The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[WorldWatcher]

Virginia said a black could not marry a white, that is discriminatory language, DOMA mentions nothing about homosexuals not being able to marry nor does it say only heterosexuals can marry, so you can't compare the two.

Sure you can.

Race is a biological status, Virginia denied Civil Marriage based on biology. Gender is a biological status, the federal government denies equal recognition of legal Civil Marriages based on biology.

It's gender based discrimination with no compelling government interest.


>>>>

Race is not biological, its social, whats black in America may not be black elsewhere, gender discrimination is not a euphemism for homosexual discrimination.

Taking the position that "black" is not a race is pretty lame considering Virginia's laws which specifically defined Civil Marriage in terms of "whites" (also not a "race") and "coloreds" (which as you claim is also not a race). The argument didn't survive review then.

You are the one that has attempted to pick fly shit out of pepper with you claim that since a male can marry (or a female can marry) that discrimination can not occur. So in debating the point I've agreed that sexual orientation is not the basis in the "letter of the law", but have shown where gender is the basis for the "letter of the law" and now you want to deny that gender is the basis.

Please identify from the blow list the basis of the law:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized​

What is the basis for federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your myopic view that is based on the misguided belief that a law specifically banning gay marriage must exist before the 14th amendment applies is beyond ignorance. Many posters have cited case law and history to show you how wrong you are and yet you continue to march blindly forward parroting the same moronic and countered talking points over and over again.

Remember on boards like this we are often not debating an individual poster, we are providing a counterpoint to "ideas". As such are purpose is to coach our replies to present to the lurkers and members that decide to stay in the background and what how an exchange develops and the illogical positions are refuted.

The likelihood is that we realistically will not change the mind or heart of the person we interact with, but may cause those of view ideas (from both sides) as valid or invalid and we will have a larger impact on those who choose not to specifically post.



>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

[That's what i do everytime you make one. LOL Which happens quite often then you come at me with lame personal attacks and works of fiction that you falsely attribute to me.

First of all. I have made no personal attacks, that is your specialty. I said that you had poorly constructed arguments. I can see that you don't like that but I call it how I see it. We can, if you prefer, engage in personal attacks but I would really prefer not to. .

Yeah that was ONE of you comments directed at me now go back and read your previous posts.

Second, I don't knwo what works of fiction I am falsely attributing to you but please let me know so I can go back and change the record

How about this comment where you try to define an argument about incest that I never made and attribute it to me so you can counter an argument I never made so you can pretend to prove me wrong.

Before you give me the "gay people aren't the same as incest, incest is disgusting"... YOU find someone who is incestuious as disgusting as some people find gay people. I'm not arguing because I care either way, I'd rather see the state the hell out of the institution of marriage, but before I see that I want to see the correct use of an amendment.
Mike

or how about this one

I sense that your argument is that two people of the same sex can marry someone because you want them to be able to and you don't care what the argument used is.

A man should be able to marry another man because frogs have no hair, there you go my friend. Problem solved.
Mike

Both are attempts by you to insert something you made up as my opinion so you can attack me for something I never said.

and then comes the 14th amendment to save the day.

Actually, that is what is up for debate, is it not? Have you read the title of the thread?


I do not disagree. I was merely arguing that the statement so often made that you cannot violate "religious freedom" is perposterous.

So you don't disgree and have nothing to say but are still babbling on and coming at me with ridiculous BS?? Got it thanks for the heads up.

No it's not legal thanks for clearing that up. LOL Should it be illegal? That is a better question for another thread. Go start one right now.

So wait, gay marriage is not legal (in most places) but polygamy, which is unquestionably part of several religions, isn't either. You are going to be the first one to campaign to the status of one but not the other?
Seriously I cannot see the difference here. Neither was legal before the debate began, neither infringe on anyone's "rights" and yet you defend one without the other.

You REALLY need to read what i said and comment on that instead of assuming you know what i am thinking and then running with your assumptions.

Look, I am all for states having the right to determine who can and cannot get married and honestly I don't see why polygamy can't be legal in one state, gay marriage in another state and in yet another state they should both be legal. How you can make the argument against polygamy and not against gay marriage is beyond me. I'm not judging either act or inserting my personal opinion into the situation, I'm merely reading what exists already.

I never made an argument against polygamy. I just said that is a matter for another thread. Once again try to put words into my mouth.

You had me until "but" then you lost me with another of your unsubstantiated claims. Your only argument against homosexual marriages is that it is a "gateway marriage" that COULD lead to other types of marriage and that just is NOT a valid or substnative argument.

Speaking of falsely attributing an opinion to someone...

