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

[Seawytch]

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

How can you speak for gay people? This gay does believe that bigamists and polygamists should be legally married if they want to.

The government does not put limits on how many children people can have, why should it put limits on the number of spouses you can have?

Incest...well, that's a horse of a different color. An actual "societal harm" can be cited in allowing siblings to marry.

In order to keep legal, civil marriage from gays and lesbians, you are going to have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. You can't so you might as well get used to the idea now. It'll save you some stress when it happens in the next few years.

Are you hard of reading? I said the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument for gay marriage because it doesn't apply.

And you got your Constitutional law degree when and from what university?

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.

Hmmm...sure looks like something we can "use"...

 

[Flaylo]

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Are you of the opinion that unless something is specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution that it cannot be a right held by the people?

Marriage is not a right granted in the constitution. But it is granted regardless. You cannot grant a right to one set of people and withhold it from another set of people.

By your reasoning the law cannot stop a blind person from wanting to fly a plane simply because he's blind, that would be granting a "right" to one set of people and witholding it from another set of people, gotcha Ravi.

Your second paragraph is faulty reasoning and examples of both False Dichotomy and Reductio ad absurdum fallacies. What you leave out is the recognized concept that the removal of rights (in this case Due Process and Equal Treatment) are subject to the logical examination of a "compelling government interest".

For example the structure of your argument could be substituted to say that because of 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, a terrorist must be allowed to carry firearms into a shopping mall. The false dichotomy and reductio arguments show that as a true statement because they ignore the concept of compelling government interest. Same applied to the "blind pilot license" absurdity. There is a compelling government interst which overrides equal treatment in this case since a blind pilot presents a clear and present danger if operating an aircraft both to passengers and individuals on the ground and to the destruction of other peoples property.

On the other hand no one has yet provided a clear and concise compelling government interest as to why two similarly situated groups (those being same -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults and different -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults) because of their gender. Now many claim emotional reasons ("I don't like it", "its 'icky', ect...) and reasons based on the assumption that ones personal religious views should be forced on others (because the Bible condemns homosexuality it should be illegal under Civil/Criminal Law), but no non-emotoinal/non-religious arguments hold water.



>>>>

The 14th Amendment mentions equal protection, not equal treatment under the law, thus a felon is on legal grounds denied the "right" to have a weapon even if he is law abiding and tax paying after serving his conviction. Equal protection and equal treatment are two different things, read the 14th Amendment instead of arguing on straw arguments.

 

[Flaylo]

How can you speak for gay people? This gay does believe that bigamists and polygamists should be legally married if they want to.

The government does not put limits on how many children people can have, why should it put limits on the number of spouses you can have?

Incest...well, that's a horse of a different color. An actual "societal harm" can be cited in allowing siblings to marry.

In order to keep legal, civil marriage from gays and lesbians, you are going to have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. You can't so you might as well get used to the idea now. It'll save you some stress when it happens in the next few years.

Are you hard of reading? I said the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument for gay marriage because it doesn't apply.

And you got your Constitutional law degree when and from what university?

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.

Hmmm...sure looks like something we can "use"...

Marriage isn't a right so it doesn't apply, you argument is simply if heteros can do action A gays should be able to do action A, thats not equal protection unless you think blind people should be able to drive just like people who have sight or that drunk people should be able to drive that sober people.

 

[Seawytch]

The 14th Amendment mentions equal protection, not equal treatment under the law, thus a felon is on legal grounds denied the "right" to have a weapon even if he is law abiding and tax paying after serving his conviction. Equal protection and equal treatment are two different things, read the 14th Amendment instead of arguing on straw arguments.

And legal marriage comes with protections. A legal spouse is protected from having to testify against their spouse. The joint assets of a legally married couple are automatically protected in the event of the death of one spouse.

It won't be JUST the 14th Amendment upon which gay marriage is decided. There's also that "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness" thing..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Find the law or Constitution that states gay marriage is a civil right or even a right at all and I'll the one that says blind people have a right to fly airplanes.

Are you of the opinion that unless something is specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution that it cannot be a right held by the people?

By your reasoning the law cannot stop a blind person from wanting to fly a plane simply because he's blind, that would be granting a "right" to one set of people and witholding it from another set of people, gotcha Ravi.

