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

[drsmith1072]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says marriage is a right that everyone inherently, lets just stick to the Constitution here.

Are you of the opinion that unless something is specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution that it cannot be a right held by the people?



>>>>

Are you of the impression that gays should be able to do everything a heterosexual can do because the 14th Amendment says so? If you do then biology must be discriminating and needs to be sued.

Notice how flaylo can't even answer a simple question. LOL He's got nothing which is why he responds with questions and can't even answer a simple question about his own beliefs concerning the very document he is pretending to discuss.

 

[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.

Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.

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

Have you read the constitution??

You have a subject-subject agreement problem here man. Can you tell which word you are ignoring? (its the dark letters)

Also, if your argument were based in good faith, how does this effect whether or not the 14th amendment applies to the subject? I sense that your argument is that two people of the same sex can marry someone because you want them to be able to and you don't care what the argument used is.

A man should be able to marry another man because frogs have no hair, there you go my friend. Problem solved.
Mike

You have an ignorance problem. What is congress but the law writing branch of the GOVERNMENT. Are you rerally that ignorant?? Are you really trying to hang your hat on that slight distinction. Oops I said government instead of congress but then who writes the laws for the government??

The force is weak with you young moron. Your "senses" are worthless and little more than your lame attempt to put words into my mouth so you can continue to attack me over arguments i have not made and things that i have not said.

That kind of desperation on your part is a sure sign that even you know that you have nothing valid to offer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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

So are you saying that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution it cannot be held by the people?

Not to mention there is a lot of unprecedented shit people believe are outlined in the constitution that ARE NOT, such as income taxes,...

United States Constitution, Amendment 16:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."​

>>>>

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oh crap, here we go with the gay marriage BS, yet again. Like we don't have more pressing issues to worry about except a couple o' deviant perverts getting married.

Look people, it's a states issue. Leave the fed government out of it. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states in any way that marriage is a right.

If states voters decide to accept perverts being married, so be it.......If they don't, even better.

Leave the damn federal government out of it.....It's not their issue.

Dumbasses.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh crap, here we go with the gay marriage BS, yet again. Like we don't have more pressing issues to worry about except a couple o' deviant perverts getting married.

Look people, it's a states issue. Leave the fed government out of it. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states in any way that marriage is a right.

If states voters decide to accept perverts being married, so be it.......If they don't, even better.

Leave the damn federal government out of it.....It's not their issue.

Dumbasses.

Can we then place you in the column of supporting the repeal of the section of DOMA usurping the power of the States to decide on valid legal Civil Marriages and call for the federal government then to recognize all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State Law?



>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

If the law stated that all people regardless of whether they're gay or not can marry and someone then denied a gay person to marry then the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment could be invoked, it cannot be invoked just because someone is mad that they can't have the same thing as somebody else.

Oops then you just countered your own argumnet.
The first amendment states that the government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The 1st amendment gives them the right to express their religion freely and marry if they choose to do so. So based on that the constitution says that they should be able to marry and laws like the DOMA violate the constitution.
The 14th amendment applies because the DOMA states that the marriages of homosexual couples do not count while the marriages of hetersexuals do count.

Now we'll examine this terribly constructed argument.

That's what i do everytime you make one. LOL Which happens quite often then you come at me with lame personal attacks and works of fiction that you falsely attribute to me.

The first amendment doesn't apply to state governments, first of all.

and then comes the 14th amendment to save the day.

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.

Second the first amendment doesn't apply to all religious practices. You cannot claim to be committing an honor killing in the name of religion, for example.

Thanks for that terribly constructed argument. An honor KILLING requires the violation of a persons right to life which even you agree supercedes the KILLERS right to KILL for honors sake. You have the right to exercise your religion but it ends where someone elses rights begin.

As a better example, polygamy is part of a religion. It is not legal.

No it's not legal thanks for clearing that up. LOL Should it be illegal? That is a better question for another thread. Go start one right now.

I agree that DOMA violates the constitution but gay marriage is not protected under the Constitution.

Mike

You had me until "but" then you lost me with another of your unsubstantiated claims. Your only argument against homosexual marriages is that it is a "gateway marriage" that COULD lead to other types of marriage and that just is NOT a valid or substnative argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As the Court noted in Romer v Evans (1996)

We must conclude that Amendment 2 [disallowing homosexuals from accessing anti-discrimination laws] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Whether disallowing gays access to marriage laws or anti-discrimination laws it makes no difference, both are un-Constitutional violations of the 14th Amendment.

