The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[jillian]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

gays all believe the same things?

really?

 

[jillian]

Not unless marriage is included in the constitution. Tell me where marriage is declared a right or where the federal government derives its authority on the marriage issue.

Mike, that's simply incorrect as a matter of constitutional construction. If you look at Loving v Virginia, there is a very good discussion about marriage being a fundamental right. Try reading it. You might find it interesting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is about equal protection under the law, which means that in one same gender couple is denied a marriage license all same gender couples must be denied a marriage license, that would be equal. States laws say that two people of the gender cannot marry, they don't specifically state that homosexuals can't marry, so technically a gay man can marry a lesbian, this refutes the lie that homosexuals are denied the right to marry, they can marry, they just cannot marry a person of the same gender.

You forgot to cite the case law in support of this.

The 14th Amendment, Section One:

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.

The bolded text refers to persons only, it doesn’t state a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation – and, to paraphrase the Plyler Court, homosexuals are persons in any sense of the term.

The most recent case law applying the 14th amendment to same sex marriage can be found in Perry v Schwarzenegger, currently under review in the Ninth Circuit, where the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Homosexuals are therefore persons being denied equal access to the marriage laws of the state of California. That they might marry with a female is irrelevant, the state may deny marriage to a couple regardless of gender configuration only upon a reasonable basis. Per current case law with regard to the 14th Amendment, neither California – nor any state or jurisdictions – has realized a reasonable basis.

State laws forbid fathers from marrying daughters, mothers from marrying son, siblings from marrying siblings, bigamy and polygamy, how are gays any better than those people? If they argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the above people how can they argue it applies to their argument?

The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the persons and configurations you noted because laws restricting such behavior are applied equally to all genders and races. If, for example, only Hispanics were banned from engaging in polygamy, that would be subject to a 14th Amendment challenge, a more than likely successful challenge.

Understand that states are authorized to restrict or ban any type of behavior they consider harmful or inappropriate provided such bans or restrictions are applied equally to all. When a state wishes to restrict the behavior of a specific group of people, resulting in a possible civil rights violation, the state must realize a very high standard of a compelling governmental interest.

With regard to same sex marriage that standard doesn’t exist.

That some may see homosexuality as ‘bad’ or ‘sinful’ or ‘deviant’ doesn’t justly violating the Constitutional rights of gays in general or same sex couples in particular. Indeed, the very purpose of the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (applying the BoR to the states) is to protect the unpopular few from the tyranny of the majority, the central tenet of the rule of law and our Constitutional Republic.

 

[drsmith1072]

That seems to apply to this debate as does this

So by that logic states are in violation of the Constitution that prevent felons from owning firearms, license revocations and prohibit people under 21 but over 18 from drinking, do you agree, or are you of the opinion that you agree with one but not the others?

WOW you are really retarded. Have you read the constitution? Apparently not, go back a read it again for the first time starting at the 1st amedment.

You want felons to own handguns?? Seriously, have you read the constitution? Felons have had their "right" to own guns removed through the due process of law because they commited a CRIME. What crime has an homosexual committed in order to justify the removal of their right ti religious freedom?

Driving is a priveledge but marriage is a religious RIGHT that the government has no right to restrict based on the 1st amendment. Don't you think it's time that you learned the difference?

The drinking age was 19 for us when I was stationed in korea. They even sold beer out of the vending machines. I have no problem with drinking as long as it is done responsibly.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
meaning that all laws should be applied to all citizens equally.
Passing a law that denies rights to one group of citizens even as it recognizes that right for other citizens based soley on religious beliefs is a violation of equal protection.

Refer to the above and I'll add this, the Constitution says that in order to be president a person must be age 35 and above, by the reasoning you're using the Constitution is contradicting itself because this requirement violates the 14th Amendment because its age discrimination.

nice leap. I hope you have a parachute. LOL wow. The length you will go to try and stretch to continue this lame and inept argument are beyond absurd. You are actually trying to compare the constitution itself which states the age requirement for president to a law passed by congress that restricts the rights and religious freedoms of a group of citizens based on religious reasons.
There really is no comparison between the two.

So all of your spin based counter argumnets have been countered by the facts.

 

[drsmith1072]

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

Actually it is a freedom of religion issue. Based on their religious beliefs they should be allowed to marry.

The violation of the 14th amendment comes into play when the government chooses to recognize one marriage over another and thereby denying equal protection under the law to all citizens.

Homosexuality is a religion? GTFO here.

