TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Jun 11, 2015
- 27,485
- 7,922
Yes a stalemate. But one parting thought. This is what you don't get. More than a discussion about what will or will not happen, or of what can and cannot happen, it is about why should it happen.Man, you really don't get it do you? This is not a discussion about what will or will not happen. It is a discussion about what COULD or COULDNOT be done. Laws can be changed (however difficult, or politically challenging), and societies' views on various topics will change. While I would agree that right now marriage will likely stay as it is, that does not mean that it always will be. For example, there was a time that it was thought impossible to end slavery in this land, then it ended. Why? Because times, hearts, and minds change.I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.You seem to be confusing the topic here.It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.
First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.
Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.
Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.
Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.
Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.
You might also want to have a look at this:
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right
Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.
As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » ProceduresI challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.
How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.
And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.
So, once you get over the concept that is likely not going to happen you will be able to continue to have a rational discussion about what could happen. Until then, you are right, we are at a stale-mate.
There were reasons to end slavery. There was a movement to end slavery. There are no reason and there is no movement to end marriage as we know it except in the minds of a small number of people on the lunatic fringe. We find ways of doing things when and only when there is motivation to do it.