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

[drsmith1072]

"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 If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.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

"specifically stating" something is meanglingless when you lack the substance to back it up.

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

WOW talk about obfuscation. LOL The FACT that it states that it is only between a man and a woman is the discriminating factor.

The fact that you parroting morons are still running with the argument that it specifically, openly and intentionally has to discriminate before it actually counts as discrimination is beyond ridiculous.

However, since you went that way could you please provide a link and cite the source of where you got that definition?? I would really like to see the legal judgements that state and support your postion.

I already asked the oither two parrots this question and have yet to receive an answer. Let's see if you can do better.

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

Do you even know the definition of the word "obfuscate"?

I have to ask becuase it seems that you do not and should stick to using small words that you have abetter chance of understanding.

I am talking about the constitution, the 14th amendment and how it applies to homosexual marriage the actual topic of thsi thread.

Where as others are constantly bringing in other issues such as incest and polygamy to "obfuscate" the discussion with issues that have NO bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to homosexual marriage or not.

So if you could please explain how my attempts to stay focused on the actual topics of this thread "obfuscate" the issues that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

What am I dodging? Please explain your false accusation instead of just trolling.

Are you actually trying to argue that sex is a REQUIREMENT for marriage?? So do you have a schedule that you are required to follow? Is there a timeclock that you have to clock in and out on?

I am using the terms heterosexual and homosexual to easily differentiate between marriage between a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I really didn't think I had to explain that but i should have known better. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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

So you can't argue against my points so instead you insult me and avoid the argument? Got it. Thanks for nothing.

P.S. you still haven't proven that the 14th does not apply and merely repeating that it does, which is all that you have done, does not make it so.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

What am I dodging? Please explain your false accusation instead of just trolling.

Are you actually trying to argue that sex is a REQUIREMENT for marriage?? So do you have a schedule that you are required to follow? Is there a timeclock that you have to clock in and out on?

I am using the terms heterosexual and homosexual to easily differentiate between marriage between a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I really didn't think I had to explain that but i should have known better. LOL

In the future you might find it cuts down on silly word games if you use "Different-sex Civil Marriage" and "Same-sex Civil Marriage". In addition try not to use just "marriage" use "Civil Marriage", if you don't people try equate "marriage" with the non-governmental institution of "Religious Marriage (the two being completely separate of course).


Just a thought based on experience and my own mistakes on underestimating the extent to which some will go to argue against equal protection of American Citizens under the law.


>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

Sure it is, it's a religious freedom.

Prove it. Gays are not using the first Amendment.

So do you parrots get your talking points from the same source or what?? You anti same-sex marriage parrots in this thread seem to be parroting the same exact talking points almost word for word.

So is there are site that you get them from?

The other option is that one of you has multiple screen names and after one name gets embarassed you log them off and then you log in as the other one and try to pick up right where they left off.

 

[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

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

 

[Wicked Jester]

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


Mike

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

No, he's just pissed he can't afford to relocate to NY where his marriage would be recognized.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Colorado was enjoined from excluding homosexuals from anti-discrimination laws (as a 14th Amendment violation, see: Romer), than no state may exclude homosexuals from marriage laws.

Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is about equal protection under the law, which means that in one same gender couple is denied a marriage license all same gender couples must be denied a marriage license, that would be equal. States laws say that two people of the gender cannot marry, they don't specifically state that homosexuals can't marry, so technically a gay man can marry a lesbian, this refutes the lie that homosexuals are denied the right to marry, they can marry, they just cannot marry a person of the same gender.

State laws forbid fathers from marrying daughters, mothers from marrying son, siblings from marrying siblings, bigamy and polygamy, how are gays any better than those people? If they argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the above people how can they argue it applies to their argument?

Dear Flaylo:
1. the fact that government is involved in marriage at all, already oversteps the bounds of the state involved in spiritual matters of the church
2. either all people should agree on the policy if the state is involved at all (and this can arguably be done legally state by state and not one federal policy for all) or they should get govt out of all marriages, only regulate the civil contracts that deal with property estates custody ie legal matters and leave the spiritual marriage part to individual choice of religious institution and policy
3. the reason this has become an issue, and not polygamy or interfamily bans, is that people no longer consent to marriage excluding gay couples.
nobody is challenging the other issues (except some polygamists have argued for religious freedom, but were defeated; and I do believe some couples prosecuted for underage sexual relations even though the partners later married DO have a valid argument that the age laws discriminate against those who DON'T have criminal
intent of abusing children but who do indeed have a valid spiritual relationship as husband and wife)

If you really want to dig up inconsistencies in church-state separation arguments, just look at the death penalty and murder laws. Those are religious also, but as long as people consent to the state having such authority, people don't question or challenge those laws! They only cry for separation when it goes against their consent in a matter.

I even confronted fellow anti-death penalty activists about arguing for separation of church and state, and they won't do it. They want to argue to ban the choice altogether, but won't argue to separate the funding or exercise of such policies. I only found one person who got why I would argue for that and agreed it was valid in principle.

People are NOT consistent when it comes to defending Constitutional principles.
Just look at the people who want or don't want regulation on guns or on abortion.
The principles they argue for are similar, but they both condemn the OTHER group while demanding the same on THEIR OWN pet issue!!!
Both accuse the other of shirking responsibility for the deadly consequences of unchecked freedom,
but then they get defensive when it comes to government infringing on their sacred ground where they draw the line.

They focus on arguing for what they consent to and against where they dissent,
and that is what motivates the politics going on. Yes, it is biased and the arguments
fall apart when you apply them to other situations the person/group is not interested in.

These are human beings you are dealing with. They are going to argue for their own personal interests and biases, and leave others to argue for the other views or interests.

You can and will find hypocrisy on all sides, pots and kettles calling the other black.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

If Colorado was enjoined from excluding homosexuals from anti-discrimination laws (as a 14th Amendment violation, see: Romer), than no state may exclude homosexuals from marriage laws.

Yes, it really is that simple.

There are no marriage laws that specifically discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[kaz]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

 

[Seawytch]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

Is that anybody's or just "they gheys"? Do you get those legal marriage tax breaks you wish to deny somebody?

Whose recognition?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

LOL...and that is supported by what?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You mean like we heterosexuals have demanded recognition for our marriages through establishing Civil Law on the matter and then taken money from homosexuals in the form of taxes to pay for that recognition?


>>>>

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

LOL...and that is supported by what?

Study doubts 'one in ten' figure and claims just 1.7 per cent of U.S. is gay or lesbian | Mail Online

 

[kaz]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

I agree. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to demand recognition and other people's money for it.

Is that anybody's or just "they gheys"

Everybody

Do you get those legal marriage tax breaks you wish to deny somebody?

I call on you to evade paying the government anything you can get away with paying them as I do. And yes, you mentioned how I should follow your standard even though you don't follow it. Your significant other is to be respected by you, mine is not by me. I reject your hypocrisy.

Whose recognition?

No one has the "right" to demand anyone recognize their marriage as marriage or to demand government or any other compensation for it. Not you, not me.