Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Chuz Life]

Saying you said something you literally just said doesn't make it personal. You said it. It was kind of nasty, for the reasons I mentioned. If you take that personally, that's not my problem.

And yes, I bet you do have all of these old chestnuts in your bag. I know, "the Bible says so" is in there, somewhere. I am trying to directly tell you why these things are not compelling, and why they should not be recognized as a basis for laws.

And that IS, in fact, what you are arguing. That the laws you want would be better, and why. okay. I like your honesty, even if accidental, at times.

And you think society should be engineered in this manner. I think that is futile and is based on old, magical thinking. I also find it to be cruel.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm not even trying to convince you to do so.

I only ask that you leave people alone. Mind your business, in your daily behaviors. Let gay love be gay marriage and pay as much 'mind' to it as you like. I assure you, it will be more than I pay to it.

It's not a big ask. Yes, I will keep saying it.

I'm not religious and that is a big part of your personal attack.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There are rights involved, sure. However, those are qualified rights. And again, it should be up to the States to define what it will and (by omission) what it will not recognize as a "marriage."

To the extent that the states do not violate the constitution in doing so, and can demonstrate a compelling government or societal interest for any restrictions. With respect to same sex marriage, they have failed that test as I have demonstrated.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

True.
Do you know what a well-regulated militia was and how it was defined at the time the Constitution was being drafted and on the heels of the Revolutionary War?



The right to keep and bear arms is not "given" to the people by the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a recognition of the people's rights and a limit on the power of the government. It's not a gift from the government to the people.


The only thing I troll for in my threads is facts and consistency.



I thought I made it clear. The SCOTUS, as of now has it ass backwards. Marriage (a legal construct/ contract not defined in the Constitution) is a State issue.

Personhood, (More than only a legal construct is mentioned in the Constitution for "right to life and equal protection,") is a Federal issue.


The Horror!


Okay. . .



Yes. Absolutely.



There are rights involved, sure. However, those are qualified rights. And again, it should be up to the States to define what it will and (by omission) what it will not recognize as a "marriage."

Privacy also has similar limits. Nobody has the right to violate another's rights and shield that violation behind a so called right to "privacy."

Funny how you keep twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to prove that a clump of cells in the womb has more rights that two consenting adults,

 

[Eman623]

I think few want to reopen this issue again.

It's settled law now. Move on dot org.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

None of which has anything to do with the 10th amendment and state's right to issue licenses on matters that do not pertain to the federal government. See the various other licenses that have previously discussed. Precedent here lies with the states.

Now all that you have to do is explain why and how the Tenth Amendment takes supersedes the 14th

 

[Rogue AI]

Now all that you have to do is explain why and how the Tenth Amendment takes supersedes the 14th

Licensing is a state issue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Its called case law. I

Are you really this stupid?

If every state legislature voted to rescind any and all laws pertaining to marriage and stopped issuing marriage licenses to everyone. Where in the Constitution would you point to say they couldn’t do that?

It's called case law, It carries the same weight as any article or amendment of the constitution

AI Overview

The Supreme Court has not explicitly stated that marriage is a right "14 times". However, the Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental right to marry in numerous cases, including several landmark decisions related to same-sex marriage, and has cited the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for this right. The court has also acknowledged the importance of marriage as a social institution and a fundamental human relationship.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Licensing is a state issue.

Give it a ******* rest already. I made my case. States can not just do whatever the hell they want. You might have heard that we are no longer following the articles of confederation,

 

[The Duke]

That's not going anywhere. IMO, this BS was spread by engagement farmers for clicks.

 

[Couchpotato]

Its called case law. I

It's called case law, It carries the same weight as any article or amendment of the constitution

AI Overview

The Supreme Court has not explicitly stated that marriage is a right "14 times". However, the Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental right to marry in numerous cases, including several landmark decisions related to same-sex marriage, and has cited the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for this right. The court has also acknowledged the importance of marriage as a social institution and a fundamental human relationship.

If all the State Legislatures passed a law tmw that rescinded all laws related to marriage. So that no state in the Union was issuing marriage licenses anymore, where in the Constitution or case law would you point to say they were outside their jurisdiction or power to do so? All the case law you are quoting applies to equal protection clauses. It has nothing to do with marriage per se but the application of the laws related to marriage. Marriage is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutionally protected one. You might be dumber then the other one.

 

[Couchpotato]

Give it a ******* rest already. I made my case. States can not just do whatever the hell they want. You might have heard that we are no longer following the articles of confederation,

Can states limit who get's married?

 

[Rogue AI]

Give it a ******* rest already. I made my case. States can not just do whatever the hell they want. You might have heard that we are no longer following the articles of confederation,

You being wrong is your problem, not mine. States are not just doing what they want when they amend their constitutions. Perhaps the queers should have appealed to the people not unelected activist judges. Rightfully returning marriage to the states is merely correcting a gross miscarriage of justice and federal overreach.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If all the State Legislatures passed a law tmw that rescinded all laws related to marriage. So that no state in the Union was issuing marriage licenses anymore, where in the Constitution or case law would you point to say they were outside their jurisdiction or power to do so? All the case law you are quoting applies to equal protection clauses. It has nothing to do with marriage per se but the application of the laws related to marriage. Marriage is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutionally protected one. You might be dumber then the other one.

#1 All state legislatures aren't going to stop issuing marriage licenses even if some red states do.

#2 Stopping issuing of marriage licenses does not change state law pertaining to those that are already in Civil Marriages.

#3 If the state recognizes Civil Marriages for existing residents then continues to recognize Civil Marriages entered into outside the state, then "not issuing" new Civil Marriage licenses changes nothing (expect pissing off the people in the state) because couple will go to another state, get married, then return.

