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

[Bass v 2.0]

There is no law on the books at the federal and or state level that mention specifically anything about heterosexuals having a right to marriage so the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless for sodomites to use in their gay promoting agenda.

 

[CryingKoala]

"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."

The 14th Amendment HAS been applied before to the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (1960). A state's rights argument won't fly.

The Federal government has to be involved thanks to a little piece of legislation called the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents Federal Courts from having to consider the subject. If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

And here comes the "gateway marriage" argument again. LOL The point is that heterosexuals have their religious institution recognized which comes with a certain set of rights that homosexuals do not.

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.

If not to deter then why bring up incest and polygamy and argue that they will come to be if homosexual marraige is allowed? What is your motivation in arguing in favor of incest and polygamy other than to try and argue against homosexual marriage by linking them all??

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.

More fiction imagine that.

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

Not really, it exludes polygamy (you brought it up), incest (you defended another poster when they linked it to gay marriage), age discrimination (brought up earlier) and discriminates based on sexual orientation. How is that constitutional. LOL

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.

way to take up flaylo's talking point that it must SPECIFICALLY and OPENLY discriminate or else it doesn't count as discrimination. LOL Where did you find that definition?

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

I was going to say gender discrimination based on sexual orientation but oh well.

 

[Texanmike]

"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."

The 14th Amendment HAS been applied before to the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (1960). A state's rights argument won't fly.

The Federal government has to be involved thanks to a little piece of legislation called the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents Federal Courts from having to consider the subject. If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.

If you'll notice, I specifically stated that it is unconstitutional.

Mike

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

There is legally no such thing as 'heterosexual marriage', read the detailed language in any state where the law says that marriage is defined being between a man and woman. A marriage between a man and woman is not necessarily a 'heterosexual marriage' since as Flaylo said a man-woman marriage could be a gay man married to a lesbian, in fact their is one such case where a lesbian is going to marry a straight man:

Autostraddle — Lesbian WNBA Player Sheryl Swoopes Is Now Engaged To A Man


If law stated that marriage as being between a HETEROSEXUAL man and HETEROSEXUAL woman then gays could say they're simply seeking the same 'rights' that heterosexuals have but since heterosexual marriage doesn't legally and official exist how could they argue equal protection for something that's nonexistent?

 

[drsmith1072]

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

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

and yet you did try to put words into my mouth as is obvious based on your own words.

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

Funny how all of your alleged knowledge boils down to parroting arguments made by another poster and a bunch of "because I said so" like statements.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.



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.

thanks again for repeating flaylo's baseless argument now if you could prove that assertion you would be one step ahead of him. Still waiting on the substance and all I get from either of the is a repetition of the same pbasless claims with nothing of substance to support them.

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.

and by jumping to the extreme to try and make your point you made yourself look ridiculous. The topic is homosexual marriage which is between two consenting adults so could you tell me what that has to do with the taking of a life? How can you honestly try to draw a comparison between the taking of a life and the union of two people?

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.

The "gateway marriage" argument again?? Really? Why can't you just stay on topic? It's a lame tactic and would be beneath anyone who is actualy as scholarly as you claim to be. tsk tsk.

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.

we have already been over this. The state has the authority to pass laws but if they violate the constitution too bad.

Hopefully my last post more eloquently stated my position.

Mike

Not really.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The only one making baseless arguments and dodging people's arguments is dr.smith, you can't cry the "gateway marriage" strawman in order to obfuscate the issues. The thread is about the applicability of the 14th Amendment by gays to gain 'gay marriage', how can they legally request a 'gay marriage' when 'heterosexual marriage legally doesn't exist?

 

[drsmith1072]

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


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:


Mike

I ignored NOTHING. the post was so long I responded in small parts. Funny you should talk about ignoring though becuase I still don;t see when and where you showed and explained how I narrowed the scope of the 143th amendment.

Hmm? I wonder why?

That outlines what is and what is not constitutional.

That is only your OPINION of what you believe it does. However, in reality that is just not the case.

