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

[natstew]

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.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

 

[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.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

Ignorant nonsense.

The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'

 

[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.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

Good point, natstew
I hope someone gets this point across:]
Just because Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Atheism
should be respected equally as free exercise of religion
doesn't make them THE SAME or EQUAL to Christianity.

So why argue that with gay marriage vs. traditional marriage?
Why try to say that laws have to make these things "equal"?

That's not necessary in order to have equal protection of free choice and exercise of beliefs. Society is not required to "endorse or recognize" these religious beliefs or practices.

Buddhism will never be equal to Christianity
because Christianity (and also Constitutionalism) play a different role that
involves enforcing laws by agreement among the people to
represent the whole group agreeing to that principle. Buddhism isn't used that way but for internal discipline and spiritual harmony with others; it isn't for establishing law for people to follow as a social structure.

It's one thing to want equal protection and not banning a practice.
But trying to get the govt and public to ENDORSE a practice is like trying to
get Shariah practices in Islam or principles in Buddhism written into state laws.

 

[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.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

Ignorant nonsense.

The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'

Yes C_Clayton_Jones
So why not keep marriage in the church and in private where it isn't subject to govt regulations!
Exactly!

 

[DGS49]

"Marriage" is governed by the states (and must be defined legally) because the institution has a tremendous impact on the lives of several persons, most of whom do not enter voluntarily (children).

Marriage laws protect the interests of the spouses and children in the event of death, divorce, or abandonment. Largely, the protections are for WIVES and children, who can be made destitute in the case of divorce or abandonment, or in case the husband/father seeks to disinherit them.

OTOH, the religious institution of marriage is similar but actually quite different from the civil institution. For example, some churches do not recognize civil marriages, and once people are married, they may or may not recognize a civil divorce. The States do not recognize a religious annulment. A Catholic entering into a civil marriage then getting divorced, was neither married nor divorced in the eyes of the Church, and can marry inside the church "for the first time."

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, nor does it create a "Right of Privacy." It only requires that when the State interacts with people, they be treated "equally." But this has nothing to do with gay marriage because everyone is treated equally by state marriage statutes that prohibit gay marriage. Everyone is equally entitled to marry any competent, unrelated adult of the opposite sex.

And as Rick Santorum pointed out several years ago, if the fictitious Right of Privacy demands that people be permitted to legally marry someone of the same gender, then that same Right of Privacy would demand that they be permitted to marry relatives and multiple partners. Since it doesn't actually exist (the right of privacy), it can mean whatever a majority on the USSC wants it to mean.

 

[whitehall]

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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,...

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.

Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"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.

Margaret Marshall's ruling was brilliant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.

The Court is NOT being asked to rule on beliefs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Except when it is a federally protected right. Read the US Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Court: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

So of course they CANNOT and WILL NOT allow states to violate a most basic right.

Oh well...

 

[emilynghiem]

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,...

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.

Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School

Dear Dante maybe not to you.
But there is a conflict in beliefs in values when Atheists sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God due to differences in beliefs. Or when people on both sides of the marriage debate are having to sue or pass legislation to defend their beliefs.

If people or the laws were neutral, there would be no need to sue or pass laws to force change due to beliefs being left out or in conflict with each other over these laws.

Whatever you call that clash in beliefs, it is based on people's creeds.

And yes, the Courts and legislatures are being used or abused to establish
laws, so if these carry some bias that treats beliefs unequally or excludes or favors one more than the other, then the result is protest by the side whose beliefs are not protected equally. There is no way to get around the fact that creeds are involved on BOTH sides. Just because they don't recognize the other side as a valid creed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Since both sides are protesting it is clear to me that both have beliefs at stake with these laws and rulings.

I"m sorry you can't see this, but from looking at both sides equally they are both yelling to defend their beliefs and values and yelling about discrimination and punishment by the other side. pretty mutual to me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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,...

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.

Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School

Dear Dante maybe not to you..

and NOT to those making a legal argument before the court.

That is how the courts work, you make legal arguments

 

[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.

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.

Just like Roe v. Wade took away all the 'abortion' threads...

 

[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.

Just like Roe v. Wade took away all the 'abortion' threads...

