Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[IndependantAce]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

 

[Moonglow]

Not true, as many people that are married or become married do not have kids, can't have kids or will never have kids...

 

[Kosh]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

 

[ScienceRocks]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

 

[Kosh]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

Proof that the far left supports racism!

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, to prevent whites and blacks from being married..

Now the same racist license is embraced by those that claim they are not racists..

Silly far left drones!

 

[Kosh]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

No it is not a right! Never has been a right!

Marriage licenses were used in racism, which you support!

A right is something that can not be taken away, and your right to be married to your significant other can be taken away, by your significant other. So they violated your "right" to be married.

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

 

[Dale Smith]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.[/QUO

We are not a nation of laws but rather one that follows the UCC of acts, statutes and codes which is what your beloved corporate "gubermint" passes by the thousands each and every year all designed to bring in revenue for the corporate shareholders. You don't have a fucking clue....seriously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

More ridiculous ignorance from the right.

Marriage is civil contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Only civil contract law is subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma is not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where religious entities cannot be compelled by the state to accommodate same-sex couples.

If a couple – same- or opposite-sex – wishes to benefit from the contract law that is marriage, then they’ll need to marry in accordance with the contract law of their state of residence, including obtaining a marriage license.

And the states must allow all couples eligible to participate in a marriage contract to indeed do so, same- or opposite sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".'

Wrong.

In order for this ‘reasoning’ to be consistent, the states must also prohibit infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying as well.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Got news for you, you can't.

However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination. Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity. Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.

And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command. You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.

 

[Dragonlady]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

If marriage is just for procreation, why do elderly people get married? Shouldn't they be barred from marriage too since the woman is past the age of procreation?

Marriage is about far more than children, it's about loving and caring for another person, and wanting to share your life with them.

From a legal standpoint, it allows one partner to make decisions on another partner's behalf when a partner is incapacitated or cannot make decisions for themselves and ensures that other family members cannot bar the partner from their bedside.

 

[Dragonlady]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

More ridiculous ignorance from the right.

Marriage is civil contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Only civil contract law is subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma is not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where religious entities cannot be compelled by the state to accommodate same-sex couples.

If a couple – same- or opposite-sex – wishes to benefit from the contract law that is marriage, then they’ll need to marry in accordance with the contract law of their state of residence, including obtaining a marriage license.

And the states must allow all couples eligible to participate in a marriage contract to indeed do so, same- or opposite sex.

You have no understanding of the 14th amendment and how it applies to state citizens as opposed to "federal gubermint" citizens....your knowledge of these very simple differences is obvious.

 

[Dale Smith]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno, there are several instances of churches marrying gays.

Not only that, but there are several instances of them allowing gay clergy.

If the church can adapt, then why can't their followers?