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

[TheOldSchool]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

No TheOldSchool
Like States TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery!
That's why there is opposition to mandates penalizing the free choice of health care.

If the govt is taking someone's labor, depriving them of liberty, without any due process or any crime committed,
that's a form of involuntary servitude. The people or the states have the right to demand representation where there is taxation involved, especially on the private and free choice of how to manage and pay for health care.

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

 

[emilynghiem]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated.”

This is naïve and sophomoric.

The states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being struck down by the courts.

Had the states simply obeyed the Constitution, and recognized the equal protection rights of gay Americans by allowing them access to marriage law, there would be no reason to get the Federal courts involved, and no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones while I AGREE with you that no bans should ever have been put preventing people from marrying freely in churches, it is WRONG to punish the ENTIRE STATE for the wrongs of certain people.

RE: "But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court."

^ if a law specifically BANS marriage in church which is against religious freedom,
yes, that law can and should be challenged and changed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.

 

[emilynghiem]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!

Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage? Because that's fine with me. Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.

T H A N K Y O U !!!
Yes, I believe this is neutral ground where everyone can agree.
(After we re-establish neutral ground, if states can work out additional agreements on related policies, great.
If not, just stick to what is common and quit pushing the rest.)
Totally agree!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.

Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country. It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.

 

[Vigilante]

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

 

[TheOldSchool]

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

Wrong about what? Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional? Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?

 

[Vigilante]

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

Wrong about what? Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional? Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?

No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!

 

[emilynghiem]

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.

Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country. It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.

????

You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?

If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
something else is going on.

The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
That's no way to live.

If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

Wrong about what? Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional? Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?

No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!

So what does that have to do with anything?

 

[emilynghiem]

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

Dude ask any southern conservative. Slavery was just a States Rights issue.

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

Wrong about what? Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional? Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?

What the?
Honey TheOldSchool
Slaves were MORTGAGED THROUGH THE BANKS AS PROPERTY.
They were sold along with the property as part of the estate.

Maybe you are loosely interpreting the 3/5 rule as recognizing these were "somewhat persons"?

What part of "forcing breeding of more slaves by rape" similar to CATTLE do you not understand?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.

Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country. It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.

????

You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?

If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
something else is going on.

The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
That's no way to live.

If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!

Did you just say that this issue "should'nt be in state hands to begin with"?

What?

 

[emilynghiem]

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen. Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's. How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?

Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.

Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country. It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.

????

You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?

If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
something else is going on.

The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
That's no way to live.

If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!

Did you just say that this issue "should'nt be in state hands to begin with"?

What?

That if marriage is a private religious institution, technically spiritual terms of marriage should not be decided by states. I agree with you that civil unions are secular contracts and that can be justified as state jurisdiction.

If people's conflicting beliefs can't be resolved or separated from marriage, that part should remain outside the state and have equal freedom in private. Only pass state laws on the parts neutral enough to avoid injecting or rejecting beliefs, which the state is not supposed to be deciding for people. You don't have Hindus or Muslims suing each other in Court over differences in their religious beliefs about marriage; that is private and they need to resolve it among themselves. Same with people's private beliefs about gay marriage, traditional, etc.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Alright I'm going to bed. Last thing I'll say is that I fully expect the Supreme court to legalize gay marriage across all 50 states in June. And though I'm not gay I will be happy for people who happen to be gay. Because discrimination is a terrible thing.

Our constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to make that decision. And if they legalize gay marriage and you disagree, just remember that they would completely eviscerate you in a debate about the legality of what they've decided.

Good night.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!

Blacks were declared to be people back then. Not property. So wtf are you harping on about?

The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the personal property of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865

Wrong about what? Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional? Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?

No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!

So what does that have to do with anything?

Nothing.

The thread premise is ignorant idiocy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Alright I'm going to bed. Last thing I'll say is that I fully expect the Supreme court to legalize gay marriage across all 50 states in June. And though I'm not gay I will be happy for people who happen to be gay. Because discrimination is a terrible thing.

Our constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to make that decision. And if they legalize gay marriage and you disagree, just remember that they would completely eviscerate you in a debate about the legality of what they've decided.

Good night.

It should already be legal by First Amendment Religious Freedom.
Free to exercise in one's personal life and practice.

If you want to open the door to mandating beliefs through the state,
then why not mandate Prolife, why not mandate spiritual healing.
Great!

BTW TheOldSchool personally I have no issue with gay marriage.
But where people do, I respect their beliefs, on both sides equally,
and don't believe the state has the right to impose or exclude or discriminate. So that's why I agree with your earlier statement to keep civil unions with the state and keep marriage private.

I disagree with COURTS and States enforcing laws on this without
full consent of the people, since it involves spiritual and religious beliefs.
I believe consensus is required where beliefs are involved, so all are protected equally.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

I believe that is the point. Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else. Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

I believe that is the point. Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else. Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.

Yes, in private, in personal practice of religion or beliefs.
The problem is with PUBLIC POLICY the entire population of each state
doesn't necessarily agree how to word these laws to be neutral or to include or exclude same-sex couples.
So that's where BOTH sides are complaining the "other side is imposing their bias."
it SHOULD be by free choice, so the laws must be written by consensus and not pose a bias either way.
Same with prochoice vs. prolife biases with abortion laws: these require consensus, but that hasn't been enforced.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

I believe that is the point. Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else. Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.

Yes, in private, in personal practice of religion or beliefs.
The problem is with PUBLIC POLICY the entire population of each state
doesn't necessarily agree how to word these laws to be neutral or to include or exclude same-sex couples.
So that's where BOTH sides are complaining the "other side is imposing their bias."
it SHOULD be by free choice, so the laws must be written by consensus and not pose a bias either way.
Same with prochoice vs. prolife biases with abortion laws: these require consensus, but that hasn't been enforced.

There is not a law on the books that everyone agrees with entirely. There will never be consensus.