And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

[paperview]

The fact that it isn't spelled out as a fundamental right as a union between a man and a woman is the issue.

Exactly my point. Heterosexual marriage is not a right thus the states should be able to regulate the institution of marriage. Much like they do drivers license. Driving isn't a right and neither is marriage. We are bastardizing the word right.

the state can deny you the privilege to drive. The state can not deny two consenting heterosexual adults from marrying. So if that is the case, there is a legitimate argument as to why it is unjust to deny two consenting homosexual adults from marrying.

Now, as a conservative, if you can tell me how two men/women marrying will affect your life, then there is an argument......but if it doesn't affect your life, then, as a conservative, why should you care?

Sure, I respect the religious rights position that it interferes with their religious definition of marriage...although I do not agree....but I am not religious so it is not fair for me to say they are wrong in their thinking.

But for true conservatives that are not ideological from a religious standpoint, I do not understand the argument....for true conservatives should not care what their neighbor does as long as it does not interfere with their own lives.

My position. You will not change it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's some more -- Chew on this:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.
Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “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.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “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.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes, and most of them deal with the definition of marriage when they ruled, which was and always has been between a man and woman, not directly related.

Judges have been wrong, such as the Dred Scott ruling.

What would be nice is if you would point me to the document that states that Marriage is a right. Not a ruling from a judge but something like the Bill of Rights.

Try the 9th amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals will be happy to pretend that the people in these states have changed their minds and now accept homosexuality as normal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most on this board know my position on gay marriage.

That being said, I am against the federal government intervening/overriding state decisions.

We are a republic with individual states and whereas I believe the people ultimately will decide in favor of gay marriage in time in all states, until then, it should remain a state matter.

If the federal government couldn't override individual states' gun laws based on rulings that they violated the 2nd amendment,

what's the point of having a 2nd amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals will be happy to pretend that the people in these states have changed their minds and now accept homosexuality as normal.

I doubt many believe that laws against child molesting cause child molestors to stop wanting to molest children.

 

[Jarhead]

Most on this board know my position on gay marriage.

That being said, I am against the federal government intervening/overriding state decisions.

We are a republic with individual states and whereas I believe the people ultimately will decide in favor of gay marriage in time in all states, until then, it should remain a state matter.

If the federal government couldn't override individual states' gun laws based on rulings that they violated the 2nd amendment,

what's the point of having a 2nd amendment?

Because that is the constitution.

Is gay marriage or heterosexual marriage addressed in the constitution?

However, since I wrote that post, someone responded with something that helped change my position....and I posted such.......so I guess it is irrelevant

 

[NYcarbineer]

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.


U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II said the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."

https://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-kentucky-recognize-same-sex-marriages-003438666--finance.html


How many states does this make it? I'm losing track. It seems like a couple a week now. And so many red states. Ouch.

Bad couple of months for the anti-equality crowd.

Yes, the judicial branches are certainly going against the will of the people no doubt. One man gets to decide what is right for people who have already decided, that is tyranny.

Tyranny, tyranny, tyranny. That's what John Wilkes Booth was yelling about right after he shot Lincoln, wasn't it?

 

[hazlnut]

Well of course there is the money aspect to grab their partners Social Security after they die.

Just like them greedy old white gals when their ol' fart husbands die.

Mariage is all about money and rights.

 

[Seawytch]

Liberals will be happy to pretend that the people in these states have changed their minds and now accept homosexuality as normal.

Did 80% of the country change their minds and think interracial marriage was acceptable when Loving was ruled on in the mid 60s? Nope...

Conversely...

 

[hazlnut]

America, there's hope for us yet.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Most on this board know my position on gay marriage.

That being said, I am against the federal government intervening/overriding state decisions.

We are a republic with individual states and whereas I believe the people ultimately will decide in favor of gay marriage in time in all states, until then, it should remain a state matter.

If the federal government couldn't override individual states' gun laws based on rulings that they violated the 2nd amendment,

what's the point of having a 2nd amendment?