Consequently the 14th Amendment is clearly applicable to same-sex marriage.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oh crap, here we go with the gay marriage BS, yet again. Like we don't have more pressing issues to worry about except a couple o' deviant perverts getting married.

Look people, it's a states issue. Leave the fed government out of it. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states in any way that marriage is a right.

If states voters decide to accept perverts being married, so be it.......If they don't, even better.

Leave the damn federal government out of it.....It's not their issue.

Dumbasses.

Can we then place you in the column of supporting the repeal of the section of DOMA usurping the power of the States to decide on valid legal Civil Marriages and call for the federal government then to recognize all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State Law?



>>>>

If the STATES voters decide to recognize Dykes and Faggots being married, I don't care.

Me, i'll continue to throw money at our states issue, and try to keep it as not recognized in this state.. And if the VOTERS decide otherwise, so be it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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."

Yes, but Amendments cannot contradict other Amendments and our Fourth Amendment is quite clear... The Sixteenth Amendment is illegitimate.

The only legal tax is a "fair tax" and as a matter of fact that was how our government functioned from its very conception until 1913 - at least not at the federal level - Hell, today some states don't even tax income.

 

[drsmith1072]

WOW! So states should decide and the federal govenrnment has no jurisdiction over whether the states are violationg the rights of citizens of thsi country?? REALLY??

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.

So unless it is specifically enumerated in the constitution it is not a right?? Really? Here we go again.

Freedom of religion is provided for in the constitution.

Marriage is a part of religion that is RECOGNIZED by the government for some but not for others based solely on religious beliefs.

It should be wrong for the governemnt to recongize any marriage however since they recognize herterosexual marriages then the 14th amendment states that the laws should be applied equally to ALL citizens not just heterosexuals.

Are you tracking yet?

I agree that the government, state or federal, has NO business being involved in marriage. It is after all at it's core a religious institution.

However, do to the FACT that the governemnt is involved to the point of defining mariage and recognizing some even as it does not recognize others the 14th amendment does apply due to the fact that the law is not applied equally to the citizens of this country.

From where, exactly, does it derive this power?

where does what derive this power?

The law is applied equally. Gay people are not prohibited from getting married.

Mike

Really?? So a gay man can marry another gay man and have it recognized and have all of the same spousal rights that heterosexual marriages have?? If they are being told who they can and can't marry based on sex then they are prohibited.

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

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh crap, here we go with the gay marriage BS, yet again. Like we don't have more pressing issues to worry about except a couple o' deviant perverts getting married.

Look people, it's a states issue. Leave the fed government out of it. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states in any way that marriage is a right.

If states voters decide to accept perverts being married, so be it.......If they don't, even better.

Leave the damn federal government out of it.....It's not their issue.

Dumbasses.

Can we then place you in the column of supporting the repeal of the section of DOMA usurping the power of the States to decide on valid legal Civil Marriages and call for the federal government then to recognize all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State Law?



>>>>

If the STATES voters decide to recognize Dykes and Faggots being married, I don't care.

Me, i'll continue to throw money at our states issue, and try to keep it as not recognized in this state.. And if the VOTERS decide otherwise, so be it.

I didn't ask states voters (btw there are states with no state vote option), from your previous statement that "leave the fed government out of it", I asked if you support truly getting the fed government out of it be repealing the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing all legal Civil Marriages under state law.

So do you? Support federal recognition of all legal Civil Marriages under state law.


>>>>

 

[Wicked Jester]

Can we then place you in the column of supporting the repeal of the section of DOMA usurping the power of the States to decide on valid legal Civil Marriages and call for the federal government then to recognize all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State Law?



>>>>

If the STATES voters decide to recognize Dykes and Faggots being married, I don't care.

Me, i'll continue to throw money at our states issue, and try to keep it as not recognized in this state.. And if the VOTERS decide otherwise, so be it.

I didn't ask states voters (btw there are states with no state vote option), from your previous statement that "leave the fed government out of it", I asked if you support truly getting the fed government out of it be repealing the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing all legal Civil Marriages under state law.

