Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.

Why should any of us 'face' what the voices in your head are telling you?

Equal rights are not special rights- only bigots think that they are.

 

[Syriusly]

"Keep the government out of my bedroom!. And I demand the government give me a license for my bedroom!"

Wow-you want a license for your bedroom?

 

[dblack]

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.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.

So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
That's the compelling interest
* equal protection of the laws
* equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
the free exercise of beliefs of either side
* no discrimination on the basis of creed

2. equal rights vs special rights
both the laws for traditional marriage
and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.

this violates the beliefs of people
* against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
* against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
* against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions

so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
at the expense of people of opposing beliefs

it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
But two wrongs don't make it right.
To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.

You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.

You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.

Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.

Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
under religious free exercise as is
right to marriage.

Trying to establish marriage through govt
causes just as much complications over beliefs
as trying to establish marriage through govt.

Either agree on a policy or remove it.
Or its just different groups competing for
THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.

Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.

However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.

Again the compelling interest is
equal treatment and protection of the laws
without discrimination by creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

Kevin_Kennedy
and by the First Amendment,
neither can govt ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT
the free exercise of one's personal or spiritual beliefs about marriage.

marriage beliefs cannot be endorsed or penalized by govt without violating
Amendment one, and thus Fourteenth and Civil Rights principles
on equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

 

[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.

Dear Faun
1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.

So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
That's the compelling interest
* equal protection of the laws
* equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
the free exercise of beliefs of either side
* no discrimination on the basis of creed

2. equal rights vs special rights
both the laws for traditional marriage
and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.

this violates the beliefs of people
* against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
* against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
* against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions

so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
at the expense of people of opposing beliefs

it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
But two wrongs don't make it right.
To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.

You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.

You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.

Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.

Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
under religious free exercise as is
right to marriage.

Trying to establish marriage through govt
causes just as much complications over beliefs
as trying to establish marriage through govt.

Either agree on a policy or remove it.
Or its just different groups competing for
THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.

Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.

However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.

Again the compelling interest is
equal treatment and protection of the laws
without discrimination by creed.

A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And?

This fails as a non-sequitur fallacy.

That you perceive marriage law to be ‘unfair’ to unmarried persons has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and that it is un-Constitutional for the states to deny them access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

Which is un-Constitutional.

 

[dblack]

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.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

Which is un-Constitutional.

So is extending special privileges. Like begets like I suppose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.

This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

 

[dblack]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.

This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

C - don't think you'd know equal protection if it bit you in the ass. The fact is that the preferential treatment afforded to married couples is, in and of itself, and violation of equal protection.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

Which is un-Constitutional.

So is extending special privileges. Like begets like I suppose.

And still, no special privileges were extended.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“equal rights vs special rights”

Wrong.

Again, there are no ‘special rights.’

All citizens are afforded the same rights, including heterosexual white Christians.

And should a state enact a measure prohibiting heterosexual white Christians from accessing a given state law for no other reason than being a heterosexual white Christian, heterosexual white Christians would file suit in Federal court and have such a law or measure invalidated because it violated the equal protection and due process rights of heterosexual white Christians.

 

[dblack]

no special privileges were extended.

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

 

[Faun]

no special privileges were extended.

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[dblack]

no special privileges were extended.

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.

 

[Faun]

no special privileges were extended.

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.

And this thread is not about whether or not the government should be providing marriage benefits. You're in the wrong thread with that argument.

 

[dblack]

And this thread is not about whether or not the government should be providing marriage benefits. You're in the wrong thread with that argument.

I don't think so. Especially if we're invoking equal protection as an argument.

 

[Tennyson]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.

The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.

This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

There was never any discussions in the debates of the 39th Congress regarding the equal protection clause or the due precess clause having any affect on the states other than in legal proceedings, and substantive due process did not appear until Lochner. The primary attempt by a few was adding the privilege and immunities clause so that the privilege and immunities clause of Article IV could be enforced on the states. A few of the dumber members of Congress were under the illusion that some of the Bill of Rights could be incorporated under the privilege and immunities clause because they stated that the privilege and immunities clause of Article IV was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, and we all know that is not true. The court shot that down by correctly interpreting the privilege and immunities clause in the Slaughter House cases.