So (based on your response) you are suggesting that the Federal Government refusing to defend DOMA is allowing the individual states to make the determination for themselves if gay marriage should be accepted, by not overriding nor pushing its influence against those states who choose the traditional form of marriage? Where exactly has your view of individual state gun laws been reflected and supported through the individual states determination of marriage? Eric Holder has already made the decision for the Federal Government to recognize same sex marriage, even in those individual states which opposes them. Is this but an example where one individual's right to own a gun can be decided and trumped by each individual state, but an exception can be made for marriage rights?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's some more -- Chew on this:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.
Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “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.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “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.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes, and most of them deal with the definition of marriage when they ruled, which was and always has been between a man and woman, not directly related.

Judges have been wrong, such as the Dred Scott ruling.

What would be nice is if you would point me to the document that states that Marriage is a right. Not a ruling from a judge but something like the Bill of Rights.

What would be nice is if you and others on the right would accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is marriage spelled out as a fundamental right? You are just repeating words from you democrat hand book.

The fact that it isn't spelled out as a fundamental right as a union between a man and a woman is the issue.

Exactly my point. Heterosexual marriage is not a right thus the states should be able to regulate the institution of marriage. Much like they do drivers license. Driving isn't a right and neither is marriage. We are bastardizing the word right.

Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, thus the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest that marriage equality is not a good thing. States have failed to do so.

 

[Samson]

The fact that it isn't spelled out as a fundamental right as a union between a man and a woman is the issue.

Exactly my point. Heterosexual marriage is not a right thus the states should be able to regulate the institution of marriage. Much like they do drivers license. Driving isn't a right and neither is marriage. We are bastardizing the word right.

Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, thus the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest that marriage equality is not a good thing. States have failed to do so.

There has been no SCOTUS ruling on Queer Marriage.

Try to keep up.

 

[Samson]

What would be nice is if you and others on the right would accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Um...you seem to be confused: yours is an OPINION, not a fact.

Given your partisan nature, this comes as no surprise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would be nice is if you and others on the right would accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Um...you seem to be confused: yours is an OPINION, not a fact.

Given your partisan nature, this comes as no surprise.

What's wrong in what he said? Specifically.

 

[Samson]

What would be nice is if you and others on the right would accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Um...you seem to be confused: yours is an OPINION, not a fact.

Given your partisan nature, this comes as no surprise.

What's wrong in what he said? Specifically.

Specifically: "the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law" is incorrect.

This is an opinion.

The opposing Opinion is that the US Constitution can only be literally interpretted and this is how it exists.

The fact is that there are many different opinions about how the
Constitution can be interpreted, or "exists," but the only opinions that matter are those of the Supreme Court Justices. These opinions are theoreticaly formed without political influances (why they are seated for life).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um...you seem to be confused: yours is an OPINION, not a fact.

Given your partisan nature, this comes as no surprise.

What's wrong in what he said? Specifically.

Specifically: "the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law" is incorrect.

This is an opinion.

The opposing Opinion is that the US Constitution can only be literally interpretted and this is how it exists.

The fact is that there are many different opinions about how the
Constitution can be interpreted, or "exists," but the only opinions that matter are those of the Supreme Court Justices. These opinions are theoreticaly formed without political influances (why they are seated for life).

Case law is the result of Supreme Court decisions. You just proved the other poster's statement to be factual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Exactly my point. Heterosexual marriage is not a right thus the states should be able to regulate the institution of marriage. Much like they do drivers license. Driving isn't a right and neither is marriage. We are bastardizing the word right.

Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, thus the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest that marriage equality is not a good thing. States have failed to do so.

There has been no SCOTUS ruling on Queer Marriage.

Try to keep up.

You are behind, Samson. I did not say that SCOTUS had ruled on marriage equality itself. Those cases are working through the court system now.

I am glad you are not foolish enough to suggest, as some on the Board, the marriage is not a fundamental civil right.

 

[bodecea]

Gay "Marriage" is nothing more than trying to punish the church by using a word.

Other than that it is all smoke and mirrors.

Well of course there is the money aspect to grab their partners Social Security after they die.

Punished huh? Tell us, do you get a marriage license at a church?

Yes the gays want to use the term marriage to force church's to accept them and punish them for looking at their lifestyle as evil.

Why not push for civil unions that do the same thing? Why call it marriage?

Then again this goes to show that many that claim they want a separation of church and state only do so when it is convenient for them to use that talking point.

Gays did push for civil unions....it was the RWrs who rejected it in the Red states.....now it's too late.