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

[Flaylo]

I don't care if gays get the marriage right or not, the point is that they cannot use the 14th Amendment to promote something special for them when that isn't and wasn't the intent of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Flaylo]

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"?

The only one saying marriage is a right is you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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?



>>>>

 

[Flaylo]

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.

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?



>>>>

Are you of the impression that gays should be able to do everything a heterosexual can do because the 14th Amendment says so? If you do then biology must be discriminating and needs to be sued.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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"?

The only one saying marriage is a right is you.

Actually it would also include the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail: "In evaluating 245.10 (1), (4), (5) under the Equal Protection Clause, "we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected." Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. "


The fact that Civil Marriage is a right was also enumerated in Loving v. Virginia and Tuner v. Safley.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

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?



>>>>

Are you of the impression that gays should be able to do everything a heterosexual can do because the 14th Amendment says so? If you do then biology must be discriminating and needs to be sued.

You didn't answer the question: 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?




To answer your question, yes I think that homosexuals should be able to do everything a heterosexual can do unless there is a compelling government interest in enacting a discriminatory practice.



Your turn.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

Is this country, it is considered so.

 

[bodecea]

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

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?



>>>>

Are you of the impression that gays should be able to do everything a heterosexual can do because the 14th Amendment says so? If you do then biology must be discriminating and needs to be sued.

Answer WorldWatcher's question.

 

[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??

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.

Most states?? I thought we were talking about the constitution and the 14th amendment?? Why change topics now?? Should I take this to mean that you are conceding the debate about the constitution and the 14th amendment seeing that you have now moved on to talking about the states?

The difference is that the phrase "tolerated as ok" does not apply when one is "RECOGNIZED" by the government for tax purposes and spousal RIGHTS whereas the other is not RECOGNIZED. If it one is RECOGNIZED as a right while that same right is denied other then there is no equal protection under the law which is in direct violation of the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, the constitution talks about citizens their rights and does not divide the populous into little groups so it can excuse denying those groups equal rights.

If one citizen has a right to marry based on their religious beliefs and have it recognized by the government then another citizen should have that same religious right and recongition.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Being treated properly, despite your sexual orientation, is a human right.

 

[initforme]

With all the problems we have today why would ANYBODY CARE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE? I am a married man, to my wife, a female, for the past 47 years. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS. If a gov't tells two people they cant get married then that is the gov't INTRUDING in their lives. Sound a little HYPOCRITICAL?

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Being treated properly, despite your sexual orientation, is a human right.

I see what you did there. Emotional plea on top of an 'accepted' truth sandwhich a buzz word between them. It is an instant formula for a false argument.

Mike

edit: It is actually brilliant. State something that nobody will argue with and combine it with an undefined variable and declare yourself the winner

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Not true. The US Constitution was cited in the prop 8 ruling and again, quite recently, in a bankruptcy court ruling on DOMA.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.

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

Have you read the constitution??

 

[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.

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.

Oops then you just countered your own argumnet.
The first amendment states that the government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The 1st amendment gives them the right to express their religion freely and marry if they choose to do so. So based on that the constitution says that they should be able to marry and laws like the DOMA violate the constitution.
The 14th amendment applies because the DOMA states that the marriages of homosexual couples do not count while the marriages of hetersexuals do count.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.

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

Have you read the constitution??

You have a subject-subject agreement problem here man. Can you tell which word you are ignoring? (its the dark letters)

Also, if your argument were based in good faith, how does this effect whether or not the 14th amendment applies to the subject? 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

 

[drsmith1072]

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

WOW! So states should decide and the federal govenrnment has no jurisdiction over whether the states are violationg the rights of citizens of thsi country?? REALLY??

I agree that the government, state or federal, has NO business being involved in marriage. It is after all at it's core a religious institution.

However, do to the FACT that the governemnt is involved to the point of defining mariage and recognizing some even as it does not recognize others the 14th amendment does apply due to the fact that the law is not applied equally to the citizens of this country.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Oops then you just countered your own argumnet.
The first amendment states that the government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The 1st amendment gives them the right to express their religion freely and marry if they choose to do so. So based on that the constitution says that they should be able to marry and laws like the DOMA violate the constitution.
The 14th amendment applies because the DOMA states that the marriages of homosexual couples do not count while the marriages of hetersexuals do count.

Now we'll examine this terribly constructed argument. The first amendment doesn't apply to state governments, first of all. Second the first amendment doesn't apply to all religious practices. You cannot claim to be committing an honor killing in the name of religion, for example. As a better example, polygamy is part of a religion. It is not legal. I agree that DOMA violates the constitution but gay marriage is not protected under the Constitution.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

WOW! So states should decide and the federal govenrnment has no jurisdiction over whether the states are violationg the rights of citizens of thsi country?? REALLY??

Not unless marriage is included in the constitution. Tell me where marriage is declared a right or where the federal government derives its authority on the marriage issue.

I agree that the government, state or federal, has NO business being involved in marriage. It is after all at it's core a religious institution.

However, do to the FACT that the governemnt is involved to the point of defining mariage and recognizing some even as it does not recognize others the 14th amendment does apply due to the fact that the law is not applied equally to the citizens of this country.

From where, exactly, does it derive this power? The law is applied equally. Gay people are not prohibited from getting married.

Mike

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not unless marriage is included in the constitution. Tell me where marriage is declared a right or where the federal government derives its authority on the marriage issue.

So your opinion is that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution it cannot be held by the people?

From where, exactly, does it derive this power? The law is applied equally. Gay people are not prohibited from getting married.

You realize that the exact same structure of argument was used in the Loving case right? To paraphrase "The law is applied equally. Colored people are not prohibited from getting married."

The structure of that argument was not successful then either.



>>>>