Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[ding]

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.

I don't think you understand. After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.

 

[emilynghiem]

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.

I don't think you understand. After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry. People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.

So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
even the opposite gender.

To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.

Yes, I said that at the end.

That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
whether heterosexual or homosexual

and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"

Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.

And because marriage is in fact a right, to deny a couple eligible to marry access to marriage law is a violation of the Constitution, whether that couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"

Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.

And because marriage is in fact a right, to deny a couple eligible to marry access to marriage law is a violation of the Constitution, whether that couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

C_Clayton_Jones
and if the people argue NO we don't believe in that standard of law/marriage
the way it is set up because it violates our beliefs,
then whatever is wrong with how that law is written
to impose a bias against someone's beliefs,
shouldn't it be revised to be neutral where nobody objects on grounds of
violating or excluding their beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

Dear Faun
Since people have objected to both versions,
shouldn't this be rejected again
until finally laws are written that
are truly neutral and free of bias
toward or against either sides beliefs.

If you are content to stop here while people
are complaining the law is biased against their beliefs,
how are you any different from people who were
happy with the previous marriage laws, or the bans
against gay marriage, while people were complaining that was biased against them.

How are you any different
if you equally discount and exclude objections
as if these aren't valid?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"

Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.

BTW C_Clayton_Jones
For you not to make a distinction between traditional marriage and same sex marriage
reminds me of people who
* equate abortion with murder
* executions with murder (and the cause of death is listed in some states
as HOMOCIDE so the same legal term is used)

Just because SOME people see these as the same
doesn't mean other people do.

Most people I know can be against murder but not see executions the same.
They both can be called homocide.

Clearly the process is different, as with abortion as well.

And people who see a huge difference between traditional
marriage and same sex marriage are talking about the relationship
and whole process of recognizing that to be DIFFERENT.

And if they don't agree with that BELIEF that these are the same,
then why should the govt force them to change their beliefs.

Many Christians I know would LOVE if the govt established their beliefs!
So if they equate abortion with murder, do they have the right
to establish that and say the right to life needs to be recognized by all
people, even if you don't see it and believe it the same was as they do???

 

[ding]

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.

I don't think you understand. After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry. People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.

So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
even the opposite gender.

To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.

Yes, I said that at the end.

That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
whether heterosexual or homosexual

and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could

Yes. Pretty much. The 14th Amendment was narrowly focused. It was not intended to be a catch all. On a side note, I believe the justification used for denying them marriage after they became emancipated is that they were not citizens and were not afforded those rights. It wasn't just marriage that was being denied to them.

 

[Faun]

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.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.

That's not the same right. That denied them the right to marry the person they wanted to be legally committed to.

 

[Faun]

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.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Exactly what compelling interest is there to deny consenting adult gay people from legally marrying the person they love?

 

[Faun]

But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

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 were at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

You never answered the question ....

What is it about marriage that you believe makes it a right?

 

[dblack]

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 issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

 

[Faun]

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 issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

 

[dblack]

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 issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

 

[Faun]

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 issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

 

[dblack]

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 issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

They're privileges non-married people don't get.

 

[Faun]

Nonsense.

Marriage as contract law is ...

The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

They're privileges non-married people don't get.

Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.

 

[dblack]

The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

They're privileges non-married people don't get.

Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.

And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.

 

[Syriusly]

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.

I don't think you understand. After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry. People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.

So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
even the opposite gender.

To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.

Yes, I said that at the end.

That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
whether heterosexual or homosexual

and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could

Yes. Pretty much. The 14th Amendment was narrowly focused. It was not intended to be a catch all. On a side note, I believe the justification used for denying them marriage after they became emancipated is that they were not citizens and were not afforded those rights. It wasn't just marriage that was being denied to them.

Black Americans were not being denied their right to marriage- mixed race couples were being denied their right to marry.

Just as the law allowed a white man to marry a white woman- but not a white man to marry a black woman- the laws overturned by Obergefell allowed a man to marry a woman- but not a man to marry a man.

Both denied Americans their right to legal marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

There are no "special legal privileges."

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

They're privileges non-married people don't get.

Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.

And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.

That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.

I don't think you understand. After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.

No- they were not.

The law denied a mixed race couple to marry- but a black was free to marry a black.

The State of Virginia claimed since that black could marry black and a white could marry a white- there was no discrimination.

Sound familiar?