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

[Mad Scientist]

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?

You Black people should stop all yer' hatin' on Gays.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Your "interpretation" of the 14th would essentially abolish the states.

Do you consider the original intent of the 14th amendment or do you simply see the 14th amendment as a tool that you can use for whatever purpose you choose, providing you ca find a way to squeeze your agenda into the wording? Was the intent to guarantee that every person had the exact same laws governing every aspect of their life? If that is the case then why did congress not just abolish the states?


Are you arguing that poligomy and incest are also protected rights?

Just curious.

Mike

 

[Google]

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

Forget about the fourteenth amendment. The tenth amendment is key in homosexual marriage debate.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Also, not one single homosexual marriage case has cited the US Constitution--all have cited state constitutions. I would love, absolutely love for the Supreme Court to rule on homosexual marriage. Gay rights organizations are afraid of a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Do you think its special consideration to only let people with sight drive and not blind people? Without the homosexuals pushing their pro-gay agenda this wouldn't even be a topic.

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

The burden is on you since you're arguing in favor of gay marriage, I said the 14th Amendment doesn't apply and I presented the example of 18-20 year olds not being able to drink, no one cries violation of the 14th amendment on that because there is no big hype machine and agenda to promote 18-20 year old drinkers as being denied equal protection, so once again what makes gays more special than others?

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??

If a gay man and gay woman marry that constitutes two homosexuals getting marriage as well as the standard that sys only a man and woman shall marry, so gays technically aren't denied the right to marry, two people of the same gender cannot, so you're arguing a strawman.

 

[Flaylo]

Your "interpretation" of the 14th would essentially abolish the states.

My interpretation is not doing that, what I am saying is that people can't use the 14th Amendment for something thats special for them.

Are you arguing that poligomy and incest are also protected rights?

Just curious.

Mike

Hell facking no.

 

[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?

You Black people should stop all yer' hatin' on Gays.

Shut Dr Jeckyll, my premise is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays, they have to find another way.

 

[drsmith1072]

Human rights do not need to be in the Constitution

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

You are really good at telling others to go to the constitution and show where their arguments are SPECIFICALLY defined but you have been asked to do the same and yet I don't see you rushing to do so.

Why is that?

 

[drsmith1072]

earth to the trolls, this thread is about whether th equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment applies, this has nothing to do with my belief as to whether gays should be married, the dumbfack that told me to suck off a cock it too emtional and retarded to see this.

Uh in case you missed it, you started a thread based on your beliefs and interpretation of the 14th so your beliefs are core to the argument and if you can't do what you demand others must do in order to support their arguments then you are the troll and this thread is pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Flaylo]

Human rights do not need to be in the Constitution

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

You are really good at telling others to go to the constitution and show where their arguments are SPECIFICALLY defined but you have been asked to do the same and yet I don't see you rushing to do so.

Why is that?

You have to define rights before you make an argument, rights are not simply something you think you should do or be entitled because someone else is doing them.

 

[Flaylo]

earth to the trolls, this thread is about whether th equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment applies, this has nothing to do with my belief as to whether gays should be married, the dumbfack that told me to suck off a cock it too emtional and retarded to see this.

Uh in case you missed it, you started a thread based on your beliefs and interpretation of the 14th so your beliefs are core to the argument and if you can't do what you demand others must do in order to support their arguments then you are the troll and this thread is pointless and a waste of time.

I never lobbed a personal insult at anyone buster, that facktard attacked me out of anger and spite because he disagreed with my position calling me a homophobe and telling me to suck off on a cock.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

This is one of those things both Right and Left don't get.

As George Carlin once opined, there are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" on Wiki.

We don't have "rights". We have privilages the majority of our fellow citizens accept that we have, even begrudgingly. Get us scared enough or angry enough, and rights vanish pretty quickly for the people we are scared of.

When you get 51% to agree that gays should have the privilage to call their relationship a "marriage", then and only then should it happen. If you sneak it in through the courts, people will never accept it entirely. Look at Roe v. Wade as an example. People are still mad about that, even though legislatively, things were going in that direction, anyway.

Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to get married. But win that fight at the ballot box, not the court house.

I do not care what George Carlin says about rights, he was a comedian. Did you agree with everything that George Carlin said? Those of you on the right like to impose your ideals on others, take care of yourself and let other adult human beings take care of themselves. It is none of your business if two people of the same sex want to get married. You must be really insecure about your sexuality.

 

[NoNukes]

Human rights do not need to be in the Constitution

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

Yes , gay couples have human rights. It does not need to be in the constitution to be right.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

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.

here is the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

marriage at it's core is a religious institution and therfore the governemnt cannot prohibit the religious right of marriage based on the 1st amendment and freedom of religion.

Of course it also clearly states that congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion which should include marriage.

Then along comes the 14th amendment and since the government chooses to recognize one type of marriage then for it not to recognize others is a violation of equal protection under the law.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

IT IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! I am going to stir the pot here IT IS A SIN!

That is your opinion, and that does not make it right.

 

[NoNukes]

Idiot!

Do not be so hard on yourself.

 

[Flaylo]

Human rights do not need to be in the Constitution

Incestous couples, polygamist and gay marrying are human rights? Under which law or Constitution, the liberal homosexual-machine propaganda? Search the Constitution and find it.

Yes , gay couples have human rights. It does not need to be in the constitution to be right.

Marriage is not a right nor a human right.

 

[Flaylo]

No. It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are not up for popular vote.

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.

here is the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

marriage at it's core is a religious institution and therfore the governemnt cannot prohibit the religious right of marriage based on the 1st amendment and freedom of religion.

Of course it also clearly states that congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion which should include marriage.

Then along comes the 14th amendment and since the government chooses to recognize one type of marriage then for it not to recognize others is a violation of equal protection under the law.

Read the Constitution there are no different types of marriages and even if the gays must prove that when states enacted their marriage laws it was done under discriminatory circumstances, otherwise how can one argue discrimination and invoke the 14th Amendment?

 

[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.

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?

no but it's obvious that you are.

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

Saying it doesn't make it so and you have failed to provide a single valid or substantive argument to support your conclusion.
Furthermore, demanding that others prove you wrong even as you fail miserably to support your own argument doesn't cut it.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Look, honestly I don't care about gay marriage at all. I care about misapplication of the Constitution and you are certainly guilty of it here.

The privilage of marriage is not an issue here. You kind of have a choice to make here. Either you allow a state to make a choice about who is and who is not allowed to get married or you don't. Either you interpret (unfairly and ignorant of history IMHO) the 14th to mean that the states have no real reason to exist because all laws must be universal across all the states or you don't. If your argument is that marriage is a privilage that must be afforded everyone without restricton then you must allow poligamy, incest, adult/child, beastiality and homosexuality.

The reason is not because they are similar classes, the reason is because it is eligibilty. Nobody is saying that someone who is gay can't get married, much the same way nobody is saying that a polygamist is not restricted from marriage. If a polygamist wants to get married it is simple, they are allowed to marry one person who meets the criteria of the state. A gay person can marry one person who fits the criteria of the state. A straight person is allowed to marry one person who fits the criteria of the state.

Of course your argument that you cannot be restricted of any privilage also means that anyone may drive anything on a public roadway. If you have a car that fits the criteria (in my case, of the state of texas) then you are allowed (provided you are licensed) to drive that car on a public roadway. You should be challanging every single law on the basis of the 14th amendment, in fact you should petition to have states abolished period.

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?

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

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

If marriage is not a right then why do some, according to you only opposite sex couples, have a "right" to do it while others are denied that same "right"?