I have never argued that homosexual marriage is a "gateway marriage". I said that if you are arguing for one, you should be arguing for the other. I dont' care if polygamy is legal, I don't care if beastiality is legal TBQH. All I care about is that we follow the constitution or amend it to fix the problems.

actually you and several others have brought up incest, polygamy and other issuesmany people find distasteful to try and argue against gay marriage claiming that gay marriage will lead to those other things like the "gateway drug" arguments. I made up the phrase 'gateway marriage" and did not intend to attribute that phrase to you even though you are guilty of the act.

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no. The entire Constittuion can be used however, to support a states right to legalize gay marriage.

Mike

and once again you make the unsubstantiated claim that the 14th amendment cannot be used in support of gay marriage. If I got something wrong in using the application of the 14th amendment, which you admitted that you did not disagree with, then explain how i got it wrong. You merely stating it doesn't apply just doesn't cut it.

P.S. I see you dropped that ridiculous "honor killing" argument. LOL

 

[Texanmike]

Ok. Lets have a serious, honest, intellectual debate. No name calling no intellectual dishonesty... here's my attempt. I'll stop the rhetoric.

It is special consideration to believe that only heterozexual marriage should count and is legal. What do homosexuals asking for the same rights and recogniztion as heterosexual marriages have to do with polygamists, child abusers, or incest?? The answer is NOTHING.

again you feel the need to limit the scope of the 14th based on your own personal preference. However, the 14th amendment does not limit equal protection to only "couples" of opposite genders. It applies to ALL CITIZENS and does nothing to define homosexual or heterosexual so where do you get that seperation from??

Actually, sir...

You are the one that is limiting the scope of the 14th based on your agenda.

Really?? How??

To explain that I'm going to, for the sake of argument, say that you are right on your interpretation of the 14th amendment. If you are right then it doesn't apply just to homosexuals. What is up for debate is not who is allowed to get married, it is who a person is allowed to get married to. If you are saying that someone should be able to choose any person to get married to then why would you stop at homosexuals? Does someone having multiple wives somehow interfere with your life? What about if someone marries their cousin or sister? Why would you argue for someone's right to marry someone of the same sex but then take something that is, in our society, consider devient or risque to you (or the majority) and not defend that.

I don't agree with polygamy, incest or homosexuality but I would defend the right of a state to allow it.

Ok. So that's the end of the sake of argument (translation: I'm not saying I agree that it is covered under the 14th, that argument didn't move.)

again how? How is stating that flayo is trying to change the subject in his attempts to link incest et al with homosexual marriage a misapplication??

Incest/polygamy are not all that different from homosexual marriage in that it is a selection of who you are marrying. I'm not saying that they are the same because I certainly think that incest is more repulsive than homosexual marriage but when it comes down to it the argument is whether an individual has an inalienable right to marry whoever he wants.

No the "priveledge" is not an issue but you go to a large portion of the right and they will argue that they have a religious right to get married so I find it hilarious how so many on the right are now arguing that marriage is not a right in this context so they can try to present an argument against homosexual marriage.

Well, in this case, our dialogue isn't with the "religious right". I'm not a "right winger". Are you kidding? I'm all for the right of people in a state to set the boundaries, rules and social constructs that govern their lives. Let me lay this out there and maybe it will make sense (maybe I should add this to my introduction thread):

I believe homosexuality is wrong. I am not anti-homosexual, I just do not believe it is moral. That doesn't preclude me from having friends that happen to be homosexual anymore than someone's preference for the Dallas Cowboys (I'm from Houston and so I believe all that is from Dallas is evil) precludes me from being friends with them. A lot of these social issues (drug legalization, how many right wingers do you know that would support a state's right to legalize not only weed but herioin, crack cocaine and any other drug) are really issues to be dealt with at the state level. I think that a community of people (be it a neighborhood, county, city, state or even in some cases the federal government) is perfectly capable of governing themselves. I am all for every decision being made at the most local level possible. That includes marriage. States handle the marriage issue (ultimately I wouldn't spend any more time or money on the marriage debate... I would remove government from it entirely and declare marriages to essentially be contractual agreements and merely enforce the contracts) so let them decide what the criteria is for a sanctioned marriage.

I don't care (I'm from Texas obviously) what people in NY or FL do. In my ideal world Texas would sit down with them and say "look, we don't agree with every law you want to create and we are ok with that. We won't try to impose our laws on you provided you allow us to be free from your laws. Furthermore, if another country should try to interfere with your right of self governance we will swear to protect and defend that right of yours, with our lives if necessary, provided you will do the same".

the states do decide. however if their decision violates federal law and the constitution then who wins?? I am certain that several states would have loved to keep slavery but they got overruled on that one didn't they?

