Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

[Faun]

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.

I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.

 

[MaryL]

My bother in law, married my sister, turns out to be a homosexual, umm, transsexual, umm, I don't know. Had a child, flew under the freekin radar for years. Tired of the lies and the deception. Love? Lies, who can tell. A big bloody soap opera . Stop the lies. Be honest, what do you have to lose?

 

[Faun]

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

 

[James Everett]

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.

I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.

Are you addressing James Everett with this question...,,
I have stated that it is a constitutional guarantee to contract. I do believe that the right to contract a marriage is a right, but I also believe that it is also a right to contract a civil union. The two are separate contracts, by sex, but outside that, can be enforced equally.
Now if you were addressing me, I have answered, if not, then I apologize.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.

I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.

Well whether he's scared or not, he's here to be a chaos factor. He's not a serious poster whatsoever. There's no need to feed him.

 

[James Everett]

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

 

[Faun]

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.

I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.

Are you addressing James Everett with this question...,,
I have stated that it is a constitutional guarantee to contract. I do believe that the right to contract a marriage is a right, but I also believe that it is also a right to contract a civil union. The two are separate contracts, by sex, but outside that, can be enforced equally.
Now if you were addressing me, I have answered, if not, then I apologize.

The target of that observation was Dante.

But I have asked you too and you still haven't answered ... WHY do you think marriage is a fundamental right?

 

[Faun]

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf

 

[James Everett]

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf

Your argument is equal rights, IE the equal right to contract, yet marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, such does not mean that the same rights may not be achieved via a civil union contract. The case is in forcing your State to recognize the right of same sex couples to contract a civil union contract that is equal to a marriage contract, and all aspects of that contract to be recognized. A State must recognize the civil union contract, but what is being done is to re-define a marriage contract unnecessarily which established a fictional jurisdiction using a false misrepresentation of the 14th amendment and Loving V Virginia.

 

[James Everett]

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?

Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.

 

[James Everett]

Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf

I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The founder's were so dumb huh?

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf

I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.

Prohibiting the state from violating citizens' rights, such as gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law, places greater limitations on government, greater restraints on government, rendering our liberties further immune from attack by the state.

 

[James Everett]

No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf

I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.

Prohibiting the state from violating citizens' rights, such as gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law, places greater limitations on government, greater restraints on government, rendering our liberties further immune from attack by the state.

What is being accomplished with this re-defining of a marriage contract is simply the changing of jurisdiction granting fictional jurisdiction to a central body that has already consolidated its power beyond measure and been allowed to define to itself no limit to its power.
Equal protection is not gained through colorable jurisdiction, in fact it simply limits individual liberty. In essence one master is being exchanged for a master with unlimited authority over the individual. Are the State governments the authority over homeland security?
NSA?
CIA?
FBI?
IRS?
The government that is being offered further fictional jurisdiction here has no restraints.

 

[Faun]

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?

Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.

Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.

Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.

 

[dblack]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

 

[James Everett]

No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

If it's not marriage, it's not the same.

If it's not the same, it's not equal.

No, they can never be the same, however they can provide equality and the same rights under two separate contracts. A man and a woman are not physically the same, but can share equal rights to the extent that their physiological differences allow.

 

[James Everett]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.

 

[James Everett]

You
You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?

Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.

You
You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend? The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?

Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.

Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.

Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.

There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.

 

[Faun]

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?

Who are you asking ?

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.

If it's not marriage, it's not the same.

If it's not the same, it's not equal.

No, they can never be the same, however they can provide equality and the same rights under two separate contracts. A man and a woman are not physically the same, but can share equal rights to the extent that their physiological differences allow.

Separate contracts is not equality. The law demands everyone's rights be treated equally. I have complete confidence the Supreme Court will decide in favor of same-sex marriage because it protects the inalienable right to marriage for everyone, not just for some.