States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes their vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

 

[Silhouette]

In California, for example:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

and

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.

Those powers were erroneously removed...

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.

The only way the referendum can be revoked:

SEC. 10.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

The power of the People in the Golden State is absolute. And that power was just wrongly removed June, 2015. There is only fluff behind the SCOTUS decision and no Constitutional meat or backbone if push came to shove. And I suggest that it does. Removing voting power is such an awful precedent to set..

 

[RKMBrown]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes there vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

 

[Silhouette]

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

Charming...

So you're saying that blind people should be able to drive and to not let them do so makes one a "scum bag piece of shit bigot"? It's not their fault they're blind. But yet they cannot properly operate a motor vehicle for the safety of all who share the road. Just as gays cannot safely operate a marriage for all who share that contract...

 

[candycorn]

The losers (you) have the right to sit down and shut up when the Supreme Court renders a decision.

 

[mdk]

More legal gibberish from the very soul confirmation bias. Nobody is making this legal argument b/c it is foolish, doesn't make any sense, and would get laughed out of every court.

Oh, and for the record, marriage is a right and driving is a privilege. Now you know.

 

[danielpalos]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes there vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

How to waste the Other Peoples' tax monies with frivolous litigation?

 

[Silhouette]

The losers (you) have the right to sit down and shut up when the Supreme Court renders a decision.

But not one that violates both federal and state constitutions...and child protective laws..

 

[Silhouette]

You know what's weird? This thread had 13 views back when I only had my one post on it, the OP. 9 posts later you know how many views registered on this thread on the politics forum's index page? Still 13...

Interesting, that.. I suppose someone doesn't want Google picking up any interest in this PARTICULAR topic...

 

[Spinster]

This June I returned home from Arizona. State law there allows any sort of weapons, short of a nuclear warhead, practically, but the state disallows first cousins to marry. Given that being the case, why are same sex partners allowed to wed? Either way it's a lose lose situation for any offspring that results. First cousins can produce defected kids, gay couples (through adoption) do produce affected kids. Gays can and do readily adopt any color of the rainbow kid of their own choosing. Having experienced infertility years ago, and by that point being older than "ideal", we were told IF we could adopt the "best" we could expect was a black kid. Gays should not be allowed to impact the innocent lives of children. Queers have no place raising anyone, period!

 

[RKMBrown]

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

Charming...

So you're saying that blind people should be able to drive and to not let them do so makes one a "scum bag piece of shit bigot"? It's not their fault they're blind. But yet they cannot properly operate a motor vehicle for the safety of all who share the road. Just as gays cannot safely operate a marriage for all who share that contract...

No THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING YOU DUMB ASS PIECE OF SHIT.

When it comes to priveleges that others share, like driving, or marriage, denying some that privelege in the interest of others who could come to harm from a lack of local regulation is not "harm", it's sensible. States have a mandate to be proactive when it comes to actively protecting children from anticipated harm. The Prince's Trust survey from the link in the OP gives the states the authority to intervene against June 2015's illegal Ruling.

Marriage is not a privilege you dumb ass piece of shit.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is not a privilege you dumb ass piece of shit.

Any institution where the participants by their physical makeup could harm others, IS a privelege by definition. This exact point will be hashed out at SCOTUS upon any impending challenges a la the OP.

 

[defcon4]

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

Very intelligent…. sure contributed a lot to the "debate"

 

[defcon4]

Marriage is not a privilege you dumb ass piece of shit.

Sure it is… what marriage licenses are issued for?

 

[mdk]

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

Charming...

So you're saying that blind people should be able to drive and to not let them do so makes one a "scum bag piece of shit bigot"? It's not their fault they're blind. But yet they cannot properly operate a motor vehicle for the safety of all who share the road. Just as gays cannot safely operate a marriage for all who share that contract...

No THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING YOU DUMB ASS PIECE OF SHIT.

When it comes to priveleges where others share the venue (the road or the home, respectively), like driving, or marriage, denying some that privelege in the interest of others who could come to harm from a lack of local regulation is not "harm", it's sensible. States have a mandate to be proactive when it comes to actively protecting children from anticipated harm. The Prince's Trust survey from the link in the OP gives the states the authority to intervene against June 2015's illegal Ruling.

You can pretend all you wish that marriage is a privilege but the rest of us in the real world are not obligated to follow suit. The Prince's Trust gives the states the authority to intervene!? lol. A study from the UK that you continuously lie about? Good luck with that.

Maybe if you shake your fist some more gay marriage will cease in this nation.

 

[mdk]

Marriage is not a privilege you dumb ass piece of shit.

Any institution where the participants by their physical makeup could harm others, IS a privelege by definition. This exact point will be hashed out at SCOTUS upon any impending challenges a la the OP.

Your made up definitions and gibberish have zero legal bearing. They didn't yesterday, they don't today, and, they won't in the future.

 

[defcon4]

Maybe if you shake your fist some more gay marriage will cease in this nation.

…or shake your stick at it….

 

[RKMBrown]

Marriage is not a privilege you dumb ass piece of shit.

Sure it is… what marriage licenses are issued for?

It's a contract managed by government. Like other contracts it is to manage the combined assets of the couple. The license warrants that the government has looked into your records and you are not entering into an incest marriage, you are not already married etc.

 

[Montrovant]

You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.

Charming...

So you're saying that blind people should be able to drive and to not let them do so makes one a "scum bag piece of shit bigot"? It's not their fault they're blind. But yet they cannot properly operate a motor vehicle for the safety of all who share the road. Just as gays cannot safely operate a marriage for all who share that contract...

No THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING YOU DUMB ASS PIECE OF SHIT.

When it comes to priveleges where others share the venue (the road or the home, respectively), like driving, or marriage, denying some that privelege in the interest of others who could come to harm from a lack of local regulation is not "harm", it's sensible. States have a mandate to be proactive when it comes to actively protecting children from anticipated harm. The Prince's Trust survey from the link in the OP gives the states the authority to intervene against June 2015's illegal Ruling.

So a 2010 survey done in the UK, which never mentions gay parents or gays at all, which does not say the things you claim it does, provides authority in the US for states to somehow change or deny a Supreme Court ruling?

I'm not sure if this is even more asinine than you saying humanity depends on Kim Davis suing for 1st amendment infringement.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought the OP might have something worth debating

Boy, was I wrong