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

[Dante]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.

Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?

Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.

your imaginary secret government: "in order to consolidate power to the National government." as if their is a national government that is not of 'we the people'

 

[Dante]

Says

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

 

[James Everett]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.

Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?

Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.

your imaginary secret government: "in order to consolidate power to the National government." as if their is a national government that is not of 'we the people'

Really? REALLY?
Do I really need to educate you on your own CONstitutional system?
Please, read your CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62 and let the "rat"
James Madison explain your government system to you. Your CONstitution was a combination of two opposing systems cobbled together to form the original 1787/1789 system. The federal portion was removed via the 17th amendment, leaving only the national system in place.
If you can't understand the basic foundation of the system, then you should not be involved in any constitutional legal discussion, as you will only show yourself to be ignorant.

 

[James Everett]

Says

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

 

[Faun]

The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

 

[Dante]

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?

You can't?

sadly,
History is full of examples.

Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....

WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Jesus. Marriage is NOT an inalienable right. The Court has said marriage is a basic right, one of the most basic.

seriously.

I see you committed to evading the question. Figures.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.​

The pursuit of happiness is unquestionably an inalienable right and the fundamental right to marriage is a central aspect of that pursuit.

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

again, you are using reasoning and argument that was used to back up the legal opinion.

Dante never spoke of the Constitution;'s contract clause... That was James.

The court ruled on the 14th, not the Declaration of Independence. That is a political and ideological argument. The court was not asked to rule marriage as an inalienable right. Read the words you've posted

 

[Syriusly]

Says

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Just going to point out this is merely your opinion, unsupported by any legal authority or reality, and that your opinion is the opinion of a person who believes the Confederacy still exists.

So- your opinion is immaterial.

 

[Dante]

Says

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

 

[Syriusly]

Says

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.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
Such is the folly of fools.

And yet you are unable to support your claim- at all.

Such is your foolish folly.

 

[James Everett]

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
What does article I section 20 state?
It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
Oh ye suckers.

 

[James Everett]

Says

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.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
Such is the folly of fools.

And yet you are unable to support your claim- at all.

Such is your foolish folly.

Support my claim?
I cite the earliest dictionary of the English language, being Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition.....
Marriage...
"A contract between a man and a woman".
I just supported my claim. I apologize for not citing such support before, but I have cited it many many times.

 

[James Everett]

Says
Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

Says
Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

 

[Faun]

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
What does article I section 20 state?
It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
Oh ye suckers.

Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.

You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.

As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.

You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.

So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?

 

[Dante]

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court

 

[James Everett]

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
What does article I section 20 state?
It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
Oh ye suckers.

Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.

You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.

As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.

You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.

So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?

That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
"A Nation of laws"?
What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.

 

[James Everett]

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court

Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.

 

[James Everett]

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage a contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court

Further, it is not denying a right when denying a re-defining of a contract to mean that which it does not.
It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.

 

[Faun]

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

Ah, your desperation grows. Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... What next...?

First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
What does article I section 20 state?
It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
Oh ye suckers.

Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.

You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.

As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.

You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.

So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?

That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
"A Nation of laws"?
What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.

Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.

 

[Faun]

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court

Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.

Even if one were to accept your notion that marriage contracts were between a man and a woman, that does not preclude the terms of such contracts in the future from containing different terms.

 

[Dante]

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.

marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1) Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.

2)There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.

Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
Where does such foolish folly end?
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court

Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.

No where has the Supreme Court ever said marriage for legal purposes was only between a man and a woman -- for legal purposes. You people never understood a penalty for constitutional purposes functioning as a tax either