That is actually the reason that there is a Constitution. The Constitution does 5 things that make it part of this discussion. First it outlines what the federal government is. Second, it grants the federal government very specific authorities. Third, it places very specific limits on the states authority. 4th, it grants any authority not granted to the Federal government by the states (in the form of the constittuion or a ratified amendment) to the states or the people and 5th, it provides a method for the states to grant an authority to the federal government (the amendment process).

The DOMA is unconstitutional just as a DOHMA (defense of homosexual marriage act) would be unconstitutional. Either "act" should be a Constitutional amendment in which 75% of the states decide to yeild that power to the federal government.

Your misinterpretation is flawed (out of ignorance or blind stupidity IMHO) at it's core becuase no one is arguing that states should not exist. Based on your misinterpretation lower courts have no need to exist because they can be overruled by higher courts. Do you see how ignorant you spin is now??

No, that's not what I am saying. You are saying that essentially. Just like you incorrectly addressed an argument with me (assuming I was a "right winger") I incorrectly assumed that you were making a 14th amendment argument that I encountered in another instance. I retract my statement.

I have already stated my position on marriage. It is a religious right (according to the right when they are talking about heterosexual marriage) that does no harm to anyone and is between consenting adults. So your claim that all of your examples must be allowed as well is absurd, to put it kindly.

So David Koresh's relious right to marry the multiple followers in his camp is not a "religious right"? Look, I think marriage is a religious institution and the state has no business being involved. I don't think any state violates someone's right to a religious marriage (you can have a marriage in your church and practice your religious freedom, there isn't really a ban on gay marriage, there is a lack of legal recognition in most states. I would be against an outright ban (and I don't know whate each state Constitution says) on a religious ceremony. Conversely, there is a ban on polygamy. You are breaking laws (in most states) if you attempt to marry more than one person.

So your argument against allowing homosexual marriage is that it's a gateway marriage and that it will open the door to other unseemly types of marriage?? So in other words you have no valid argument against it you just like trying to scare people with fears of hwat you believe will come later. BOO!. LOL Thanks for a lot of words that in the end said nothing of value.

You are correct that I have no argument against it. I have no dog in the fight. I am also not trying to scare anyone of what will come later. I don't understand why you are fighting for one and not fighting for the other. My position is clear and I will fight for a state's right.

Or, you can recognize that the 14th amendment was put in to protect people certain classes from having discriminatory laws written that isolate people of protected classes. I can declare myself a minority based on the fact that I'm over 6ft and speak Korean. I can also declare myself a minorty based on the fact that I am a Texans fan. Should an LSU fan be able to declare that because they are an LSU fan they should be exempt from the restrictions placed on marriage in the state of Lousyanna and therefore be allowed to marry their sister?

and yet the 14th amendment doen't speak of classes it speaks of CITIZENS and how the laws should be applied to them all equally. Funny how you missed that.

And the laws are applied (and in cases that they are not, they should be corrected.) The problem here is that you are ignoring how the law is being applied. Do you see the distinction in the following cases?

1. A marriage license shall be issued to any adult may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.
d. The person may not be of the same gender.

and

2. A marriage license shall be granted to any adult who is not homosexual may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.

3. No religious or civil ceremony may be held which sanctions/announces or makes a pact between two individuals of the same gender.

The first law is completely constitutional. It doesn't exclude a person from getting married.

The second law is unconstituitonal and it violates the 14th amendment because it doesn't provide equal protection of everyone to get married. It specifically precludes a person who is homosexual fro getting married.

The third one is a violation of the first amendment because it interferes with someone's ability to practice their religion.

Before you give me the "gay people aren't the same as incest, incest is disgusting"... YOU find someone who is incestuious as disgusting as some people find gay people. I'm not arguing because I care either way, I'd rather see the state the hell out of the institution of marriage, but before I see that I want to see the correct use of an amendment.

Mike

WOW, way to try to put words into my mouth and attack me for something that I never presented as my argument. LOL If you want to see the correct use of an amendment you might want to try reading it first. LOL[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I went to great lengths to explain my stance but I will have to laugh at the assertion that I've not read the first amendment. I've not only read the Constitution, I've read accounts of constitutional panels most people are unaware of. Do you know what the convention at Anapolis was? Do you know about the committees of 9? The committees of 11?

While there were no official transcriptions of any of these events (there was a concern that an official document would be preserved as a matter of record and that it was impossible for someone to make such a record without inserting one's opinion) Mason, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton all have at least (and some are rather extensive) collections of notes. Some of them are hard to get a hold of. A lot of them are out of print and will only be available at a large library. I will dig up the list that I have (mine isn't complete but I've got about 10 books that most 'constitutional scholars' are unaware they exist). I'm not saying that I'm the ultimate authority or anything but this is kind of a passion of mine and I'm not telling you how to interpret it, I'm just telling you that there are actual collections of notes by the actual delegates that do give insight into the original intention.

