Respect for Marriage Act?

[struth]

Actually, it isn't meaningless. It requires all states to recognize the marriages of other states.

Just like your state driver's license is recognized in every state.

they already did.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Loving case back in the 1960's in Virginia did away with prohibiting interracial marriage. And I never had a problem with that to begin with, though I have met both white and black people who do not look kindly upon it to say the least.

So? There are both black and white racists.How does your post in anyway refute mine?

I will add You cannot suport Loving on constitutional grounds while maintaing that Oberhefell waas not supported by the constitution

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In America marriage is a privilege, it's not a right.

Bullshit! Marriage is a right

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order. Here is one example:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason.  Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The right to marry and the Constitution

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?
But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is also based off of religion, a religion that believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

For some it is religious. For many it is not. The religious do not get to define marriage for the rest of us. For that matter, not all of those who are religious define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Letting gays get married is the reason why we have pedophiles trying to convince everyone they aren't bad people, dragfags are doing dildo ring toss with kids and doing drag story time with kids, and why trannies tell people to lie and say a man can be a woman.

That is just plain stupid in so many way

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once we let gays get married we took a fringe group that was once not normalized and we normalized them. We lowered our societies morals, standards and values to accommodate gays.

That is right. Gay marriage has been normalized. But that has not lowered standards . We have made marriage more inclusive and as such strengthened it as an institution. We have raised our standards and are one step closer to realizing the goal of evolving standards of human decency

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once you lower the bar for one fringe group all you do is set the bar closer to the even more fringe group below them. By letting gays get married we set the bar closer to drag queens to become normal, then we set the bar closer to trannies that are becoming normal, then we set the bar closer to pedos that now actually publicly talk about being a "minor attracted persons".

Slippery slope logical fallacy bullshit

 

[pknopp]

Bullshit! Marriage is a right

If it was a right, everyone would be able to get married. There are people for whatever reason unable to do so.

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order. Here is one example:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason.  Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The right to marry and the Constitution

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?
But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

That the government can not discriminate is clearly laid out in the Constitution. They can not say "you have the right to access government benefits for married people, but you do not".

 

[HeyNorm]

Bullshit! Marriage is a right

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order. Here is one example:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason.  Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The right to marry and the Constitution

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?
But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

And…………

Gays have always had the right. They simply had to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[HeyNorm]

So? There are both black and white racists.How does your post in anyway refute mine?

I will add You cannot suport Loving on constitutional grounds while maintaing that Oberhefell waas not supported by the constitution

What is the distinguishing physical characteristic of “gay”.

Yes I can support loving and not obergfell

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If it was a right, everyone would be able to get married. There are people for whatever reason unable to do so.

I disagree. No rights are absolute. All have exceptions. I maintain that it is a right for the reasons that I gave

 

[pknopp]

I disagree. No rights are absolute. All have exceptions. I maintain that it is a right for the reasons that I gave

If the government removed the benefits for being married it all becomes moot. Gay couples could always marry. They just couldn't access the benefits others could. No benefits and anyone marries who they want to and all is good.

 

[HeyNorm]

If the government removed the benefits for being married it all becomes moot. Gay couples could always marry. They just couldn't access the benefits others could. No benefits and anyone marries who they want to and all is good.

Even straight same sex couples. Absurdity at its finest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And…………

Gays have always had the right. They simply had to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Disgusting, ignorant , bigoted bovine excrement.

 

[HeyNorm]

Disgusting, ignorant , bigoted bovine excrement.

Looking in the mirror?

 

[Ralph Norton]

A mixed race marriage is superior in most every way to a straight race marriage.

Do tell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What is the distinguishing physical characteristic of “gay”.

Yes I can support loving and not obergfell

What is the distinguishing physical characteristic of "Christian" vs. an Atheist ?

Physical characteristics by no means capture the essence of the total person. Of course I would not expect you to understand that, given the shallowness of your intellect and darth of emotional maturity

 

[HeyNorm]

What is the distinguishing physical characteristic of "Christian" vs. an Atheist ?

Physical characteristics by no means capture the essence of the total person. Of course I would not expect you to understand that, given the shallowness of your intellect and darth of emotional maturity

None, but they have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Duh

Now run along.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

None, but they have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Duh

Now run along.

No they don't. Not all Catholics are straight, or bigots Duh No go defenestrate yourself

 

[Calypso Jones]

A mixed race marriage is superior in most every way to a straight race marriage.

Looking for that diversity? That unity where we all fit into the same category?