WOW thanks for showing how utterly retarded you truly are. When and where did I say "homosexuality is a religion?" Many homosexual are religious people and they follow many different faiths. Some of which even consist of marriage as part of their religious beliefs and some are even christians.

What you said above doesn't apply to the 14th Amendment,

Really, HOW does it not apply? please explain specifically how it doesn't apply. You are really good at saying something now let's see if you have the substance to back it up?

if so then a 18 year old adult could who can't consume alcohol could make the same bogus argument you just made.

And that 18 year old is more than welcome to take that argument to court but then that is NOT what we are discussing and it has NO bearing on the discussion about gay marriage. Please try to stay on topic.

You fell short yet again. However, It's my guess that you are gettting used to it by now.

 

[drsmith1072]

Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.

Afraid that the courts disagree with you

Forget about the fourteenth amendment. The tenth amendment is key in homosexual marriage debate.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Also, not one single homosexual marriage case has cited the US Constitution--all have cited state constitutions. I would love, absolutely love for the Supreme Court to rule on homosexual marriage. Gay rights organizations are afraid of a Supreme Court ruling.

That's great and all but when state law (prohibiting freedom of religion) violates federal law (religious freedom) who wins?

 

[drsmith1072]

It is special consideration to believe that only heterozexual marriage should count and is legal. What do homosexuals asking for the same rights and recogniztion as heterosexual marriages have to do with polygamists, child abusers, or incest?? The answer is NOTHING.

Do you think its special consideration to only let people with sight drive and not blind people? Without the homosexuals pushing their pro-gay agenda this wouldn't even be a topic.

Once again you have to try and change the subject because you know your argument has no foundation in reality. Your blind people analogy has already been shredded by myself and others so why do you feel the need to continue a talking point that has already been shown to be absurd?

Find it in the 14th amendment where heterosexual marriage should be the only one recognized and allowed? Where is it in the constitution?

The burden is on you since you're arguing in favor of gay marriage, I said the 14th Amendment doesn't apply and I presented the example of 18-20 year olds not being able to drink, no one cries violation of the 14th amendment on that because there is no big hype machine and agenda to promote 18-20 year old drinkers as being denied equal protection, so once again what makes gays more special than others?

Actually NO. You started this argument making a claim that you have failed to substantiate so the burden is on you. Claiming that it should apply to other instances that have nothing to do with the central issue is not a valid argument.

again you feel the need to limit the scope of the 14th based on your own personal preference. However, the 14th amendment does not limit equal protection to only "couples" of opposite genders. It applies to ALL CITIZENS and does nothing to define homosexual or heterosexual so where do you get that seperation from??

If a gay man and gay woman marry that constitutes two homosexuals getting marriage as well as the standard that sys only a man and woman shall marry, so gays technically aren't denied the right to marry, two people of the same gender cannot, so you're arguing a strawman.

Nice bs but you failed to address the point that was made or answer the questions asked. You merely parroted some of your previously countered talking points.

So care to answer the simple questions that were asked of you?? What are you afraid of?

 

[JoeB131]

[Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to get married. But win that fight at the ballot box, not the court house.

Interracial marriage wasn't "won" at the ballot box, but in the courts...many, many, many years before it actually HAD majority support.

See where it wasn't until after 1990 that interracial marriage enjoyed majority support? Guess when anti miscegenation laws were struck down? I won't keep you guessing...it was 1967.

Guess what, only a few states had those laws and they weren't really vigorously enforced.

Fact is, there was never a national movement opposing it. These laws were put on the books, people had largely forgotten they were there. Most people still don't marry outside their own race, anyway.

Again, when you win it at the ballot, it will be legitimate. Not until.

 

[drsmith1072]

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

You are really good at telling others to go to the constitution and show where their arguments are SPECIFICALLY defined but you have been asked to do the same and yet I don't see you rushing to do so.

Why is that?

You have to define rights before you make an argument, rights are not simply something you think you should do or be entitled because someone else is doing them.

define rights?? What are you babbling about now?? Are you saying that you don't know what a right is and what me to define it for you?? If you don't know how to define rights then perhaps you shouldn't have started this thread?

BTW, Still waiting on you to do what you ask others to do. Where in the constitution does it support your arguments?? I have already provided the excerpts that support my argument so where are yours?

 

[drsmith1072]

earth to the trolls, this thread is about whether th equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment applies, this has nothing to do with my belief as to whether gays should be married, the dumbfack that told me to suck off a cock it too emtional and retarded to see this.

