Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Boss
Remember when I wrote about the gay marriage marketing scheme.

When you trip one up, they attack like fire ants on a goat that crosses their path.

See above

The fun thing is that it only takes a few of them to imitate a swarm.

All a part of the brilliant gay marriage marketing plan

You might hate it, but you must appreciate it's simplistic beauty

 

[Montrovant]

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Really? You must talk to your own folks I can't count how many times I was called that, bigot and homophobe when arguing against same sex marriage, using these very same arguments.

You understand how hypocritical your post sounds, don't you?

Hypocritical? Have I called you a racist? Has someone in this thread called you a racist for opposing same sex marriage even?

 

[Montrovant]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

 

[Pop23]

Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Really? You must talk to your own folks I can't count how many times I was called that, bigot and homophobe when arguing against same sex marriage, using these very same arguments.

You understand how hypocritical your post sounds, don't you?

Hypocritical? Have I called you a racist? Has someone in this thread called you a racist for opposing same sex marriage even?

In this thread, couldn't tell Ya, hard to hear above the noise

 

[Pop23]

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Who said it isn't? It's not your or my call. It is the partners that are allowed to define what they wish the partnership to be.

 

[Syriusly]

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.

 

[Syriusly]

Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less

Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony

Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.

Really? You must talk to your own folks I can't count how many times I was called that, bigot and homophobe when arguing against same sex marriage, using these very same arguments.

You understand how hypocritical your post sounds, don't you?

Hypocritical? Have I called you a racist? Has someone in this thread called you a racist for opposing same sex marriage even?

In this thread, couldn't tell Ya, hard to hear above the noise

LOL- Pops can't hear because over his own shouts of 'racist!, racist!'

 

[Pop23]

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.

Would be nice if adults could actually engage in reasoned conversations without the children wondering in.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.

Would be nice if adults could actually engage in reasoned conversations without the children wondering in.

Who would ever invite you to the adult table?

 

[Montrovant]

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Who said it isn't? It's not your or my call. It is the partners that are allowed to define what they wish the partnership to be.

The many laws surrounding marriage would argue against the idea that it is the partners that define what they wish it to be, from a legal standpoint.

 

[Boss]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say?

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis.

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say?

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis.

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.

It is society's morals regarding persons in position of authority and their potential abuse that must be considered, not my individual opinion. I notice you did not comment on the fact that there are already laws regarding romantic/sexual relationships in which one party is in a position of authority and influence over another. What business is it of the state if a therapist and their patient want to have a relationship?

When an infertile couple marries, they are creating a new family. Any couple can adopt, and a fertile homosexual can have children.

Perhaps next of kin is the wrong phrase; technically a spouse may not fit that description but I believe it fits from common use. The point is that a spouse becomes the inheritor, gets power to make medical decisions, things of that nature, without a will, living or otherwise.

 

[Boss]

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say?

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis.

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.

It is society's morals regarding persons in position of authority and their potential abuse that must be considered, not my individual opinion. I notice you did not comment on the fact that there are already laws regarding romantic/sexual relationships in which one party is in a position of authority and influence over another. What business is it of the state if a therapist and their patient want to have a relationship?

When an infertile couple marries, they are creating a new family. Any couple can adopt, and a fertile homosexual can have children.

Perhaps next of kin is the wrong phrase; technically a spouse may not fit that description but I believe it fits from common use. The point is that a spouse becomes the inheritor, gets power to make medical decisions, things of that nature, without a will, living or otherwise.

Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that.

You want a comment from me about laws regarding authority and relationships? Fine... they can be changed the same way marriage was changed, without regard for collective societal morality. Apparently, all there needs to be is an individual bringing a case for their rights being denied.

We both seem to understand that these types of relationships happen so it stands to reason sooner or later someone is going to have a problem with this moralistic law interfering with their new "constitutional right" to marriage. We're not having an argument over what the law HAS said, that all changes with the new SCOTUS ruling, it has an effect, it didn't happen in a vacuum. That ruling can and will be cited repeatedly in court to support all kinds of situations where "societal morality" bumps up against individual liberty.... and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

You laughably want to present the argument that this is impossible because society has collectively decided this or that... well, hell, if only someone had thought of making that brilliant argument against gay marriage? Oh wait...

 

[Syriusly]

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say?

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis.

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.

It is society's morals regarding persons in position of authority and their potential abuse that must be considered, not my individual opinion. I notice you did not comment on the fact that there are already laws regarding romantic/sexual relationships in which one party is in a position of authority and influence over another. What business is it of the state if a therapist and their patient want to have a relationship?

When an infertile couple marries, they are creating a new family. Any couple can adopt, and a fertile homosexual can have children.

Perhaps next of kin is the wrong phrase; technically a spouse may not fit that description but I believe it fits from common use. The point is that a spouse becomes the inheritor, gets power to make medical decisions, things of that nature, without a will, living or otherwise.

Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that...

And that marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race was 'society's collective moral value' for over 100 years.

Until the Supreme Court declared that such bans violate the Constitution.

You appear to be still upset that the Supreme Court overturned the bans on mixed race marriages.

 

[Montrovant]

I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage. I believe I've done so more than once. Apparently you ignored that. Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other? Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members?

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say?

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis.

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.

It is society's morals regarding persons in position of authority and their potential abuse that must be considered, not my individual opinion. I notice you did not comment on the fact that there are already laws regarding romantic/sexual relationships in which one party is in a position of authority and influence over another. What business is it of the state if a therapist and their patient want to have a relationship?

When an infertile couple marries, they are creating a new family. Any couple can adopt, and a fertile homosexual can have children.

