Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

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.

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Gays aren't fighting for marriage rights- because they have the same right to marriage as we all do.

Which is why they are getting married in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

"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.

Well you can go to court and make that case. You have that right.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!

(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people.

Similar to not making govt policy on SHARIAH law which means the practices of Muslim believers,
including prayer and charity. This would be govt dictating someone's religion. Just because
"shariah law" means one thing to some people does not mean that definition can be
IMPOSED on Muslims for whom Shariah means something else that govt has no authority to regulate.

Just because Shariah means something secular to people writing laws concerning it,
doesn't mean this won't cause "religious conflicts" with people where that term meaning something
else and ends up imposing on their practice by using that word in secular context of law and govt.

(C) I have compared with people who believe that a conceived person
has the same rights as a person born and out of the womb.

But not all people believe and AGREE to that same legal standard.

Because we don't AGREE on the standard to consider life at conception
the SAME as life of a born person, the legal standard is set where we
at least agree that a born person has rights to life.

Likewise, if the most we agree on marriage is for the state to
recognize CIVIL UNIONS and we can't agree on the definition or terms of "marriage"
then we would have to stick with CIVIL UNIONS being the basis of secular law.

That would be the agreed common standard, while the other terms are subjective to BELIEFS.

Does that example/comparison work well enough?

If not, how about this one:

(B) Where people objected to public prayer, in Texas laws were passed regarding
"moment of silence"

Of course, many Christians argued that it was a natural expression of faith to
ask to join in prayer, but other people did not agree with that.

So the compromise was to go with the next closest secular term or
practice, where the Christians could still use that for prayer, but Christian
prayer was not going to be imposed on people who believe otherwise.

So that's another example of something close to
sticking with CIVIL UNIONS as neutral and secular enough to
satisfy all people, and not impose beliefs in addition to it that people oppose.

Is it really the position of Govt to dictate which word people use?

So again with the term MARRIAGE if this connotes religious or spiritual meaning
to some people, then if that word in that context of public law imposes a bias in belief
that conflicts with others, then why not use SECULAR terms such as civil union or domestic partnership.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
(1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
"can pray to anyone they want."

That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
which violates Amendment One.

(2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated
compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:

The examples I gave before
A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
(as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
instead of tolerance and inclusion,
these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
(where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)

B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
(unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.

They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.

Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
instead of treating beliefs equally.

So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.

And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Syriusly it's contentious because both the Christian beliefs and LGBT beliefs
are fighting to get their beliefs established by govt,
INSTEAD of sticking to neutral secular terms on "civil unions, domestic partnerships etc."
that AVOID biased language for or against either sides beliefs about marriage.

When people on either side don't see their values are BELIEFS, but both hold that their way is the UNIVERSAL TRUTH while the other side is biased and wrong, then it gets doubly contentious.

If they BOTH saw their sides as equally valid beliefs,
they'd agree to either keep BOTH out of govt,
or open up the floodgates and let ALL beliefs be established by govt without
fighting over one group or another pushing their rights to their beliefs as a protected practice.

 

[Faun]

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.

Dear Faun
(1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
"can pray to anyone they want."

That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
which violates Amendment One.

(2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated
compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:

The examples I gave before
A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
(as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
instead of tolerance and inclusion,
these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
(where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)

B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
(unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.

They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.

Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
instead of treating beliefs equally.

So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.

And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

Laws are not bound by religious tenets. No religion is being discriminated against by Obergfell because no one from any religion is being forced to marry someone of tne same gender.

 

[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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

 

[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.

That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.

Duh?

 

[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.

Well you can go to court and make that case. You have that right.

Go for it.

Yep. And the first step toward any sensible reform campaign is to raise awareness. We blithely accept government policies that undermine equal protection and then don't understand why they cause problems. It's time to wake up.

 

[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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic. Can you stop trying to divert away from the thread topic? Straight folks already had the right to legally marry the person of their choice. Before Obergfell, gays were denied that right. What compelling interest was there to treat gay couples differently? THAT'S the topic. Not that no one should be getting marriage benefits from the government.

 

[dblack]

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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gays to the protected classes list. It's a problem that shouldn't exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

 

[Faun]

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.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Maybe you ought to study some history. I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​

 

[dblack]

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

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

 

[Faun]

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.

 

[dblack]

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.

I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.

 

[Tennyson]

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Maybe you ought to study some history. I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​

That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.