Gay Marriage: It's A Constitutional Right!

[NYcarbineer]

For all that think certain things are rights (especially the far left)

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong. You might also be surprised how often people get it right. Your best defense against misconception is reading and knowing your Constitution.

... big snip...

Here is one that will open your eyes that you think is aright, but really isn'The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Marriage

In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

If you honestly believe that voting is not a constitutional right than you are even dumber than your history here has already demonstrated,

and that's a very high bar to clear.

 

[Misty]

It's true marriage is not a right but judges are using the fourth and fifth amendment to make gay marriage a right. Under these circumstances polygamy will be next.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's true marriage is not a right but judges are using the fourth and fifth amendment to make gay marriage a right. Under these circumstances polygamy will be next.

Under this law, there are no limitations at all. This is what Masha Gessen meant when she said that marriage equality is marriage elasticity leading to marriage extinction.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I don't think it's the business of the government to be involved in marriage period.. Having said that, this is America where we celebrate the freedom of choice.. If two people want to get married no one , to include the government should be used to stop that. We either stand for freedom for everyone, or we begin to look like leftists who want ONLY THEIR freedoms respected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is not a "right".

Fourteen Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yet none can show in the constitution where it is a constitutional right...

You have the freedom to be with whomever you want... but no specific constitutional right to marry...

And hence why, government needs to get its grubby hands out of the marriage business, which it simply uses as a political hot topic for power grabs in elections, and another means to tax....

The constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the Supreme Court determines what the constitution means.

 

[Kosh]

Fourteen Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

No a far left blog site disagrees with me.

Point to it in the Constitution.

Marriage is not a "right".

Government should not be in the marriage business.

Can you point to the section of the Constitution that says you have a right to procreate or to use contraception? How about the part of the Constitution that says I have the right to interstate travel? Can you point to that?

Do you believe that the only rights you have are strictly enumerated in the Constitution?

Can you tell me how many times you've contacted your legislator to tell him you want to do away with civil marriage? Did he/she laugh at you?

Yes another far left myth of "rights" and all far left talking points being defeated by a far left Obama drone in their yet another pointless post.

If "marriage" is a "right", then churches should be forced to perform them correct?

That is the goal of the far left using the gay agenda to do this?

Also if one person wants to divorce another and the other person wants to work on the "marriage" is the person wanting a divorce violating the other persons "rights"?

See why "Marriage" is not a right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gay Marriage: It's A Constitutional Right! Twenty court decisions in a row agree.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is not a "right".

If that is true, and I am not saying it is, the gov't still does not have the right to discriminate concerning which couples (consenting adults) are to receive the +/- 1,400 benefits it bestows on married couples.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is not a "right".

Fourteen Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

No a far left blog site disagrees with me.

Point to it in the Constitution.

Marriage is not a "right".

Government should not be in the marriage business.

Why is government in the divorce business? Because marriage and divorce are contractual agreements. And contractual agreements rely on the power and protections afforded by our system of jurisprudence.

 

[Kosh]

Marriage is not a "right".

If that is true, and I am not saying it is, the gov't still does not have the right to discriminate concerning which couples (consenting adults) are to receive the +/- 1,400 benefits it bestows on married couples.

And that is why government should not be in the business of "Marriage"..

You know that whole "separation of church and state" that the far left screams all the time.

So you are saying the government can force churches to marry gay couples so the government can not "discriminate"?

 

[Kosh]

Fourteen Supreme Court cases disagree with your opinion.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

No a far left blog site disagrees with me.

Point to it in the Constitution.

Marriage is not a "right".

Government should not be in the marriage business.

Why is government in the divorce business? Because marriage and divorce are contractual agreements. And contractual agreements rely on the power and protections afforded by our system of jurisprudence.

The government is not in the business of divorce, so why would it be in the business of "Marriage"?

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is not a "right".

If that is true, and I am not saying it is, the gov't still does not have the right to discriminate concerning which couples (consenting adults) are to receive the +/- 1,400 benefits it bestows on married couples.

And that is why government should not be in the business of "Marriage"..

You know that whole "separation of church and state" that the far left screams all the time.

So you are saying the government can force churches to marry gay couples so the government can not "discriminate"?

Churches sanctify marriage as a rite within their religion. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and provide the legal protections and benefits under that license.

 

[Nosmo King]

No a far left blog site disagrees with me.

Point to it in the Constitution.

Marriage is not a "right".

Government should not be in the marriage business.

Why is government in the divorce business? Because marriage and divorce are contractual agreements. And contractual agreements rely on the power and protections afforded by our system of jurisprudence.

The government is not in the business of divorce, so why would it be in the business of "Marriage"?

Have you ever heard of Divorce Court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

 

[Kosh]

If that is true, and I am not saying it is, the gov't still does not have the right to discriminate concerning which couples (consenting adults) are to receive the +/- 1,400 benefits it bestows on married couples.

And that is why government should not be in the business of "Marriage"..

You know that whole "separation of church and state" that the far left screams all the time.

So you are saying the government can force churches to marry gay couples so the government can not "discriminate"?

Churches sanctify marriage as a rite within their religion. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and provide the legal protections and benefits under that license.

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

So what benefits do gays not have in a "legally" binding relationship that those in a "marriage" have?

Many things that used to be automatics in "Marriage" do not exist any more. So why fight for special privileges that no one else gets?

 

[Kosh]

Why is government in the divorce business? Because marriage and divorce are contractual agreements. And contractual agreements rely on the power and protections afforded by our system of jurisprudence.

The government is not in the business of divorce, so why would it be in the business of "Marriage"?

Have you ever heard of Divorce Court?

Yes, but that does not mean the government is in the business of divorce, just that you have access to court to divorce. Just like any legally binding contract as you point out.

 

[Kosh]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.

Also as I have already pointed out it is NOT in the constitution.

Yes I know the far left wants to justify this as a "right", but it is not on any level, no matter how much any far left Obama drone tries to make it such.

 

[Nosmo King]

And that is why government should not be in the business of "Marriage"..

You know that whole "separation of church and state" that the far left screams all the time.

So you are saying the government can force churches to marry gay couples so the government can not "discriminate"?

Churches sanctify marriage as a rite within their religion. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and provide the legal protections and benefits under that license.

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

So what benefits do gays not have in a "legally" binding relationship that those in a "marriage" have?

Many things that used to be automatics in "Marriage" do not exist any more. So why fight for special privileges that no one else gets?

Tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, adoption procedures, insurance premium discounts, financial claims and death benefits, estate dispersal and probate claims. all these benefits and more are automatic with a marriage license. What cause can you show proving same sex marriage to be a detriment, or any other impairment to heterosexual marriage?

 

[Nosmo King]

The government is not in the business of divorce, so why would it be in the business of "Marriage"?

Have you ever heard of Divorce Court?

Yes, but that does not mean the government is in the business of divorce, just that you have access to court to divorce. Just like any legally binding contract as you point out.

The courts are...get ready for it...PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!!

 

[Nosmo King]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.

Also as I have already pointed out it is NOT in the constitution.

Yes I know the far left wants to justify this as a "right", but it is not on any level, no matter how much any far left Obama drone tries to make it such.

Are people married at city hall or on the deck of a cruise ship or a little chapel in Las Vegas less married than those married in a sanctuary? No one is calling for churches to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony. What is fair and just and right is allowing same sex couples access to the marriage license.