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

[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 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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

 

[James Everett]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

 

[James Everett]

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.

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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

 

[James Everett]

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.

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

Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow. What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition. Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.

 

[Dante]

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 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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

 

[Dante]

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 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

Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow. What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition. Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.

No. you are misconstruing what Dante is plainly saying: there is a legal definition: a marriage contract is a civil contract of a union of two persons as one

 

[Faun]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

 

[James Everett]

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.
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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.

 

[James Everett]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

 

[Dante]

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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.

Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them

 

[Dante]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

you've been trolling for quite some time. Time for you to play games elsewhere

 

[James Everett]

Ple

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.
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

Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow. What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition. Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.

No. you are misconstruing what Dante is plainly saying: there is a legal definition: a marriage contract is a civil contract of a union of two persons as one

Please refer to Blacks Law dictionary of a marriage contract.

 

[James Everett]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

you've been trolling for quite some time. Time for you to play games elsewhere

Please refer to Blacks law dictionary concerning the definition of a marriage contract, as well as all others.
I am Not playing games, I am posting the facts and truth.

 

[James Everett]

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.

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.

Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them

Oh, now that's rich!
So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?

 

[Faun]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

 

[James Everett]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

 

[Faun]

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.

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

 

[James Everett]

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

 

[Faun]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the obligation of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.

Not at all. You said, "it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.

 

[Dante]

are you drunk : "denying a re-defining of a contract " no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself

1) No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?

2) If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?

1) Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.
​

2) No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.

Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them

Oh, now that's rich!
So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?

You've purposefully ignored everything people have posted that contradicts your insanity

whatever your issues are they are not about entering into a rational and reasonable debate or argument.

you're a troll and a poor one at that