Uh in case you missed it, you started a thread based on your beliefs and interpretation of the 14th so your beliefs are core to the argument and if you can't do what you demand others must do in order to support their arguments then you are the troll and this thread is pointless and a waste of time.

I never lobbed a personal insult at anyone buster, that facktard attacked me out of anger and spite because he disagreed with my position calling me a homophobe and telling me to suck off on a cock.

Nice dodge but that has noting to do with the FACT that your beliefs are what you used to decide and interpret your misinterpretation of the constitution. Therefore, for you to argue that this has nothing to do with your beliefs is just plain ignorant.

Now if you could just do what you ask others to do and defend your position based on the content of the constitution and stop trying to sidetrack the debate with moronic arguments about blind people driving and felons owning guns then we can actually start a real debate about the topic.

 

[drsmith1072]

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

Yes , gay couples have human rights. It does not need to be in the constitution to be right.

Marriage is not a right nor a human right.

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

 

[Missourian]

Flaylo is right.

A heterosexual man cannot marry a heterosexual man.

A heterosexual man cannot marry a homosexual man.

A homosexual man cannot marry a homosexual man.

There is no discrimination by sexual orientation.

No person, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry the same sex.

 

[Liability]

It is about equal protection under the law, which means that in one same gender couple is denied a marriage license all same gender couples must be denied a marriage license, that would be equal. States laws say that two people of the gender cannot marry, they don't specifically state that homosexuals can't marry, so technically a gay man can marry a lesbian, this refutes the lie that homosexuals are denied the right to marry, they can marry, they just cannot marry a person of the same gender.

State laws forbid fathers from marrying daughters, mothers from marrying son, siblings from marrying siblings, bigamy and polygamy, how are gays any better than those people? If they argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the above people how can they argue it applies to their argument?

Fail-low, you failed English, you moron:

The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

The use ... can't be used.

Fail-low you are a fucking illiterate dip-shit.

 

[drsmith1072]

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

here is the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

marriage at it's core is a religious institution and therfore the governemnt cannot prohibit the religious right of marriage based on the 1st amendment and freedom of religion.

Of course it also clearly states that congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion which should include marriage.

Then along comes the 14th amendment and since the government chooses to recognize one type of marriage then for it not to recognize others is a violation of equal protection under the law.

Read the Constitution there are no different types of marriages and even if the gays must prove that when states enacted their marriage laws it was done under discriminatory circumstances, otherwise how can one argue discrimination and invoke the 14th Amendment?

More parroting from you, imagine that. No different types of marriages?? Is marriage defined at all in the constitution?

After your repeat of your "different types of marriages" your message got a little garbled and doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say?

BTW I thought you wanted to talk about the constitution?? I quoted it and you could have cared less. LOL

 

[Mr.Nick]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

In what universe does our government grant its citizens rights?

We the people grant our government rights dummy..

This is a state issue and its always been a state issue and any intelligent person knows this.

The Fourteenth Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage and everything to do with CIVIL RIGHTS and gay marriage is NOT a civil liberty or right.

Show me where it says anything about marriage in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yes , gay couples have human rights. It does not need to be in the constitution to be right.

Marriage is not a right nor a human right.

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

I can - in what amendment is marriage of any kind outlined as a right PERIOD??

Marriage is a contract and it's up to the states to "recognize" what is defined in the said contract.

Not to mention there is a lot of unprecedented shit people believe are outlined in the constitution that ARE NOT, such as income taxes, separation of church and state and marriage in general just to name a few.

 

[drsmith1072]

It is special consideration to believe that only heterozexual marriage should count and is legal. What do homosexuals asking for the same rights and recogniztion as heterosexual marriages have to do with polygamists, child abusers, or incest?? The answer is NOTHING.

again you feel the need to limit the scope of the 14th based on your own personal preference. However, the 14th amendment does not limit equal protection to only "couples" of opposite genders. It applies to ALL CITIZENS and does nothing to define homosexual or heterosexual so where do you get that seperation from??

Actually, sir...

You are the one that is limiting the scope of the 14th based on your agenda.

Really?? How??

Look, honestly I don't care about gay marriage at all. I care about misapplication of the Constitution and you are certainly guilty of it here.

again how? How is stating that flayo is trying to change the subject in his attempts to link incest et al with homosexual marriage a misapplication??

The privilage of marriage is not an issue here.

No the "priveledge" is not an issue but you go to a large portion of the right and they will argue that they have a religious right to get married so I find it hilarious how so many on the right are now arguing that marriage is not a right in this context so they can try to present an argument against homosexual marriage.

