SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, again demonstrating the idiocy of libtards......

I am never more convinced that I'm right when a right wing nut go off on a rant and has to resort to name calling and flame baiting. So is that all that you have ?

You really cant see what you just did there, can you?

Just cant get enough of you stupid *****. You make my day so light and full of laughter.....

 

[RKMBrown]

Pretty funny stuff.. guy goes off on a rant complaining about someone else going off on a rant.

Yeah it's no surprise to me when authoritarians come out in favor of liberty for the actions and desires of the people that they support and then summarily dismiss liberty for the actions and desires of the "other" side. Hilarious.

 

[Flopper]

I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows

snip:
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
The Supreme Court handed the gay community tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.
By Paul Rosnick

By Paul Rosnick
July 2, 2015





wrote an opinion piece for The Federalist explaining why I, as a gay man, opposed same-sex marriage. After last week’s Supreme Court ruling, I find myself on the “wrong side of history,” but the right side of the facts—an incredibly frustrating place to be.

I write now, not to defend the traditional institution of marriage, but to encourage my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community to step up to the great responsibility that is now before them.

The beloved Uncle Ben from Marvel’s “Spider Man” put it nicely when he said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Supreme Court handed the gay community a tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the gay community at large is not ready to handle this responsibility. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the media and on television shows like “Modern Family,” LGBT culture is far from “family friendly.”

Gay Culture Is Not Family-Friendly

all of it here
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power

 

[Flopper]

I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows

snip:
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
The Supreme Court handed the gay community tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.
By Paul Rosnick

By Paul Rosnick
July 2, 2015





wrote an opinion piece for The Federalist explaining why I, as a gay man, opposed same-sex marriage. After last week’s Supreme Court ruling, I find myself on the “wrong side of history,” but the right side of the facts—an incredibly frustrating place to be.

I write now, not to defend the traditional institution of marriage, but to encourage my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community to step up to the great responsibility that is now before them.

The beloved Uncle Ben from Marvel’s “Spider Man” put it nicely when he said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Supreme Court handed the gay community a tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the gay community at large is not ready to handle this responsibility. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the media and on television shows like “Modern Family,” LGBT culture is far from “family friendly.”

Gay Culture Is Not Family-Friendly

all of it here
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power

Seeing that 50% of all first marriages of heterosexual couples end in divorce and 40% of heterosexual divorced couples have children, I really doubt that gay and lesbian couples will do any worse.

 

[danielpalos]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Actually, regarding the gun rights, elected representatives of States are obligated to enact gun laws meant to achieve the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; according to the maturity level of their Constituency.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows

snip:
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
The Supreme Court handed the gay community tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.
By Paul Rosnick

By Paul Rosnick
July 2, 2015





wrote an opinion piece for The Federalist explaining why I, as a gay man, opposed same-sex marriage. After last week’s Supreme Court ruling, I find myself on the “wrong side of history,” but the right side of the facts—an incredibly frustrating place to be.

I write now, not to defend the traditional institution of marriage, but to encourage my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community to step up to the great responsibility that is now before them.

The beloved Uncle Ben from Marvel’s “Spider Man” put it nicely when he said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Supreme Court handed the gay community a tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the gay community at large is not ready to handle this responsibility. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the media and on television shows like “Modern Family,” LGBT culture is far from “family friendly.”

Gay Culture Is Not Family-Friendly

all of it here
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power

I see that you like to mindlessly copy and paste this sort of inane equine excrement without any thought or analysis. That’s OK, I can do that for you. This is just another smear of gay men that provided no evidence to back it up. This is a highly biased piece that fails miserably to make a case against same sex marriage and parents.

In the article What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power , The Dutch study http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/?page=all which was a survey from 2003 states that gay couples do not stay together as long as heterosexuals .and are sexually active outside of the relationship than heterosexuals.

However, no methodology –such as what variables if any were controlled for is described. . How was it determined that gay men are so much more sexually active with different partners than straight men are?. Where are the empirical studies that control for intervening variables such as marital status?

More importantly, I submit to you that none of this constitutes a case against same sex marriage and common sense would tell you that marriage is likely to have a positive impact on the longevity and fidelity of relationships. It could well be that gay men who have marriage available to them, or at least have community and family support for their relationships are no more promiscuous than their straight counterparts?

The National Institute of Health study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906147/ discusses the various sexual lifestyles and relationship agreements of gay men, with an eye towards the HIV issue, while there is no comparison at all with heterosexual couples. In addition, it is from 2010 when marriage was only possible in a few states. Again, this is hardly a case against marriage and child rearing.

