Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing. If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. It obviously wasn't.

You can keep clinging to that belief all you want. Not my problem. Game over.

 

[Pop23]

You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship). As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient. California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc. Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child? I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family. They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc.. With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur. If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage. I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.

Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.

Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?

Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.

Would be nice if adults could actually engage in reasoned conversations without the children wondering in.

I'm wondering what "wondering in" means.

I wander myself?

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing.

Of course Boss is ignoring the three previous cases where the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional marriage laws.

Poor Boss- still upset that Loving v. Virginia eliminated bans on mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.

Indeed, the Constitution is the highest expression of society's collective moral values..

And if society does indeed disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, 'society' can revise the Constitution to reflect what Society wants- as happened with the 13th and 14th Amendments.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing.

Of course Boss is ignoring the three previous cases where the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional marriage laws.

Poor Boss- still upset that Loving v. Virginia eliminated bans on mixed race marriages.

I guess he also does not approve of a black man marrying a white woman. Ya think that he would marry one?

 

[Pop23]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing.

Of course Boss is ignoring the three previous cases where the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional marriage laws.

Poor Boss- still upset that Loving v. Virginia eliminated bans on mixed race marriages.

I guess he also does not approve of a black man marrying a white woman. Ya think that he would marry one?

Well clearly he is aghast that the Supreme Court would think that a State ban on mixed race marriages could be considered Unconstitutional- do you think that all of this 'angst' is just his decades long resentment that mixed race couples were allowed to marry- because of the Supreme Court?

 

[Boss]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

Again... It seems you are stuck on the argument that SCOTUS ruled gay marriage a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. I think we all live on this planet and watch the news... there is no argument, they did do this. So if that is the argument you believe we are now having, you have won already, there is no one here who can defeat that argument.

My understanding is, we are arguing about the ramifications and consequences of that ruling as well as the unfounded basis for it and why it was erroneous. We talk a bit, argue back and forth a while, then you present the proof that SCOTUS made a ruling as if that is the debate. You continue to wave that ruling around as if it settles all arguments and renders all other opinions on any other topic irrelevant.

 

[Pop23]

Boss
Here comes the two our three posters who's intent is to make it look as though a large crowd is shouting you down.

Cute ain't it?

 

[Syriusly]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

 

[Syriusly]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

My understanding is, we are arguing about the ramifications and consequences of that ruling as well as the unfounded basis for it and why it was erroneous..

Well clearly your 'understanding' is all of that crap.

You claim there are ramifications and consequences- quoting yourself- citing yourself- and then claim the Supreme Court was in error- based of course upon your greater understanding of the Constitution than those ignorant Justices.

 

[Pop23]

I also find it interesting how hard the fought to be included in "marriage" and still want to actually be separately referred to an "gay marriage"?

Quirky to say the least

 

[Pop23]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

Again... It seems you are stuck on the argument that SCOTUS ruled gay marriage a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. I think we all live on this planet and watch the news... there is no argument, they did do this. So if that is the argument you believe we are now having, you have won already, there is no one here who can defeat that argument.

My understanding is, we are arguing about the ramifications and consequences of that ruling as well as the unfounded basis for it and why it was erroneous. We talk a bit, argue back and forth a while, then you present the proof that SCOTUS made a ruling as if that is the debate. You continue to wave that ruling around as if it settles all arguments and renders all other opinions on any other topic irrelevant.

No we are having the same argument but you don't seem to know it. You are saying that the SCOTUS ruing was an overreach of there authority and I am showing how you are wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have

Incompetence hangs in the air like the cold stench of death.

I'm drowning in a sea of inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils

They make me long for the comfort of the grave.

 

[bodecea]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,” the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, The Will of the People. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”

Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage.

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool.

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.

Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.

Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument.

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.

I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.

 

[Boss]

This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:

Again... It seems you are stuck on the argument that SCOTUS ruled gay marriage a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. I think we all live on this planet and watch the news... there is no argument, they did do this. So if that is the argument you believe we are now having, you have won already, there is no one here who can defeat that argument.

My understanding is, we are arguing about the ramifications and consequences of that ruling as well as the unfounded basis for it and why it was erroneous. We talk a bit, argue back and forth a while, then you present the proof that SCOTUS made a ruling as if that is the debate. You continue to wave that ruling around as if it settles all arguments and renders all other opinions on any other topic irrelevant.

No we are having the same argument but you don't seem to know it. You are saying that the SCOTUS ruing was an overreach of there authority and I am showing how you are wrong.

You're not showing me anything. You keep posting OPINIONS of others and they are mostly based on a false premise. Overreach of authority is not a new issue with SCOTUS, they've been doing this since Marbury v. Madison. In this case, they made a lawless ruling on a false premise. You can have a different opinion but the lawless ruling of the court doesn't make your opinion correct and mine incorrect.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!

How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing. If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. It obviously wasn't.

What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?