Its not the stuff that you will hear in con-law or american history class. I said in my intro that I'm an autodidact and I really do go out and read as much as I can. Again, just if you're interested, I'll forward the info. I'll have to dig it up at the house (I've moved twice recently)

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199

, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7

and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C

) is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. (wikipedia)

...

Under current Florida law, same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not recognized.[1] Same-sex marriage and civil unions were constitutionally banned on November 6, 2008 with 62% of the vote.[2][3] (wikipedia)

What you have to understand is that according to flaylo because a gay man can marry a woman there is no discrimination because he is allowed to marry. Nevermind the fact that the government is defining who he can or can't marry based on sexual orientation.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th amendment applies perfectly.

 

[drsmith1072]

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

You haven't proven it is a right. You have wished it to be one. I can claim that my right to marry anyone is a right. That is clearly not true. Would you make the argument that I can marry my sister (I don't have one so this is purely hypothetical)? The Constitution does not address things that are not rights, it addresses what is a right. Actually, it addresses what various levels of government can and cannot impose on people. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, is a right that cannot be infringed. As another example, government, at all levels, is prohibited from illegal search and seisure. Congress is prohibited from writing laws that infringe on the people's right to peaceably assemble, the right of freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Congress (the federal level, again) is prohibited from establishing an official religion (by the way this does not apply to the states. 3 states had (and maintained) official religions).

Congress is not granted the authority to make a decision on marriage. That is left to the states.

Mike

You started this thread and haven't proven a single argument so it's really no surprise that you continue that trend of failure. I have made my arguments and the best response you have provided is "nope" with no real explanation on how I am wrong. Saying it doesn't make it so and the fact that you cannot prove your arguments has no bearing on me but it says a lot about you.

BTW funny how you leave out freedom of religion. LOL What are you afraid of?

 

[Texanmike]

[That's what i do everytime you make one. LOL Which happens quite often then you come at me with lame personal attacks and works of fiction that you falsely attribute to me.

First of all. I have made no personal attacks, that is your specialty. I said that you had poorly constructed arguments. I can see that you don't like that but I call it how I see it. We can, if you prefer, engage in personal attacks but I would really prefer not to. .

Yeah that was ONE of you comments directed at me now go back and read your previous posts.



How about this comment where you try to define an argument about incest that I never made and attribute it to me so you can counter an argument I never made so you can pretend to prove me wrong.



or how about this one



Both are attempts by you to insert something you made up as my opinion so you can attack me for something I never said.



So you don't disgree and have nothing to say but are still babbling on and coming at me with ridiculous BS?? Got it thanks for the heads up.



You REALLY need to read what i said and comment on that instead of assuming you know what i am thinking and then running with your assumptions.



I never made an argument against polygamy. I just said that is a matter for another thread. Once again try to put words into my mouth.

Speaking of falsely attributing an opinion to someone...

I have never argued that homosexual marriage is a "gateway marriage". I said that if you are arguing for one, you should be arguing for the other. I dont' care if polygamy is legal, I don't care if beastiality is legal TBQH. All I care about is that we follow the constitution or amend it to fix the problems.

actually you and several others have brought up incest, polygamy and other issuesmany people find distasteful to try and argue against gay marriage claiming that gay marriage will lead to those other things like the "gateway drug" arguments. I made up the phrase 'gateway marriage" and did not intend to attribute that phrase to you even though you are guilty of the act.

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no. The entire Constittuion can be used however, to support a states right to legalize gay marriage.

Mike

and once again you make the unsubstantiated claim that the 14th amendment cannot be used in support of gay marriage. If I got something wrong in using the application of the 14th amendment, which you admitted that you did not disagree with, then explain how i got it wrong. You merely stating it doesn't apply just doesn't cut it.

P.S. I see you dropped that ridiculous "honor killing" argument. LOL

The 14th amendment cannot be used in support of gay marriage. It can be used against a ban on a gay person marrying.

I wasn't making the honor killing argument for any reason other than to demonstrate that the first amendment does not allow anyone to do anything in the name of religion. Sometimes making an outrageous argument is an effective technicnique to demonstrate a principle. Apparently it failed here.

With regards to incest/polygamy, I'm not saying we should debate the merit or morality of them, hell I'm not debating the merit or morality of homosexuality here, the real issue is, does a person have an unalienable right to marry whomever they want. If that is the case then why do we exclude anyone (short of children) from that? Why do we limit the number to one.

Either a state has the authority to place restrictions on who you may marry or it doesn't. If it does then you should be allowed to marry anyone you want and we should stop dictating who you are allowed to get married to.

Hopefully my last post more eloquently stated my position.

