Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

[Vigilante]

Some excellent points....

Townhall ^
The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...

 

[emilynghiem]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

Interesting. You should take that up with these guys:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage"

Because no one ever said it did.

Indeed, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate both same- and opposite-sex couples.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state – including marriage law.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with each state's marriage law, to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment – which is why state measures seeking to do so have been invalidated by the courts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

Your ignorance of, and contempt for, our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law is noted.

 

[TheOldSchool]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

 

[Vigilante]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

Interesting. You should take that up with these guys:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually TheOldSchool
they fought the same battles between "states rights vs. federal rights"
and "individual liberty and religious freedom vs. govt mandating laws against the people"

Examples: Thomas Jefferson's letter on the Wall separating church and state.
And William Penn's famous trial where a jury refused to convict him of preaching against the law,
and nullified the law claiming religious freedom.

We are just taking this issue to its natural conclusion that has been going on forever.
It's the same battle on different fronts, and still needs to be resolved or it keeps recurring.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

 

[Vigilante]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

 

[emilynghiem]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

 

[TheOldSchool]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!

Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage? Because that's fine with me. Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated.”

This is naïve and sophomoric.

The states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being struck down by the courts.

Had the states simply obeyed the Constitution, and recognized the equal protection rights of gay Americans by allowing them access to marriage law, there would be no reason to get the Federal courts involved, and no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

No TheOldSchool
Like States TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery!
That's why there is opposition to mandates penalizing the free choice of health care.

If the govt is taking someone's labor, depriving them of liberty, without any due process or any crime committed,
that's a form of involuntary servitude. The people or the states have the right to demand representation where there is taxation involved, especially on the private and free choice of how to manage and pay for health care.

 

[Vigilante]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!