Your second paragraph is faulty reasoning and examples of both False Dichotomy and Reductio ad absurdum fallacies. What you leave out is the recognized concept that the removal of rights (in this case Due Process and Equal Treatment) are subject to the logical examination of a "compelling government interest".

For example the structure of your argument could be substituted to say that because of 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, a terrorist must be allowed to carry firearms into a shopping mall. The false dichotomy and reductio arguments show that as a true statement because they ignore the concept of compelling government interest. Same applied to the "blind pilot license" absurdity. There is a compelling government interst which overrides equal treatment in this case since a blind pilot presents a clear and present danger if operating an aircraft both to passengers and individuals on the ground and to the destruction of other peoples property.

On the other hand no one has yet provided a clear and concise compelling government interest as to why two similarly situated groups (those being same -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults and different -sex law abiding, tax paying, consenting, non-related, infertile US Citizen, adults) because of their gender. Now many claim emotional reasons ("I don't like it", "its 'icky', ect...) and reasons based on the assumption that ones personal religious views should be forced on others (because the Bible condemns homosexuality it should be illegal under Civil/Criminal Law), but no non-emotoinal/non-religious arguments hold water.



>>>>

The 14th Amendment mentions equal protection, not equal treatment under the law, thus a felon is on legal grounds denied the "right" to have a weapon even if he is law abiding and tax paying after serving his conviction. Equal protection and equal treatment are two different things, read the 14th Amendment instead of arguing on straw arguments.

1. I notice you neither answered to question as to whether rights must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people (which from previous posts is a basis of your position).

2. Or, attempted to provide a non-emotional/non-religious compelling government intrest for denying the equal protections of the law to same-sex couples.



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

I would love for you to go into any court in the land, even a conservative one and argue that gays rights are not violated because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex

Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.

Afraid that the courts disagree with you

 

[Ravi]

The law states that adults under 21 but 18 and older cannot drink, funny how no would argue that this is violating the 14th Amendment.

I would.

And you would argue that a blind man has a "right" to drive under the 14th Amendment? Drinking and marriage are not rights.

No, I wouldn't agree that a blind man has a right to drive on public roads.

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

Your argument is flawed from the first thought. Based on your argument and "logic" then it could be reasoned that one black man is denied the right to vote therefore all black men should be denied the right to vote.

The 14th is not about denying rights to selected groups, it's about allowing ALL to have the same rights and have those rights protected equally under the law.

Oh and in case you missed it marriage is a religious right and therefore the government should not deny someone their religious right and should not recognize ANY marriage.

However, since the government does recognize one type of marriage, then for it not to recognize other based on religious beliefs that one is sacred and the other is not, is indeed a violation of the 14 amendment and equal protection under the law.

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.

Where is your logic of denying rights because someone else is denied that right contained in the content of the 14th amendment??

 

[Flaylo]

I would love for you to go into any court in the land, even a conservative one and argue that gays rights are not violated because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex

Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.

Afraid that the courts disagree with you

There is nothing in the Constitution that says marriage is a right that everyone inherently, lets just stick to the Constitution here.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

Actually based on that FACT that heterosexual couples are the only ones allowed to marry and have it count according to the DOMA and on how those on your side of the argument believe and argue that their form of marriage is the only one that should count or be allowed aren't you the ones who believe that you should have special consideration?

 

[Flaylo]

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?

Your argument is flawed from the first thought. Based on your argument and "logic" then it could be reasoned that one black man is denied the right to vote therefore all black men should be denied the right to vote.

The 14th is not about denying rights to selected groups, it's about allowing ALL to have the same rights and have those rights protected equally under the law.

Oh and in case you missed it marriage is a religious right and therefore the government should not deny someone their religious right and should not recognize ANY marriage.

However, since the government does recognize one type of marriage, then for it not to recognize other based on religious beliefs that one is sacred and the other is not, is indeed a violation of the 14 amendment and equal protection under the law.

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.

Where is your logic of denying rights because someone else is denied that right contained in the content of the 14th amendment??

Most states Constititions state recognize marriage as between a man and woman, if that requirement isn't met the state will not recognize it, I don't see how one is tolerated as ok while other is seen as violation of the 14th Amendment. If the state law already said that all people including gays have a "right" to marriage and they then denied gays that "right" then they have an argument under the Constitution. You can't use the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to argue for a 'right" that never existed.