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

You being wrong is your problem, not mine. States are not just doing what they want when they amend their constitutions. Perhaps the queers should have appealed to the people not unelected activist judges. Rightfully returning marriage to the states is merely correcting a gross miscarriage of justice and federal overreach.

More to the point the Obergfell decision applies the law inequitably IMO. Individual states already restrict marriage in countless ways, saying they cant restrict it in this way is silly and nothing more than pandering to a specific group, because it feels like we should. Besides the fact that the marriage restriction to 1 man and 1 woman doesn't actually bar anyone from getting married. A gay man could marry a lesbian. Not have access to marriage in the way you want isn't an unequal application of the law. The law is being applied to everyone equally. 2 straight men aren't allowed to get married under that restriction any more than 2 gay men.

Personally I think restricting civil marriage is dumb. Actually I think states being in the marriage business in the first place is dumb frankly. They should issue civil unions to anyone who wants them. If you want to get married talk to your Priest, Pastor, Druid Priestess, whoever to get married.

Problem solved.

 

[Couchpotato]

#1 All state legislatures aren't going to stop issuing marriage licenses even if some red states do.

It's a hypothetical. Of course they arent going to pass a law stopping the issuance of marriage licenses. I never said they were. What it illustrates is that marriage isnt a right, and the SCOTUS case law on marriage doesnt make it a Constitutionally protected one either.

#2 Stopping issuing of marriage licenses does not change state law pertaining to those that are already in Civil Marriages.

Didnt say it would.

#3 If the state recognizes Civil Marriages for existing residents then continues to recognize Civil Marriages entered into outside the state, then "not issuing" new Civil Marriage licenses changes nothing (expect pissing off the people in the state) because couple will go to another state, get married, then return.

WW

Nothing in my post said anything to the contrary. Which is why in the posed hypothetical all the states abolished marriage at the same time. That said if Wisconsen stopped issuing marriage licenses it could also stop recognizing all licensees regardless of where they were issued after the date they stopped issuing them in their state. I'm not sure it would be illegal for them to keep issuing marriage licenses and also stopping recognition of any marriage license not issued from Wisconsen. What exactly would be the legal objection to that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That said if Wisconsen stopped issuing marriage licenses it could also stop recognizing all licensees regardless of where they were issued after the date they stopped issuing them in their state.

Not issuing Civil Marriage licenses from a date forward and not honoring Civil Marriages already recognized are vastly different things.

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

Not issuing Civil Marriage licenses from a date forward and not honoring Civil Marriages already recognized are vastly different things.

WW

Ok. But a state is certainly within it's legal right to decide to not recognize them. Certainly if they weren't recognizing them from any state, but you could make the argument that they could decide to set up reciprocity agreements with certain states and not others. Similar to the concealed carry laws. This isn't a would or should its a could.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok. But a state is certainly within it's legal right to decide to not recognize them. Certainly if they weren't recognizing them from any state, but you could make the argument that they could decide to set up reciprocity agreements with certain states and not others. Similar to the concealed carry laws. This isn't a would or should its a could.

I think you should really push for a state like Mississippi, Alabama, or Oklahoma to try it.

Abolish Civil Marriage al together.

Or attempt to have Civil Marriage, but only accept Civil Marriages from certain states. It would be a hoot to watch.

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

I think you should really push for a state like Mississippi, Alabama, or Oklahoma to try it.

Abolish Civil Marriage al together.

Or attempt to have Civil Marriage, but only accept Civil Marriages from certain states. It would be a hoot to watch.

WW

I have little to no interest in the subject other than to discuss the legality of them doing it. I certainly am not going to waste any my time trying to get state to abolish civil marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is a "qualified" right.

View attachment 1148912

If you’re trying to say that marriage is a qualified right and use that as an argument against same sex marriage you are going to fall flat on your face. The fact is that marriage is a fundamental right with some aspect of a qualified right, and therefore is in a unique category

AI Overview

Marriage and "qualified rights"

In the context of legal and human rights discourse, the phrase "qualified rights" in relation to marriage points to the idea that while individuals generally possess the right to marry and the rights associated with that status, these rights are not absolute and can be subject to certain limitations or restrictions under specific, legally defined circumstances.

There is nothing in that definition that justifies treating same sex couples differently from others . Read on.

Here's a breakdown:

1. The right to marry as a fundamental right

The right to marry is considered a fundamental right in many legal systems, including the United States, where the Supreme Court recognized it as such in cases like Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges. This means that the government cannot infringe upon this right without a compelling reason and a showing that the infringement is narrowly tailored to achieve that reason.

2. Qualified nature of marriage rights

However, the right to marry is not an absolute right. It's considered a "qualified right," which means it can be restricted or limited in certain circumstances to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the wider community or to protect the rights of others.

3. Examples of limitations on the right to marry

• Age restrictions: Most states have minimum age requirements for marriage, often requiring parental consent or court approval for minors.
• Prohibition of polygamy: All states in the US prohibit polygamous marriages.
• Restrictions on marriage to close family members: Laws generally prohibit marriage between individuals who are closely related.
• Capacity to consent: Individuals must be mentally competent to consent to marriage for it to be valid.
• Public policy considerations: In some cases, marriages might be deemed invalid if they violate a strong public policy of the state, according to USCIS.

The bottom line is that the qualities for marriage are very narrow, and specific. One of those qualifiers that in the past my have been successfully used to prohibit same sex marriage is not longer valid since same sex marriage is now normalized, and accepted by the majority of the people . Feel free to keep trying .