The UCLA Study states that

they are promiscuous because they are men. (Not gay men, but men) Women temper the baser instincts of men. Without the moderating effects of womanhood, or an overwhelming moral code, men give in to primal urges. Perhaps that is why lesbians are twice as likely to get married as gay men, according to a study by researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles

.

In addition, this part is glossed over in that study

In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually.

The opinion piece that he refers to is, well, just that, an opinion by Paul Rosnick which is a pseudonym. In that piece, he claims that many gays and lesbians are against marriage. Well, so are many heterosexuals. He touches on the failed argument of procreation which is not a requirement or expectation of marriage and ignores the fact that gay people do have children and raise children.

In addition, he states that children in the care of gay parents had to have been removed from a biological parent and ignores that fact that that child already had lost a biological parent through circumstances that would have occurred anyway.

Also, even if they do have multiple sexual partners, it does not mean that it is going to lead to splitting up or an unstable home for children. Many straight couple are openly non monogamous and that in fact can lead to greater longevity in a relationship.

I will add that gay men and lesbians have had children in their care long before marriage was possible. It is now estimated that there are upwards of two million in the US .Any increase in that number as the result of marriage is likely to be small. On the other hand, marriage will mean that numerous children who are currently in the care of gay people will have the opportunity to have married parents who are both their legal guardian, and that can only e beneficial to the children.

Lastly, the author cites hedonism and flamboyancy as reasons why gay people should not have children. That is the stupidest assertion of the whole piece. How often do gays engage in such behavior and what evidence is there that their children are involved,? Maybe people who attend Mardi Gras and spring break festivities should not have children either.. And as I said before gay people will have children whether anyone likes it or not and whether or not they can marry


I enjoyed this ! Thank you Stephanie!!

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

 

[rightwinger]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!

 

[Statistikhengst]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

When was it written asshat? Was QUEER NATION even thought about then, and riddle me this Statfuckingnameis, in over 135 years why take so long to even bring this up? You mean in 135 years EVERYONE but a few cocksuckers were unaware of this?

 

[Statistikhengst]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

When was it written asshat? Was QUEER NATION even thought about then, and riddle me this Statfuckingnameis, in over 135 years why take so long to even bring this up? You mean in 135 years EVERYONE but a few cocksuckers were unaware of this?

You seem angry and you seem to think you can insult people and it will somehow bother them, but you fail at it miserably. I am well aware of when the 14th was written and later, ratified, and smart people know of the circumstances leading up to its creation, but it was very deliberately worded to cover more than the issues of personal liberty related to slavery. In other words, the people who penned the 14th showed great foresight.

So, instead of trolling, learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

If the amendment were meant to specifically apply just to blacks, it could have said so

 

[Vigilante]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

When was it written asshat? Was QUEER NATION even thought about then, and riddle me this Statfuckingnameis, in over 135 years why take so long to even bring this up? You mean in 135 years EVERYONE but a few cocksuckers were unaware of this?

You seem angry and you seem to think you can insult people and it will somehow bother them, but you fail at it miserably. I am well aware of when the 14th was written and later, ratified, and smart people know of the circumstances leading up to its creation, but it was very deliberately worded to cover more than the issues of personal liberty related to slavery. In other words, the people who penned the 14th showed great foresight.

So, instead of trolling, learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

NO, it wasn't worded to cover ANY OTHER issue....if so show me a link to somewhere back in the late 1860's to 1890's where it is mentioned by anyone of any renown! You're full of crap, and deserve insulting because YOU are insulting!

Heil Hitlery!

 

[Vigilante]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

If the amendment were meant to specifically apply just to blacks, it could have said so

It didn't have to, everyone BACK THEN knew EXACTLY what it referred to, they weren't Wesley little scumbags back then, they were men which Progs today aren't! You people are missing morals, ethics and principles, along with wanting to tear down our culture that has stood Wars for over 200 years!

 

[rightwinger]

The court reiterated what lower courts have been saying. The state has proven no adverse impact on society from same sex marriage

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the **** down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the **** down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

OH, I see you've met Vigilante..... good luck with that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.[/QUOTE]

Well, they did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have sent it back to the 6th circuit and directed them to apply a higher level of scrutiny to their horseshit ruling upholding Michigan's ban on same sex marriage but they didn't do that either.

As far as civil unions go.....I w


The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the **** down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!