Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Chuz Life]

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"









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 .

The thouht or claim that homosexuality is normalized is not universal. Not even close.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The thouht or claim that homosexuality is normalized is not universal. Not even close.

Homosexuality isn’t a criteria in civil marriage laws.

Sex of the applicants was/is.

WW

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Based on?

It's 100% not a right. The state is under no obligation to marry anyone gay or straight. The State could abolish marriage as a state institution completely. Secular marriage is nothing more than a package of agreements/contracts that people enter into that they call "marriage". A lawyer could draw up a contract between 2 people which does the same thing. The state has just made it an easy one stop shop.

It's not a right by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’ll ask again. Can you cite the portion of the Constitution which makes civil marriage a right.

What you’ve cited has zero to do with marriage.

If it is not a right then what is it. ? It is not privilege. Privileges have to be earned , Driving is a privilege because to have study to get a license, practice driving , and demonstrate competence. If you cannot show competence, or if you keep screwing up your license can be revoked by the state . In marriage you can be a lousy partner, incompetent and abusive but no 3rd party can revoke that license, as long as you met very minimal criteria to get it , You incessant bleating about how it is not a right is pointless since it has always been treated as a right that . And the issue of whether or not a state can just stop marrying people is also irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage -which is what this thread is about – because if the state allows opposite sex couples to marry, it must allows same sex couples to marry

 

[Chuz Life]

Homosexuality isn’t a criteria in civil marriage laws.

Sex of the applicants was/is.

WW

One man one woman is, was and always will be the the ideal basis for marriage, family and society by extension.

If a State wants to let gays marry, that's fine but it's not a Constitutional right.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The thouht or claim that homosexuality is normalized is not universal. Not even close.

IN THIS COUNTRY it most certainly is normalized as well as widely accepted,.

Few people aside from a few homophobic bigots even talk about it any more

 

[80zephyr]

You are dodging the question.

What is the Constitutional basis for denying two same sex siblings from marrying one another?

Stop diverting and dragging other shit into it.

It can't be answered.

 

[Chuz Life]

IN THIS COUNTRY it most certainly is normalized as well as widely accepted,.

Few people aside from a few homophobic bigots even talk about it any more

Yet look at the left panicking that the SCOTUS might (I say should) send it back to the States.

It's no where near as "normalized" as you claim.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are dodging the question.

What is the Constitutional basis for denying two same sex siblings from marrying one another?

Stop diverting and dragging other shit into it.

See post 111 Try to learn something

 

[80zephyr]

IN THIS COUNTRY it most certainly is normalized as well as widely accepted,.

Few people aside from a few homophobic bigots even talk about it any more

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It can't be answered.

Yes it can be and has been See post 111. It goes to the issue of how and when government can restrict or deny something that one may claim as a right based on a compelling government of societal interest,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet look at the left panicking that the SCOTUS might (I say should) send it back to the States.

It's no where near as "normalized" as you claim.

Are you really so out of touch with reality that you think that SCOTUS actually reflects the will of the people anymore?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You really don't understand much about how things work , do you??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Can states limit who get's married?

Yes , when they can articulate a valid reason for a particular exclusion , which they failed to do in the case of gay marriage. READ THE GOD DAMNED OBERGEFELL OPINION

 

[Chuz Life]

See post 111 Try to learn something

I'll consider your opinions along with the words of SCOTUS justices Thomas and Alito.

Don't cry if their words carry a little more weight on this issue. Ok?

 

[Chuz Life]

Are you really so out of touch with reality that you think that SCOTUS actually reflects the will of the people anymore?

The SCOTUS knows that the majority is not always in the RIGHT.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Bullshit red herring logical fallacy. Your little fantasy is not happening, At issue is the rights of gay people to marry in an environment where- regardless of what the law says- marriage has always been treated as a right, straight people have always been able to claim it as a right and the SCOTUS has said numerous times that it is a right. Deal with that

 

[Chuz Life]

Bullshit red herring logical fallacy. Your little fantasy is not happening, At issue is the rights of gay people to marry in an environment where- regardless of what the law says- marriage has always been treated as a right, straight people have always been able to claim it as a right and the SCOTUS has said numerous times that it is a right. Deal with that

It's a qualified right and the jury is not unanimous on whether same sex applicants qualify. Especially on a Federal Level.

 

[WorldWatcher]

One man one woman is, was and always will be the the ideal basis for marriage, family and society by extension.

If a State wants to let gays marry, that's fine but it's not a Constitutional right.

If a state recognizes Civil Marriage between same-sex couples and allows them to Civilly Marry...

What is your of Federal recognition based on the state action?

(Not a got'cha question, really curious.)

WW

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The SCOTUS knows that the majority is not always in the RIGHT.

Thank you for admitting that the majority supports gay marriage