 

[Flaylo]

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

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

Actually based on that FACT that heterosexual couples are the only ones allowed to marry and have it count according to the DOMA and on how those on your side of the argument believe and argue that their form of marriage is the only one that should count or be allowed aren't you the ones who believe that you should have special consideration?

If the law stated that all people regardless of whether they're gay or not can marry and someone then denied a gay person to marry then the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment could be invoked, it cannot be invoked just because someone is mad that they can't have the same thing as somebody else.

 

[Texanmike]

The 14th amendment does not apply to marriage period. For that matter, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over marriage. A marriage and a marriage license should be dealt with at the state (or lower) level because there are essentially two legal parts of a marriage and one private/personal/religious part. First, there is a contractual agreement between two people which, provided it is legal in whatever jurisdiction you make the agreement, should be enforced. Second there is the sanction/recognition of the commitment in the first place. A state sanctions marriages right now and that is their criteria for two people to enter into a contractual obligation to each other. The criteria should be set by the people of the state (through their representatives). 3rd is the religious/personal/private portion. If you want to make that comitment and the rest of the community around you chooses not to honor it, just make it between two people. If you are getting "married" to someone who you don't feel you can have a handshake agreement with, you should be reconsidering anyways.

The fact that states all have seperate criteria, to include relationship, age, some with blood types indicates that from the very beginning states never intended to give up the authority to decide who's union they will and will not sanction. We have a FEDERAL system, not a national one.

The better question is, why the hell is the government involved in marriage? Oh yeah, they can charge a fee for the blessing of your marriage.

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Since a lesbian and a gay man can marry each other gays are not denied the right to marriage. Just like two siblings cannot marry, two people of the same gender cannot marry.

That is HER argument, and mine. Your argument is actually pretty stupid and holds no water.

Search the 14th Amendment and find where is says that it guarantee individual liberties.

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

That seems to apply to this debate as does this

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

meaning that all laws should be applied to all citizens equally.
Passing a law that denies rights to one group of citizens even as it recognizes that right for other citizens based soley on religious beliefs is a violation of equal protection.

 

[Flaylo]

That seems to apply to this debate as does this

So by that logic states are in violation of the Constitution that prevent felons from owning firearms, license revocations and prohibit people under 21 but over 18 from drinking, do you agree, or are you of the opinion that you agree with one but not the others?

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
meaning that all laws should be applied to all citizens equally.
Passing a law that denies rights to one group of citizens even as it recognizes that right for other citizens based soley on religious beliefs is a violation of equal protection.

Refer to the above and I'll add this, the Constitution says that in order to be president a person must be age 35 and above, by the reasoning you're using the Constitution is contradicting itself because this requirement violates the 14th Amendment because its age discrimination.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

Actually it is a freedom of religion issue. Based on their religious beliefs they should be allowed to marry.

The violation of the 14th amendment comes into play when the government chooses to recognize one marriage over another and thereby denying equal protection under the law to all citizens.

 

[saveliberty]

Civil unions are the realm of government. They can marry whatever farms animals you desire as far as I'm concerned. Marriage however, is a religious institution. The government needs to clarify they have no Constitutional authority there.

 

[Flaylo]

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

Actually it is a freedom of religion issue. Based on their religious beliefs they should be allowed to marry.

The violation of the 14th amendment comes into play when the government chooses to recognize one marriage over another and thereby denying equal protection under the law to all citizens.

Homosexuality is a religion? GTFO here. What you said above doesn't apply to the 14th Amendment, if so then a 18 year old adult could who can't consume alcohol could make the same bogus argument you just made.

 

[G.T.]

what a corny premise

 

[drsmith1072]

Thats not the argument Ravi, gays don't believe bigamists, polygamists, and people incestuous relationships should be married but feel they should somehow have special consideration.

It isn't "special consideration" to be allowed the same rights as everyone else. Jesus you are stupid.

It is special consideration since gays argue that polygamists can't marry and that they shouldn't be compared to polygamists making the same argument. What makes a gay more deserving of marriage than a polygamist?

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.

Please show me where the 14th amendment says gays don't have equal protection. Thanks. Then go suck a cock you closet homo.

Find it in the 14th Amendment where gays are even mentioned any place.

Find it in the 14th amendment where heterosexual marriage should be the only one recognized and allowed? Where is it in the constitution?

A gay man can marry a lesbian because they're different genders, but technically they're still both homosexuals and can marry so how is equal protection not accorded?

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??