What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.
There is still not a consensus on laws. There are still legislative battles going on all the time because this hasn't been settled. You are very small minded to just judge things based on what looks convenient to you.

Just because I don't have money to sue and can't find a lawyer
doesn't mean my freedom and beliefs aren't violated by bad laws being passed and enforced.

Are you going to judge if there are any critical issues of elderly abuse, or abuses of mentally retarded
or mentally ill on death row, just because not as many people are posting about those issues?

Why would you want to silence issues instead of resolving the root conflict?

Is it more important for you to impose order and mandates for the sake of your political convenience?

Sorry but that sounds like even the far right Christians who would rather force their laws and their ways and make everyone else shut up. If that's wrong when the right tries to do that, it's just as wrong for the left.

Are you sure you want to use these tactics to establish your views, and then complain if the right does that?
if you want people on the right to use reason and allow people to come to conclusions by free choice,
why wouldn't you respect the same for others?
if you don't want rightwing solutions legislated from the bench to shut down and exclude your beliefs from the left, why would you want to do that to other people? If you don't want govt abused to do that to you?

C_Clayton_Jones
I am curious why you seem to celebrate when strongarmed tactics are used to force things your way through govt, but fear and dread when the rightwing threatens to use govt to silence or exclude your beliefs hoping to shut down dissenting objections.

Why isn't there mutual respect and mutual responsibility for democratic due process?
to make sure govt truly respects equal protection of the laws for ALL beliefs,
not just yours? Isn't that a form of religious bias or political discrimination by creed?

if you don't like govt abused to override your objections, why would you celebrate this?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“But there is a conflict in beliefs in values when Atheists sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God due to differences in beliefs. Or when people on both sides of the marriage debate are having to sue or pass legislation to defend their beliefs.”

Laws that seek to conjoin church and state such as government endorsing religion with crosses or references to 'god' are invalidated by the courts because they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, having nothing to do with “differences in beliefs' or 'atheists.'

Just as measures seeking to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to marriage contracts are being invalidated by the courts because they are un-Constitutional, also having nothing to do with 'beliefs.'

Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private individuals or organizations, in no way compelling anyone to 'defend their beliefs'; those hostile to gay Americans may continue to invest in their beliefs composed of an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays absent interference from government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”

Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.

But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.

 

[James Everett]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”

Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.

But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.

All of this is just mindless dribble from the indoctrinated. Your SCOTUS has as always one interest, and will interject its opinions which have become so contradictory, that your judicial system has become nothing more than a gaggle of Kangaroo courts, operating in the interests of centralized power through fictional jurisdiction. A child in the womb is a fetus unless it's life is ended by other means than a mothers choice to end that "fetus" child's life, otherwise if that "fetus" child's life is ended in the mothers womb via a drunk driver etc causing its death the perp is charged with murder. It is also interesting that one is considered the " mother" of a "fetus" if a "fetus" is not a child/life, then how can there be a mother?
The re-defining of the set historical,traditional, legal, definition is not a right of the minority, nor is it a 14th amendment issue. The set ,historical, traditional, and legal definition is ...."A contract between a man and a woman" as far back as the earliest dictionary of the English language in 1755.
Loving v Virginia was a 14th amendment issue because it was indeed a marriage contract between a man and a woman.
"Gay marriage" is a fiction and does not fit the historical, traditional, or legal definition of a marriage contract.
There is no right to re- define the legal definition of a marriage contract to fit a same sex couple.
There is not a denial of equality in denying the re- defining of a contract to fit that which it does not. The only denial of rights would be if a State denied the right to contract a civil union between same sex couples and for a State to deny the fulfilling of that civil union contract equally between same sex couples. The right to contract cannot be denied unless such contract infringes on the life, liberty, or property of another, yet your SCOTUS is only interested in extending its fictional jurisdiction to further consolidated a centralized power, this was and is the purpose of your 1787 U.S. CONstitution, and the reason why it should be abandoned as a tyrannical system in favor of the return to the Articles of Confederation.

 

[bodecea]

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,...

Is marriage a legal entity in all states?

Is homosexual behavior currently illegal?

 

[bodecea]

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.

So, what you are saying is...because you have a certain "belief", you can restrict my access to already legal rights.