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

[Faun]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

 

[James Everett]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

It harms no one to be treated as per their physiological difference in sex, such is nature. Women are made to cover their breast in public, while men are not, this is a physical difference based on sex. Surely if sex, and physical differences are eliminated, then all would still not be equal.

 

[MaryL]

I used to think sex and right and wrong and gravity and facts MATTER, who am I to say? A fleeting group of folks tell me what to think. Gays can't naturally have babies but they can tell us what to think. Still don't understand it, but that's how modern politics works.

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.

 

[James Everett]

I used to think sex and right and wrong and gravity and facts MATTER, who am I to say? A fleeting group of folks tell me what to think. Gays can't naturally have babies but they can tell us what to think. Still don't understand it, but that's how modern politics works.

Such is the fault of the establishment of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, in replacement of the Articles, of Confederation. The U.S. CONstitution has been a failure from its establishment in preserving the union, and individual liberty, through the consolidation if power.

 

[Faun]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

It harms no one to be treated as per their physiological difference in sex, such is nature. Women are made to cover their breast in public, while men are not, this is a physical difference based on sex. Surely if sex, and physical differences are eliminated, then all would still not be equal.

You fail again as being naked in public, like toilets, is not an inalienable right.

Try harder!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

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

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.

They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.

You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.

They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.

You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.

I can cite where your SCOTUS has contradicted itself time and again in order to expand fictional jurisdiction. Your current misuse of your 14th will simply lead to such cases as I offer concerning toilets and YOUR SCOTUS will render contradictory opinions based each time on expanding its fictional jurisdiction.
Don't be angry at my pointing to the truth. I do not argue that your SCOTUS will not render in your favor, I simply point to the fact that you are begging to grant more power to a centralized national government that already holds unlimited power over all persons and things. In the end it will continue to use that power to limit individual liberty using these expanded fictional jurisdictions.

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.

They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.

You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.

No argument that a marriage contract is a right, the argument is that it is a contract between a man and a woman, and re-defining it is not necessary to gain equality .

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

 

[Faun]

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.

They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.

You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.

I can cite where your SCOTUS has contradicted itself time and again in order to expand fictional jurisdiction. Your current misuse of your 14th will simply lead to such cases as I offer concerning toilets and YOUR SCOTUS will render contradictory opinions based each time on expanding its fictional jurisdiction.
Don't be angry at my pointing to the truth. I do not argue that your SCOTUS will not render in your favor, I simply point to the fact that you are begging to grant more power to a centralized national government that already holds unlimited power over all persons and things. In the end it will continue to use that power to limit individual liberty using these expanded fictional jurisdictions.

Seems all you have is your opinion based on nothing but your imagination that toilets are inalienable rights. You can't cite much of what you claim because you're making it up as you go along. At the same time, you oddly claim that establishing people have more individual liberties is somehow providing the central government with additional powers when the opposite is actually the case. And I have nothing to be angered with you about. You, trying to validate your own claims by calling them, "the truth," when it's actually just you citing yourself is far more humorous than it is angering.

 

[Faun]

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

 

[James Everett]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

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

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.

 

[James Everett]

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.

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must be recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

 

[Faun]

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

 

[Faun]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

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

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.

 

[James Everett]

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.

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

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.