So do you? Support federal recognition of all legal Civil Marriages under state law.


>>>>

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

 

[drsmith1072]

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??

Asking a question in response to a question is NOT a valid response. Nice try though.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So are you saying that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution it cannot be held by the people?

Not at the federal level unless its legislated by your legislators.

At the state level it can per the Tenth Amendment. Which is why the idea has been added to state ballots NUMEROUS times.

United States Constitution, Amendment 16:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."​

The Sixteenth Amendment is illegitimate because it contradicts the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional by de facto.

Our legislators may as well ban the First Amendment via a hypothetical 28th amendment and call that constitutional and congress acting within its powers...

 

[Mr.Nick]

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??

Asking a question in response to a question is NOT a valid response. Nice try though.

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh crap, here we go with the gay marriage BS, yet again. Like we don't have more pressing issues to worry about except a couple o' deviant perverts getting married.

Look people, it's a states issue. Leave the fed government out of it. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states in any way that marriage is a right.

If states voters decide to accept perverts being married, so be it.......If they don't, even better.

Leave the damn federal government out of it.....It's not their issue.

Dumbasses.

Can we then place you in the column of supporting the repeal of the section of DOMA usurping the power of the States to decide on valid legal Civil Marriages and call for the federal government then to recognize all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State Law?



>>>>

If the STATES voters decide to recognize Dykes and Faggots being married, I don't care.

Me, i'll continue to throw money at our states issue, and try to keep it as not recognized in this state.. And if the VOTERS decide otherwise, so be it.

I didn't ask states voters (btw there are states with no state vote option), from your previous statement that "leave the fed government out of it", I asked if you support truly getting the fed government out of it be repealing the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing all legal Civil Marriages under state law.

So do you? Support federal recognition of all legal Civil Marriages under state law.


>>>>

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

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."

Yes, but Amendments cannot contradict other Amendments and our Fourth Amendment is quite clear... The Sixteenth Amendment is illegitimate.

How so?? The 4th guarantees against "UNREASONABLE" seizure and how is something that was ratified by the country (42 states by 1913) considered UNREASONABLE?

Please explain.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Asking a question in response to a question is NOT a valid response. Nice try though.

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

No it is not specifically defined in the constitution however, it is defined in law and recognized by the governemnt for tax purposes and spousal rights so it's not as if we are making new law out of nothing.

I do agree that it is an issue for states to decide but if their decision violates federal laws including the constitution (freedom of religion) then their decision should be struck down.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I didn't ask states voters (btw there are states with no state vote option), from your previous statement that "leave the fed government out of it", I asked if you support truly getting the fed government out of it be repealing the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing all legal Civil Marriages under state law.

So do you? Support federal recognition of all legal Civil Marriages under state law.


>>>>

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

I believe the fed government needs to stay out of marriage, PERIOD!

So, yes, I support the repeal.

Like I said, it comes down to what the states VOTERS want.....And if the voters cannot vote on whether or not to recognize deviant pervert marriage, then the state should never recognize it.

Ya' see, i'm hoping that here in this state, we can continue to win the war. If the perve's in this state want to go move to another state that recognizes it, GOOD!.......The less of 'em around here, the better!

 

[Mr.Nick]

I didn't ask states voters (btw there are states with no state vote option), from your previous statement that "leave the fed government out of it", I asked if you support truly getting the fed government out of it be repealing the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing all legal Civil Marriages under state law.

So do you? Support federal recognition of all legal Civil Marriages under state law.


>>>>

I think it's pretty obvious.

If the states voters accept it, so be it!.......I don't fuckin' care.

And, if states voters don't have an option to vote on it, then it should not be recognized, period!

Sorry, it's not "pretty obvious" it actually appears to be dancing around with out having to answer a direct question.

I'm not asking about "state voters", you claimed that the federal government should get out of marriage and that it should be determined by the states. I agree, I think that the federal government should get out of it and the section of DOMA that bars with recognition of legal Civil Marriages under state law should be repealed.


Given you previous statement about getting the federal government out of Civil Marriage do you support the repeal of that section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing legal Civil Marriages under state law?


It's a direct question, why does providing a direct answer appear so difficult?


>>>>

DOMA A) is not a constitutional amendment and B) circumvents the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.