C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2011
- 77,293
- 37,293
Essentially all of the current "gay" talking points are nonsense.
There are NO Constitutional rights that are not available to "gays" because of their sexual orientation or because of their private behavior. None.
And even though there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution, the USSC has prohibited enforcement of sodomy laws when applied to private behavior, so gays can do anything they want, privately. This was not always the case, but it is the case now.
There is NO Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, and the arguments that there is such a right are transparent nonsense. Gays have "equal protection" under the laws, any way you slice it. ALL people subject to the laws of the United States are free to marry any competent adult of the opposite sex. Equal protection; that's what it means.
Constitutional rights do not apply to "couples." Never have.
The ONLY constitutional question that the Supreme Court has considered with respect to gay "marriage" is whether other states and the Federal Government must recognize marriages that are legal in the state where they were created (under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV). They do. This is the piece of DOMA that was overturned.
There have been a few lower court Federal judges that have ruled that there is a "constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender but this is what has come to be called, "judicial activism": A federal judge talking out of his/her ass, and hoping the case won't be appealed successfully. Those cases are NOT precedent setting in any meaningful way, and apply only to the litigants of THAT CASE.
The idea that large numbers of male homosexuals are pining to enter into lifetime, monogamous relationships, but can't do so because of government restrictions is patent bullshit.
This is comprehensively ignorant and and factually wrong:
May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit
or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen
chooses to marry?
Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude
that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We
hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a
family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a states marital laws. A state may
not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their
marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf