Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

"But this is a peculiar sort of redefinition that ignores the only reason marriage exists or ever existed."

This is a patently indefensible position. If the contract of legal marriage existed solely, or even primarily, to further the interests of childbearing, then childbearing would be part of the contract. It isn't. Marriage is a contract of domestic partnership, not a contract of agreement to bear children. The roots of marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate childbirth developed under a system of women as property, a system I am more than happy to see abandoned. There are countless tangible benefits to a legally-recognized, socially-normalized domestic partnership that have absolutely nothing to do with two individuals bearing children. Those benefits, and their arbitrary exclusivity, are at the heart of this issue.

Interesting how feminism has actually changed the tenor of the conversation by spreading lies. The concepts of marriage and property rights dates back to the Middle Ages, about the same time the concept of chivalry sprang up. The idea was that the strong was supposed to protect the weak, and that having strength actually imposed obligations on a person. "With great power comes great responsibility" is not just a geeky saying, it is the essence of a code that is rarely seen these days, and is exactly the opposite of what feminist denigrate as patrimony.

This can be demonstrated even in the Bible. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen 2:24

Nothing in there about a woman becoming property, or that property being part of the man's family, is there? That is because, despite the fact that we label that early time as being patriarchal, it really wasn't intended that men control everything. Women didn't become property until it became politically feasible to use them as such, and it really only happened among the noble class, not the commoners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

That is not quite true, even if it is common knowledge. The simple fact is thatm if civil rights issues always lost at the ballot box no one would ever put them on a ballot. The truth is they win more often than they loose, which is why most of the Northern States were free states before the Civil War, and why most states had already eliminated anti-miscegenation laws before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Taylor. You do a disservice to the entire country, and all the people that fought long and hard for civil rights over the years. If you want to hate parts of this country's history you certainly have that right, you do not have a right to rewrite the good parts of our history to justify your hate though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

Exactly. That's why wanting it to be voted on 'by the people' is so senseless. People will vote emotions Every. Time. Not logic, Not law.

Sure they will, which is why California has never voted in a pro civil rights constitutional amendment, because everyone in the whole fracking world is a selfish asshole except you.

Say whatever you like about me. Call me a windbag, a racist, even an idiot, but I will never be so arrogant that I would think people are that selfish, and I actually believe in original sin.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's how the law works.

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

Hot is saying what I have been saying throughout this thread.

 

[Ravi]

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

You seem to be pro civil union, so tell me, if a gay couple gets a legal civil union AND finds a church that will marry them in a religious ceremony (and some will do just that) are they then ALLOWED to claim they are married? Or will you still object?

 

[Artevelde]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "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. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

It is really very simple: marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a cornerstone of human society. There is no other argument needed. But the OP is too pig-headed and too much of a bigot to be able to comprehend this argument.

 

[bodecea]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "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. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

It is really very simple: marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a cornerstone of human society. There is no other argument needed. But the OP is too pig-headed and too much of a bigot to be able to comprehend this argument.

If that were so, how come there have been so many variations over the millenium?

 

[bodecea]

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

I foresee that in the not-too-distant future, Sharpies will come with erasers and be called pencils.

And same-sex marriage will be legal.

Bank on it.

And some day, women will be considered equal citizens with the right to vote....despite was many religions say.

 

[hortysir]

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

You seem to be pro civil union, so tell me, if a gay couple gets a legal civil union AND finds a church that will marry them in a religious ceremony (and some will do just that) are they then ALLOWED to claim they are married? Or will you still object?

I would not object to them being granted the same privileges and benefits as a married couple.

But just because a church that I don't follow calls them polka-dotted, that doesn't change my definition of Caucasian or Latino.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

Could you share it?

 

[BDBoop]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

Could you share it?

It's in her thread, but here ya go.

 

[Sallow]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "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. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

It is really very simple: marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a cornerstone of human society. There is no other argument needed. But the OP is too pig-headed and too much of a bigot to be able to comprehend this argument.

Bigot in what way, exactly?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "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. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

It is really very simple: marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a cornerstone of human society. There is no other argument needed. But the OP is too pig-headed and too much of a bigot to be able to comprehend this argument.

You forgot to post your link citing Supreme Court cases overturning the case law cited in the OP.

 

[hortysir]

You forgot to post your link citing Supreme Court cases overturning the case law cited in the OP.

The only precedent cited that mentions same-sex marriage is a Sate ruling.
States have that privilege.

Even Obama says so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "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. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

It is really very simple: marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a cornerstone of human society. There is no other argument needed. But the OP is too pig-headed and too much of a bigot to be able to comprehend this argument.

You forgot to post your link citing Supreme Court cases overturning the case law cited in the OP.

The case law in the OP doesn't apply to same sex marriage.

FindLaw: Nebraska's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Restored by Federal Appeals Court

 

[Peach]

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

I foresee that in the not-too-distant future, Sharpies will come with erasers and be called pencils.

And same-sex marriage will be legal.

Bank on it.

And some day, women will be considered equal citizens with the right to vote....despite was many religions say.

Not until 1967 were the last anti miscegenation laws tossed; it is time NOW to end the laws denying gay Americans the ability to marry. NOW, not "in the future", "when society is ready for it", or "in due course". NOW(.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

Could you share it?

It's in her thread, but here ya go.

That will be a loyal buddy if someone treats her right. Beautiful

 

[BDBoop]

Could you share it?

It's in her thread, but here ya go.

That will be a loyal buddy if someone treats her right. Beautiful

She is. Her new mom is one of my best friends.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just for further evidence on question #3 it's worth noting that the guy making this argument and asking these questions has a Romney icon in his signature.

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good fucking Christ Peach.

And hell, these days "California Republicans" are what most other states would call "leftists". It's not like California's got anything like an unskewed perspective on the world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good fucking Christ Peach.

You forgot Arnie as Gov. I forgot the SECOND bad actor left office, but still know a large part of CA is very conservative. LA & SF are not the state. Nor is Michigan "ultra liberal"; Oregon is a liberal state in many ways. Not going for GHWB, DOLE, G the horrendous, and McCain does not make a state liberal.

How about the fact that their governor is a Democrat, only 27 of the 80 seats in their State Assembly are held by Republicans, only 14 of the 40 seats in their State Senate are held by Republicans, both of their US Senate seats are held by Democrats, and 34 of their 53 US House seats are held by Democrats. Oh, and 7 of California's 10 largest cities have Democrat mayors. Do you think THAT might make a state liberal?