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

The Supreme Court cannot but take it up with them and the gays will not win because they have no basis for their claim that a law that states marriage is between a man and woman automatically discriminates against gays when there is no law that specifically states in its language that gays can't marry.

While everyone knows the purpose of the law (DOMA, the desire to deny equal treatment under federal law for legal Civil Marriages of homosexuals) a strict interpretation of the words used in the law does not show discrimination against homosexuals (although that is the intent), the letter of the law is discriminatory based on gender. Gender, a purely biological factor just as race is a purely biological factor.

A situation that brings the arguments against same-sex Civil Marriage even closer to the arguments against inter-racial Civil Marriage.



Good job.


>>>>

You're still wrong, DOMA doesn't deny marriage to anyone based on gender, it never says that men can only marry and or that women cannot marry, that would be discrimination based on gender.

Yeah you are wrong worldwatcher because flaylo says so and that is all of the justification he needs. LOL
Oh and could you site the source where you got your legal definition of discrimination from because I really need to see how it states that it must be openly stated before it counts as discrimination.

By defining marriage as being between only a man and a woman, it is at it's core discriminatory. It is saying that a man or a woman cannot marry who they want to marry which is a violation of the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

 

[drsmith1072]

Do you know what that means?

How do you interpret that??

Do you have a point?

Do you believe that asking questions while providing no argument makes you look smart?

BY the way the powers we are speaking of were granted to the federal government by the constituntion which was ratified by the states.

the 14th amendment spells it out quite nicely

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Have you taken the time to read it yet?

Strawman arguments and emotionalism doesn't make proof, you merely stated what the 14th Amendment said not its menaing and applicability.

So asking you questions about your posts is a strawman?? Then what does that say about your statements?? Labeling something a strawman when it is not is just a poor excuse for runnning away form an argument that you can't counter.

Still waiting on you to prove your argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply. You keep repeating that claim but you have failed to provide anything of substance to support it.

BTW showing what the 14th amendment says in the context of the power debate and my own words shows how it applies. When ratified the 14th amendment recognized that the government has the power to enforce equal protection under the law because all citizens of the states are citizens of the US and no state can pass a law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Is that clear enough for you? Care to EXPLAIN how that doesn't apply?

Now I have explained my position many times over so when are you going to present more than just the because I say so argument?

 

[drsmith1072]

The 14th Amendment mentions nothing about equal access to marriage laws.

Uh have you read the 14th amendment??

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You're arguing a damn strawman argument by hiding behind language in the 14th Amendment that doesn't apply, nothing in the 14th Amendment nor the Consitution mentions anything about marriage laws, nor marriage being a right, you have no proof so keep spamming the same shat. Equal proection is not the same as equal treatment.

Do you know what a strawman is??
Can you show how anything I said was a strawman?
Care to show how ther 14th does not apply instead of merely repeating that it doesn't?
Define equal protection.
Define equal treatment.

Now let's see if you can provide anything of substance to support your claims or if you will provide more of the same baseless repitition.

 

[drsmith1072]

Gays are not arguing for gay marriage on religious grounds, thats a strawman since homosexuality is not a religion.

OMG you really are retarded aren't you? I have already explained this to you multiple times and yet you stil fail to grasp it. LOL

No one is claiming that homosexuality is a religion. For you to continue that argumnet only serves to make you look even more ridiculous than you did yesterday.

BTW I see that you failed to answer my question. You focused on the tenth amendment so I asked you a question that has to do with your argument and you couldn't answer it. Why is that? what are you afraid of?

Gays arenot arguing for gay marriage based on religion, otherwise they would be invoking the 1st Amendment and not the 14th Amendment so what is your point of bringing up religion?

as I explained my postioin earlier it is a combination of both the 1st and the 14th. How many times do i have to explain it to you before you will stop parroting the same moronic nonresponseive bs over and over again? LOL

Still no answer for my question. Imagine that. You can't even stand behind your own words so what is the point in even posting if you lack the integrity to do that?

 

[drsmith1072]

You're still wrong, DOMA doesn't deny marriage to anyone based on gender, it never says that men can only marry and or that women cannot marry, that would be discrimination based on gender.

I didn't say DOMA denied marriage based on gender, as a matter of fact I pointed out that there are legal same-sex Civil Marriages. What DOMA does is deny equal recognition of (and therefore denial of equal protection) of State laws at the federal level. Which BTW the Federal government historically recognized State powers to define Civil Marriages for well over 200 years until DOMA was passed.

For federal purposes:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized​

What is the discriminatory factor in the above?



Now if you say since homosexuals can marry "someone" and therefore there is no discrimination, then you would logically have to disagree with the Loving v. Virginia opinion of the court because "colored" could marry someone.

If the position presented is to be interpreted consistently that is.




>>>>

You can't follow my argument, since there is not discriminatory language in DOMA that specifically states that homosexuals cannot marry homosexuals have no argument, DOMA doesn't deny marriage based on gender either

Yes, flaylo's lame argument is that they have to OPENLY state that they are intentionally and willfully discriminating against homosexuals before it counts as discrimination.

LOL Yeah it's that stupid.

The fact is that the language prevents them from marrying who they want to based on sexual orientation and religious zealots who are trying to use big government to force their morals onto the rest of the country.

 

[drsmith1072]

You're arguing a damn strawman argument by hiding behind language in the 14th Amendment that doesn't apply, nothing in the 14th Amendment nor the Consitution mentions anything about marriage laws, nor marriage being a right, you have no proof so keep spamming the same shat. Equal proection is not the same as equal treatment.

Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the United States Constitution to be held by the people?



>>>>

How do you draw that conclusion? the Constitution is the framework under which state laws must abide by, the Constitution doesn't dictate to the states which laws they must have. A law and a right are two different things.

Why can't you just answer a question when it is asked of you?

 

[drsmith1072]

Gay activism and homosexuality is a religious right? WTF?

AGAIN?? Please tell me that you are really not this ignorant and are just playing stupid.

Here we go again.

Marriage is at it's core a religious institution.

Based on that fact alone the government should not recognize any marriage.

However, we know that the government already does recognize heterosexual marriage for tax purposes and spousal rights.

Therefore according to the the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law it is wrong for the government to recognize one type of marriage and not another.

They just want the same rights as heterosexual citizens. What right do you have to deny them equal treatment?

Which supports my argument that gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment if it is their religion that is being violated

No it doesn't and chiming in claiming it does, does not make it so. Where is youyr proof?

, but then again polygamy is practiced by religious people because their religion says they can marry more than one person which would equally violate their 1st Amendment freedom of religion right, why is it ok for polygamists but not for gays? If gays are allowed to marry based on their religion then the same must be done for polygamists, do you agree or are you biased?

aw the "gateway marriage" argument again. The "If homosexual marriage is allowed then that will lead to polygamy" argument isn't a valid argument that homosexual marriage should not be allowed or recognized. LOL Thanks for showing that you once again have NOTHING valid to offer.

I present an argument that you can't counter so you try to change the subject out of sheer desperation. LOL I thought we were discussing the constitution the 14th amendment and homosexual marriage here so why are you so desperate to change the subject NOW?

I do find it hilarious how you and texanmike are queueing off of each other and coming at me with each others arguments that I have already responded to. LOL You're nothing but a couple of lemmings mindlessly following each other right off the cliff.

 

[drsmith1072]

Ok. Lets have a serious, honest, intellectual debate. No name calling no intellectual dishonesty... here's my attempt. I'll stop the rhetoric.

Actually, sir...

You are the one that is limiting the scope of the 14th based on your agenda.

Really?? How??

To explain that I'm going to, for the sake of argument, say that you are right on your interpretation of the 14th amendment. If you are right then it doesn't apply just to homosexuals. What is up for debate is not who is allowed to get married, it is who a person is allowed to get married to. If you are saying that someone should be able to choose any person to get married to then why would you stop at homosexuals? Does someone having multiple wives somehow interfere with your life? What about if someone marries their cousin or sister? Why would you argue for someone's right to marry someone of the same sex but then take something that is, in our society, consider devient or risque to you (or the majority) and not defend that.

I don't agree with polygamy, incest or homosexuality but I would defend the right of a state to allow it.

Ok. So that's the end of the sake of argument (translation: I'm not saying I agree that it is covered under the 14th, that argument didn't move.)

The moment you make the "gateway marriage" argument in a desperate attempt to deter people from recognizing homosexual marriage under the claim that it will lead to something else is patently dishonest on your part. Polygamy is not part of the debate according to the OP since he just wants to talk about the constitution, the 14th amendment and homosexual marriage. SO if you want to talk about the legality of polygamy go start another thread.
Stay focused on the REAL topic of this thread and present a REAL reason why it shouldn't be recognized instead of all of the "gateway marriage" bs that is nothing mroie than a distraction and has NO bearing on whether gay marriage should be recognized or not.

You still haven't shown how I narrowed the scope of the 14th amendment because I never said anything about it applying to polygamy or not. That was one of your attempts to attribute something to me that I did not say so you could try to define me as being hypocritical.

 

[drsmith1072]

again how? How is stating that flayo is trying to change the subject in his attempts to link incest et al with homosexual marriage a misapplication??

Incest/polygamy are not all that different from homosexual marriage in that it is a selection of who you are marrying. I'm not saying that they are the same because I certainly think that incest is more repulsive than homosexual marriage but when it comes down to it the argument is whether an individual has an inalienable right to marry whoever he wants.

That does NOTHING to EXPLAIN HOW I am guilty of misapplication of the Constitution which is what you accused me of doing. So please explain HOW.

No the "priveledge" is not an issue but you go to a large portion of the right and they will argue that they have a religious right to get married so I find it hilarious how so many on the right are now arguing that marriage is not a right in this context so they can try to present an argument against homosexual marriage.

Well, in this case, our dialogue isn't with the "religious right". I'm not a "right winger". Are you kidding? I'm all for the right of people in a state to set the boundaries, rules and social constructs that govern their lives. Let me lay this out there and maybe it will make sense (maybe I should add this to my introduction thread):

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't talking about the "religious right" as a group I was talking about how a large portion of the right consider marriage to be a RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

I believe homosexuality is wrong. I am not anti-homosexual, I just do not believe it is moral. That doesn't preclude me from having friends that happen to be homosexual anymore than someone's preference for the Dallas Cowboys (I'm from Houston and so I believe all that is from Dallas is evil) precludes me from being friends with them. A lot of these social issues (drug legalization, how many right wingers do you know that would support a state's right to legalize not only weed but herioin, crack cocaine and any other drug) are really issues to be dealt with at the state level. I think that a community of people (be it a neighborhood, county, city, state or even in some cases the federal government) is perfectly capable of governing themselves. I am all for every decision being made at the most local level possible. That includes marriage. States handle the marriage issue (ultimately I wouldn't spend any more time or money on the marriage debate... I would remove government from it entirely and declare marriages to essentially be contractual agreements and merely enforce the contracts) so let them decide what the criteria is for a sanctioned marriage.

I don't care (I'm from Texas obviously) what people in NY or FL do. In my ideal world Texas would sit down with them and say "look, we don't agree with every law you want to create and we are ok with that. We won't try to impose our laws on you provided you allow us to be free from your laws. Furthermore, if another country should try to interfere with your right of self governance we will swear to protect and defend that right of yours, with our lives if necessary, provided you will do the same".

Thanks for the long drawn out explanation that served no real purpose. However, it's the job of the federal goverment to step in and address issues that deal with individual rights to exclude them completely just because you say so is not a valid argument.

As I said earlier the federal government has no business recognizing any religious institutions including marriage but the fact is that they do recognize it for some citizens even as they refuse to do so for other citizens. Equal protection.

 

[CryingKoala]

There are no applicable legal arguments against gay marriage.
It always comes down to either "I don't like it, so there!" or some silly religious argument.


-Marriage is not a religious function in the eyes of the law. Religious groups have a right not to perform the ceremonies. Its not necessary. The local government can perform marriages.

-Gay marriage is not incest, polygamy or buggery. Its not just about a choice not being legal. Their inherent natures are altogether different. Just because you don't like any of them, it doesn't make them equivalent. Its a stupid analogy used to divert attention from the facts of the discussion and veer off into pointless discussions.

 

[drsmith1072]

the states do decide. however if their decision violates federal law and the constitution then who wins?? I am certain that several states would have loved to keep slavery but they got overruled on that one didn't they?

That is actually the reason that there is a Constitution. The Constitution does 5 things that make it part of this discussion. First it outlines what the federal government is. Second, it grants the federal government very specific authorities. Third, it places very specific limits on the states authority. 4th, it grants any authority not granted to the Federal government by the states (in the form of the constittuion or a ratified amendment) to the states or the people and 5th, it provides a method for the states to grant an authority to the federal government (the amendment process).

And what about the amendments that came AFTER that? Where do they fall in your 5 step program? Love the plug of the tenth in there BTW. LOL

the 14th expands the powers of the government because all citizens of the states are also citizens of the United States and all shall be equally protected under the law and No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. That's part of the constitution BTW.

The DOMA is unconstitutional just as a DOHMA (defense of homosexual marriage act) would be unconstitutional. Either "act" should be a Constitutional amendment in which 75% of the states decide to yeild that power to the federal government.

WOW even more off topic BS from you. No one is talking about a DOHMA so why bring up a work of fiction in what you are trying to call a serious conversation?

Your misinterpretation is flawed (out of ignorance or blind stupidity IMHO) at it's core becuase no one is arguing that states should not exist. Based on your misinterpretation lower courts have no need to exist because they can be overruled by higher courts. Do you see how ignorant you spin is now??

No, that's not what I am saying. You are saying that essentially.

really how is that essentially what I am saying? I showed how ridiculous your interpretation was when applied to the courts so how am I arguing that states need not exist merely by pointing to the fact that they can be challenged and overrulled by the fed if the laws they pass are unconstitutional.