Perhaps next of kin is the wrong phrase; technically a spouse may not fit that description but I believe it fits from common use. The point is that a spouse becomes the inheritor, gets power to make medical decisions, things of that nature, without a will, living or otherwise.

Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that.

You want a comment from me about laws regarding authority and relationships? Fine... they can be changed the same way marriage was changed, without regard for collective societal morality. Apparently, all there needs to be is an individual bringing a case for their rights being denied.

We both seem to understand that these types of relationships happen so it stands to reason sooner or later someone is going to have a problem with this moralistic law interfering with their new "constitutional right" to marriage. We're not having an argument over what the law HAS said, that all changes with the new SCOTUS ruling, it has an effect, it didn't happen in a vacuum. That ruling can and will be cited repeatedly in court to support all kinds of situations where "societal morality" bumps up against individual liberty.... and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

You laughably want to present the argument that this is impossible because society has collectively decided this or that... well, hell, if only someone had thought of making that brilliant argument against gay marriage? Oh wait...

The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.

More than half the country had same sex marriage before Obergefell.

The point of bringing up current laws involving romantic relationships with people in authority is to show that your argument about it being 'none of my business' is one that states have already disagreed with. There is legal precedent for preventing relationships based on someone having too much influence or authority over another.

Marriage as a constitutional right is not new, was not created by Obergefell. If marriage as a constitutional right is a problem, it was a problem long before same sex marriage.

I have not argued that it is impossible for any type of marriage to become legal. I have argued that Obergefell will not lead directly to the various forms of marriage you fear. I, and others, have brought up many differences in every potential type of marriage you have listed, pointed out that some of the things you seem to attribute to Obergefell (like marriage being a right) are not based on the ruling, pointed out that same sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade already, etc..

 

[Faun]

Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that.

Which is why I voted for Obama and will [likely] vote for the Democrat in next year's presidential election. Had McCain won in 2008, SCOTUS decisions like Obergefell would probably not have gone the way they did.

 

[Boss]

The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.

Indeed, the Constitution is the highest expression of society's collective moral values. And the court is supposed to defend it. They are not authorized to interpret their own meanings into the constitution. IF that is the case, there is no need for a Constitution and it actually means nothing. The court does not have domain and authority over the people. They are one of three co-equal branches of government, of which WE control.

There was not an issue of discrimination or denial of a right in this case. People were not being denied something on the basis of their gender. A new thing had to be created in order to claim a right to it. The Constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, homosexuals, or even marriage for that matter. It does not state that people can arbitrarily create new institutions and claim rights to those new institutions and for this to be automatically protected by law. And even IF that's what the SCOTUS erroneously orders the Constitution says... it MUST be applied to all persons creating new institutions and claiming rights under the law.

If what you are arguing is true, there would have never been a Civil War or any fight over slavery. It would have been ruled unconstitutional by an activist SCOTUS years and years before. As it was, the SCOTUS repeatedly turned down cases and ruled against abolition because it couldn't change the Constitution and write new laws. Even after a bloody civil war where half a million people died, the only thing that could change the condition of slavery was Constitutional amendment. THAT was the "reinterpreting" needed and it was done by THE PEOPLE not the Court.

 

[bodecea]

Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that?

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.

Would be nice if adults could actually engage in reasoned conversations without the children wondering in.

I'm wondering what "wondering in" means.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.

Indeed, the Constitution is the highest expression of society's collective moral values. And the court is supposed to defend it. They are not authorized to interpret their own meanings into the constitution. IF that is the case, there is no need for a Constitution and it actually means nothing. The court does not have domain and authority over the people. They are one of three co-equal branches of government, of which WE control.

There was not an issue of discrimination or denial of a right in this case. People were not being denied something on the basis of their gender. A new thing had to be created in order to claim a right to it. The Constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, homosexuals, or even marriage for that matter. It does not state that people can arbitrarily create new institutions and claim rights to those new institutions and for this to be automatically protected by law. And even IF that's what the SCOTUS erroneously orders the Constitution says... it MUST be applied to all persons creating new institutions and claiming rights under the law.

If what you are arguing is true, there would have never been a Civil War or any fight over slavery. It would have been ruled unconstitutional by an activist SCOTUS years and years before. As it was, the SCOTUS repeatedly turned down cases and ruled against abolition because it couldn't change the Constitution and write new laws. Even after a bloody civil war where half a million people died, the only thing that could change the condition of slavery was Constitutional amendment. THAT was the "reinterpreting" needed and it was done by THE PEOPLE not the Court.

. Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that! I believe that that is testimony to the fact that they never intended the constitution to be a ridged document that enumerated every single right that we have and foreclose any claim to additional rights that are not spelled out. They understood that times would change and that issue that they could not conceive of would arise. They produced a brilliant and elegant document that is alive and evolving.

Consider, every single opposite sex couple in this country- as long as they are of legal age, not to closely related as per state law, and meet other minimum requirements-can obtain a marriage license without question. It is assumed to be a right. Same sex couple still could not do so in all places before Obergefell. They were in fact being denied equal protection under the law as per the US constitution as numerous federal courts have declared.

While marriage is not a federal issue, matters that are reserved to the states are not absolute and those rights must be exercised within the context of the entire constitution. The Supreme Court has, some 16 times stated that marriage is in fact a fundamental right and it will only be a short leap for the court to say that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

Numerous federal courts at the district and circuit level have said that the bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Many have stated that discriminatory laws-not just marriage but any laws that deprive gay people of rights- do not even pass a rational basis review- the lowest standard for the court- leave alone strict scrutiny, which would require the state to prove a compelling government interest in justifying the law.

As far as a constitutional amendment goes.....There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:

Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution

In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery.


It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

 

[Boss]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing. If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. It obviously wasn't.