rights
Gay rights
Environmental protections
Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.
You have some sort of problem with democracy?
Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?