Just like you incorrectly addressed an argument with me (assuming I was a "right winger") I incorrectly assumed that you were making a 14th amendment argument that I encountered in another instance. I retract my statement.

ah so that is your excuse for putting words into my mouth and charging me over arguments and comments I never made. Got it.

 

[Texanmike]

Ok. Lets have a serious, honest, intellectual debate. No name calling no intellectual dishonesty... here's my attempt. I'll stop the rhetoric.

Really?? How??

To explain that I'm going to, for the sake of argument, say that you are right on your interpretation of the 14th amendment. If you are right then it doesn't apply just to homosexuals. What is up for debate is not who is allowed to get married, it is who a person is allowed to get married to. If you are saying that someone should be able to choose any person to get married to then why would you stop at homosexuals? Does someone having multiple wives somehow interfere with your life? What about if someone marries their cousin or sister? Why would you argue for someone's right to marry someone of the same sex but then take something that is, in our society, consider devient or risque to you (or the majority) and not defend that.

I don't agree with polygamy, incest or homosexuality but I would defend the right of a state to allow it.

Ok. So that's the end of the sake of argument (translation: I'm not saying I agree that it is covered under the 14th, that argument didn't move.)

The moment you make the "gateway marriage" argument in a desperate attempt to deter people from recognizing homosexual marriage under the claim that it will lead to something else is patently dishonest on your part. Polygamy is not part of the debate according to the OP since he just wants to talk about the constitution, the 14th amendment and homosexual marriage. SO if you want to talk about the legality of polygamy go start another thread.
Stay focused on the REAL topic of this thread and present a REAL reason why it shouldn't be recognized instead of all of the "gateway marriage" bs that is nothing mroie than a distraction and has NO bearing on whether gay marriage should be recognized or not.

You still haven't shown how I narrowed the scope of the 14th amendment because I never said anything about it applying to polygamy or not. That was one of your attempts to attribute something to me that I did not say so you could try to define me as being hypocritical.

I am not making a "gateway marriage argument". I don't have a problem with people recoginizing a homosexual marriage. You conveniently ignore where I said that numerous times.

Also you seemed to completely ignore this:

And the laws are applied (and in cases that they are not, they should be corrected.) The problem here is that you are ignoring how the law is being applied. Do you see the distinction in the following cases?

1. A marriage license shall be issued to any adult may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.
d. The person may not be of the same gender.

and

2. A marriage license shall be granted to any adult who is not homosexual may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.

3. No religious or civil ceremony may be held which sanctions/announces or makes a pact between two individuals of the same gender.

The first law is completely constitutional. It doesn't exclude a person from getting married.

The second law is unconstituitonal and it violates the 14th amendment because it doesn't provide equal protection of everyone to get married. It specifically precludes a person who is homosexual fro getting married.

The third one is a violation of the first amendment because it interferes with someone's ability to practice their religion.

That outlines what is and what is not constitutional. You didn't speak to that though, you spoke to the idea that I am using a "slippery slope" argument which is not the case. I don't care if polygamy is legal or not. I don't even care if homosexual marriages are recognized. All I care about is that the federal government butt out because they do not have the authority to do so in this case so long as 1) homosexuals are allowed the same marital privilages as everyone else in a given state and 2) a religious service is not criminal (and I believe the same about polygamy- that is NOT a gateway marriage argument that is my belief.)

As for the assertion that I was implying that you are a hypocrite, that was not my intention. I don't believe that you are trying to skirt the issue that I presented, I just happen to think that we should be discussing the protection of the 14th (and I threw in the 1st for good measure) Amendment as it applies to an individual's ability (or right or privilege or whatever we're going to call it) to get married. The marrying cousins is every bit as relevant too. Especially since there are 37 different variations of those laws in the US today. That's right, 37 states that do allow some form of cousin-cousin marriage.

It isn't a matter of being hypocritical, it is a matter of examining the protections that individuals (homosexuals were the original concern but ultimately they are not the only people to be considered. My point is that some people consider homosexual marriage to be deviant and more consider polygamy to be deviant and even more consider incest (which by the way turns my stomach) to be deviant. The only reason that I brought polygamy and incest into the equation is because they are restrictions on who a person is able to marry. That is the same restriction that some people want to see put on homosexuals.

We have established that every consenting adult has the right to get married. I dont' think we ever disagreed on that. The next logical question is does an individual have the unalienable right to chose any consenting person to marry them or do they not?

I don't believe that is addresed by the 14th amendment. I do think the states have the right to (though I wish they wouldn't, personally) make that determination if the people of that state grant the state that authority.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

ah so that is your excuse for putting words into my mouth and charging me over arguments and comments I never made. Got it.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. You have asserted over and over and over that I am making a "slippery slope" argument, which I clearly am not. I have tried to explain my positon and you disagree. So be it.

Mike