Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.Last month they "said" the lower courts got it right. Now they have an issue, a lower court got it wrong.
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
Well, as I said, it requires that you be a grownup. No worries.No, I dont see that. I couldnt marry a man either if I wanted to, regardless of whether I loved him or not.Only, they don't, since I married the one I loved, and they, until recently, didn't get to. See how that works? If not when you're a grownup you will.The courts bypassed the role of states in setting their rules, as you correctly quote in Windsor, and instead substituted some vague 14th A of rights.
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Yes would include the constitutional boundaries for the laws..........the whole dang issue goes to the gay marriage issue and not interracial issues that aren't a problem anyway.The question in this poll is too ambiguous to be answered. If the definition of marriage were left up to the states, the states could ban interracial couples from marrying. Does anyone who voted yes believe that should be permissible?
The correct answer is that states have the right to define marriage within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot define marriage in a way that deprives individuals of equal protection rights.
If the state cannot define marriage as "between one man and one woman of the same race" then the definition of marriage is not fully up to the states. Do you disagree with that statement?Yes would include the constitutional boundaries for the laws..........the whole dang issue goes to the gay marriage issue and not interracial issues that aren't a problem anyway.The question in this poll is too ambiguous to be answered. If the definition of marriage were left up to the states, the states could ban interracial couples from marrying. Does anyone who voted yes believe that should be permissible?
The correct answer is that states have the right to define marriage within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot define marriage in a way that deprives individuals of equal protection rights.
I disagree.................because a state can and have done so.............as they are CHALLENGING the overturn of DOMA in 2013................In order to Challenge it you must OPENLY AMEND the state constitution and take it back to the courts..........................If the state cannot define marriage as "between one man and one woman of the same race" then the definition of marriage is not fully up to the states. Do you disagree with that statement?Yes would include the constitutional boundaries for the laws..........the whole dang issue goes to the gay marriage issue and not interracial issues that aren't a problem anyway.The question in this poll is too ambiguous to be answered. If the definition of marriage were left up to the states, the states could ban interracial couples from marrying. Does anyone who voted yes believe that should be permissible?
The correct answer is that states have the right to define marriage within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot define marriage in a way that deprives individuals of equal protection rights.
OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
You get that and we get to burn the Constitution and start over. It's long overdue actually....as I want a Constitutional Convention anyway.
Can a state legally define marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race?I disagree.................because a state can and have done so.............as they are CHALLENGING the overturn of DOMA in 2013................In order to Challenge it you must OPENLY AMEND the state constitution and take it back to the courts..........................
These bans are only the beginning of another round of SCOTUS battles that the states have decided to battle on again.
And as I've said, I think on this thread................Constitutional Amendment on this would end the whole thing.........let the people decide if we want it or not.........as I want a Constitutional Convention anyway.
I had the right to marry people I didnt want to marry too. Just like any other joe. I was also restricted from marrying some people, whether I wanted to or not. Just like everyone else.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
Because you already had the right to marry 1 person you wanted to marry. Gay people do not have the right to marry the person that they want to.
OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
Yes, because more people getting married means less married people? Do you even think before posting?[
OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.
When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Yes. You obviously do not, as I showed in my last post.Yes, because more people getting married means less married people? Do you even think before posting?[
OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.
Same concept legally little buddy. The junk is irrelevant.man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.
I disagree.................because a state can and have done so.............as they are CHALLENGING the overturn of DOMA in 2013................In order to Challenge it you must OPENLY AMEND the state constitution and take it back to the courts..........................If the state cannot define marriage as "between one man and one woman of the same race" then the definition of marriage is not fully up to the states. Do you disagree with that statement?Yes would include the constitutional boundaries for the laws..........the whole dang issue goes to the gay marriage issue and not interracial issues that aren't a problem anyway.The question in this poll is too ambiguous to be answered. If the definition of marriage were left up to the states, the states could ban interracial couples from marrying. Does anyone who voted yes believe that should be permissible?
The correct answer is that states have the right to define marriage within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot define marriage in a way that deprives individuals of equal protection rights.
These bans are only the beginning of another round of SCOTUS battles that the states have decided to battle on again.
And as I've said, I think on this thread................Constitutional Amendment on this would end the whole thing.........let the people decide if we want it or not.........as I want a Constitutional Convention anyway.
They could once, until we grew up a bit.Can a state legally define marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race?I disagree.................because a state can and have done so.............as they are CHALLENGING the overturn of DOMA in 2013................In order to Challenge it you must OPENLY AMEND the state constitution and take it back to the courts..........................
These bans are only the beginning of another round of SCOTUS battles that the states have decided to battle on again.
And as I've said, I think on this thread................Constitutional Amendment on this would end the whole thing.........let the people decide if we want it or not.........as I want a Constitutional Convention anyway.
When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl.Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