You kind of have a choice to make here. Either you allow a state to make a choice about who is and who is not allowed to get married or you don't.

the states do decide. however if their decision violates federal law and the constitution then who wins?? I am certain that several states would have loved to keep slavery but they got overruled on that one didn't they?

Either you interpret (unfairly and ignorant of history IMHO) the 14th to mean that the states have no real reason to exist because all laws must be universal across all the states or you don't.

Your misinterpretation is flawed (out of ignorance or blind stupidity IMHO) at it's core becuase no one is arguing that states should not exist. Based on your misinterpretation lower courts have no need to exist because they can be overruled by higher courts. Do you see how ignorant you spin is now??

If your argument is that marriage is a privilage that must be afforded everyone without restricton then you must allow poligamy, incest, adult/child, beastiality and homosexuality.

I have already stated my position on marriage. It is a religious right (according to the right when they are talking about heterosexual marriage) that does no harm to anyone and is between consenting adults. So your claim that all of your examples must be allowed as well is absurd, to put it kindly.

The reason is not because they are similar classes, the reason is because it is eligibilty. Nobody is saying that someone who is gay can't get married, much the same way nobody is saying that a polygamist is not restricted from marriage. If a polygamist wants to get married it is simple, they are allowed to marry one person who meets the criteria of the state. A gay person can marry one person who fits the criteria of the state. A straight person is allowed to marry one person who fits the criteria of the state.

Of course your argument that you cannot be restricted of any privilage also means that anyone may drive anything on a public roadway. If you have a car that fits the criteria (in my case, of the state of texas) then you are allowed (provided you are licensed) to drive that car on a public roadway. You should be challanging every single law on the basis of the 14th amendment, in fact you should petition to have states abolished period.

So your argument against allowing homosexual marriage is that it's a gateway marriage and that it will open the door to other unseemly types of marriage?? So in other words you have no valid argument against it you just like trying to scare people with fears of hwat you believe will come later. BOO!. LOL Thanks for a lot of words that in the end said nothing of value.

Or, you can recognize that the 14th amendment was put in to protect people certain classes from having discriminatory laws written that isolate people of protected classes. I can declare myself a minority based on the fact that I'm over 6ft and speak Korean. I can also declare myself a minorty based on the fact that I am a Texans fan. Should an LSU fan be able to declare that because they are an LSU fan they should be exempt from the restrictions placed on marriage in the state of Lousyanna and therefore be allowed to marry their sister?

and yet the 14th amendment doen't speak of classes it speaks of CITIZENS and how the laws should be applied to them all equally. Funny how you missed that.

Before you give me the "gay people aren't the same as incest, incest is disgusting"... YOU find someone who is incestuious as disgusting as some people find gay people. I'm not arguing because I care either way, I'd rather see the state the hell out of the institution of marriage, but before I see that I want to see the correct use of an amendment.

Mike

WOW, way to try to put words into my mouth and attack me for something that I never presented as my argument. LOL If you want to see the correct use of an amendment you might want to try reading it first. LOL

 

[Liability]

Marriage is not a right nor a human right.

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

I can - in what amendment is marriage of any kind outlined as a right PERIOD??

Marriage is a contract and it's up to the states to "recognize" what is defined in the said contract.

Not to mention there is a lot of unprecedented shit people believe are outlined in the constitution that ARE NOT, such as income taxes, separation of church and state and marriage in general just to name a few.

Actually, if you are forgetting that Amendments are part of the Constitution, that would account for the line about Income Taxes not being a "part" of the Constitution.

But I agree that "separation of church and state" is NOT in there. Neither is "marriage."

 

[drsmith1072]

I don't care if gays get the marriage right or not, the point is that they cannot use the 14th Amendment to promote something special for them when that isn't and wasn't the intent of the 14th Amendment.

How is asking for the same rights and having those same recognized asking for something special for them? It isn't anything new. These rights already exist for other citizens so why not afford them to citizens who just want to be treated the same as other citizens.

You act as if granting them the same rights that others already have will somehow give them something no one else has.

 

[drsmith1072]

And you would argue that a blind man has a "right" to drive under the 14th Amendment? Drinking and marriage are not rights.

If marriage is not a right then why do some, according to you only opposite sex couples, have a "right" to do it while others are denied that same "right"?

The only one saying marriage is a right is you.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you. But then you can't even read or comprehend an excerpt of the constitution even as you demand that others quote it even though you can't do it yourself to back up your own arguments.