Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[ding]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

I agree that government should not be defining marriage. I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves. That's how this experiment was meant to work. Natural selection at its finest.

 

[ding]

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.

All of those things can be easily resolved though, right? It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right? How about 4 people being married? Or 5? Or 6? Is there any number we should stop at?

I think it would be easier if we removed the gov't from the entire institution and be done with it.

I agree.

 

[ding]

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

They do have the same right- now.

Only bigots think that equal rights are special rights.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

I agree . That's how this experiment was meant to work. Natural selection at its finest.

that government should not be defining marriage. I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves

State governments are governments.

But we don't allow State governments to be unconstitutional- California can't decide to outlaw guns and Georgia can't decide to legalize slavery.

And states can't have unconstitutional marriage laws- whether those are laws against mixed race marriage or laws against same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination. Everyone is being treated equally. People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.

LOL- why do bigots always think that equal rights are special rights?

The legal argument lost- because it was false.

 

[ding]

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

They do have the same right- now.

Only bigots think that equal rights are special rights.

I've been called worse. Sorry, but it's just not true, my skin is too brown for that.

 

[ding]

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

I agree . That's how this experiment was meant to work. Natural selection at its finest.

that government should not be defining marriage. I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves

State governments are governments.

But we don't allow State governments to be unconstitutional- California can't decide to outlaw guns and Georgia can't decide to legalize slavery.

And states can't have unconstitutional marriage laws- whether those are laws against mixed race marriage or laws against same gender marriage.

Yes, state governments are governments. That's very perceptive of you, but the difference is that we can always move to like minded states and we can see which states have the most success. After all we live in a Darwinian world where successful behaviors lead to success and failed behavior lead to failure. At the end of the day it is outcome which determine which policies are the most successful. As long as we are prevented from competing, we'll never get to see who was really right. Like I already said before, I don't think defining marriage as one man and one woman is unconstitutional, not as long as it is applied equally to everyone anyway.

 

[ding]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination. Everyone is being treated equally. People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.

LOL- why do bigots always think that equal rights are special rights?

The legal argument lost- because it was false.

I believe I already addressed this one. Your opinion of me has been duly noted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections – specifically the right to freedom of choice and expressions of individual liberty:

‘When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
[…]
In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ 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. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, it is the right of choice concerning personal, private matters which is immune from attack by the state, where those who have chosen to conduct their lives in a certain manner – even if the majority of the state considers that choice to be ‘offensive’ – the state may not seek to discriminate against that class of persons because of their choice, by denying them access to state laws they are eligible to participate in, such as marriage contract law.

Therefore, sexual orientation is a protected liberty, those who make the decision to live their lives as homosexuals are a class of persons, a class of persons entitled to equal protection and due process of the law.

 

[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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Incorrect.

There exists neither ‘straight’ marriage nor ‘gay’ marriage – marriage exists as a single legal entity, contract law as written by the states and administered by state courts.

And marriage contract law can accommodate two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

The Constitution therefore protects the right to access marriage law by all persons eligible to enter into such a contract, both homosexual and heterosexual, such as an interracial heterosexual couple.

 

[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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Correct. Marriage is something the people, in their various states, have decided to recognize. The power of the states to do this IS Constitutional.

Wrong.

The states are subject to the Constitution and its case law – in this case 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

State measures which sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in were invalidated by the courts pursuant to this settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence forbidding the states from engaging in class legislation:

‘ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”’
Ibid

The rights and protected liberties of citizens who reside in the states are paramount, where the Constitution and its case law are binding on the states and local jurisdictions, and the states are subordinate to the rights and protected liberties of citizens.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

I agree that government should not be defining marriage. I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves. That's how this experiment was meant to work. Natural selection at its finest.

The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

Wrong.

The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love. And Love is the basis for marriage.

 

[ding]

The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well. When the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period. That was discrimination. All men and women today have the right to be married. People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married. Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

 

[ding]

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

Wrong.

The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.

No one is being hostile to anyone. What we have here is a difference of opinion. That's not hostility. If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.

 

[ding]

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections – specifically the right to freedom of choice and expressions of individual liberty:

‘When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
[…]
In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ 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. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, it is the right of choice concerning personal, private matters which is immune from attack by the state, where those who have chosen to conduct their lives in a certain manner – even if the majority of the state considers that choice to be ‘offensive’ – the state may not seek to discriminate against that class of persons because of their choice, by denying them access to state laws they are eligible to participate in, such as marriage contract law.

Therefore, sexual orientation is a protected liberty, those who make the decision to live their lives as homosexuals are a class of persons, a class of persons entitled to equal protection and due process of the law.

I understand the rulings. I don't agree with them. Let's not forget that SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not human beings, but were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. So let's not pretend that these rulings are infallible, Ok?

 

[dblack]

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 problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.

 

[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 problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.

Nonsense.

Marriage as contract law is the creation of government, binding between and among the state and the individuals entering into the marriage contract, where the contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts.

Government can’t be ‘separated’ from the laws it creates and administers at the behest of the people and as authorized by the people.

And the issue concerns solely marriage as contract law, not marriage as religious practice, as religious entities are not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and at liberty to not afford same-sex couples marriage as part of a religious ritual.