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 did speak to it I just did it in another post. Furthermore, you were making a slippery slope argument because you kept bringing up all of the things you think allowing it could lead to as a lame tactic agaisnt homosexual marriage through guilt by the associations that you were creating.

I don't care if polygamy is legal or not.

Then why bring it up?

I don't even care if homosexual marriages are recognized.

Then why argue agaisnt it and why are you in thsi thread??

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.)

Ok now this time try it with more substance and less parroting of the same baseless and unsubstantiated claims. Still waiting on the definition of discrimination that says it only counts when the discrimination if open and intentional. LOL

As for the assertion that I was implying that you are a hypocrite, that was not my intention.

Your posts seems to have a lot of unintended consequences now don't they? Interesting.



go to go for now

 

[Lovebears65]

I can care less if same sex want to get married. The problem will be getting a church to marry them. Of course they can still get the licence

 

[Bass v 2.0]

drsmith1072 is deliberately dodging, how can gays fight for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage legally doesn't exist?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can care less if same sex want to get married. The problem will be getting a church to marry them. Of course they can still get the licence

No problems at all:

1. You don't need a Church for a Civil Marriage many public officers can perform Civil Marriages, no Church needed.


2. There are quite a few Churches around the country that already perform Same-sex Weddings and in those States that permit same-sex weddings the participants get a Religious Marriage (in the view of that organization) and Civil Marriage at the same time. Just like different-sex Civil Marriages​

>>>>

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The supporters of gay marriage are still ducking and avoiding my question, how can gays petition for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage isn't legally existent?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.

It's an inevitability.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The supporters of gay marriage are still ducking and avoiding my question, how can gays petition for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage isn't legally existent?

Their not petitioning for "gay marriage" they are petitioning for Civil Marriage and an end to a requirement that participants be restricted by gender. Just as under the law it isn't recognized as Jewish Marriage, or Catholic Marriage, Interfaith Marriage, or Mexican Marriage, or Asian Marriage, Interracial Marriage, or Two Old People Marriage, or One Old and One Young Marriage. The legal term is Civil Marriage

But you probably knew that already and would like to play word games.

>>>>

 

[Texanmike]

I will leave you with this because I've gone back and read your arguments. I have no doubt that you are not arguing or debating in good faith. You have an agenda-based-blinders on. Even someone arguing the incorperation doctrine would not propose that the 14th amendment applies just because it does. You have nothing to reference... I was expecting a discussion about Howard's interpretation, you know the extension of bill of rights argument?

What I get instead, is apparently some broad based loosely defined "right" and a lame ass "equal protection" which doesn't mean equal, unless it is the group you want to deal with. That wasn't a slippery slope argument, that was a real coorelation.

You can have your tantrum but I'm done with the argument and here is why:

I was going to say gender discrimination based on sexual orientation but oh well.

This right here is the reason we are done. Gender discrimination on based on sexual orientation? What the hell is that?

Mike

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.

It's an inevitability.

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The supporters of gay marriage are still ducking and avoiding my question, how can gays petition for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage isn't legally existent?

Their not petitioning for "gay marriage" they are petitioning for Civil Marriage and an end to a requirement that participants be restricted by gender. Just as under the law it isn't recognized as Jewish Marriage, or Catholic Marriage, Interfaith Marriage, or Mexican Marriage, or Asian Marriage, Interracial Marriage, or Two Old People Marriage, or One Old and One Young Marriage. The legal term is Civil Marriage

But you probably knew that already and would like to play word games.

>>>>

Well heterosexuals can also petition for heterosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage doesn't exist, in keeping up with the OP, the 14th Amendment can't be used, so under what part of the Constitution can gays petition for this?

 

[Texanmike]

I ignored NOTHING. the post was so long I responded in small parts. Funny you should talk about ignoring though becuase I still don;t see when and where you showed and explained how I narrowed the scope of the 143th amendment.

I haven't had time to read the One Hundred and fourty thirth amendment yet. I'll go check it this afternoon.


Mike

 

[Nic_Driver]

Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.

It's an inevitability.

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.