Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

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

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

 

[Montrovant]

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 the court is supposed to defend it. They are not authorized to interpret their own meanings into the constitution. IF that is the case, there is no need for a Constitution and it actually means nothing. The court does not have domain and authority over the people. They are one of three co-equal branches of government, of which WE control.

There was not an issue of discrimination or denial of a right in this case. People were not being denied something on the basis of their gender. A new thing had to be created in order to claim a right to it. The Constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, homosexuals, or even marriage for that matter. It does not state that people can arbitrarily create new institutions and claim rights to those new institutions and for this to be automatically protected by law. And even IF that's what the SCOTUS erroneously orders the Constitution says... it MUST be applied to all persons creating new institutions and claiming rights under the law.

If what you are arguing is true, there would have never been a Civil War or any fight over slavery. It would have been ruled unconstitutional by an activist SCOTUS years and years before. As it was, the SCOTUS repeatedly turned down cases and ruled against abolition because it couldn't change the Constitution and write new laws. Even after a bloody civil war where half a million people died, the only thing that could change the condition of slavery was Constitutional amendment. THAT was the "reinterpreting" needed and it was done by THE PEOPLE not the Court.

How does my argument in any way preclude the Civil War from happening? Did I say that the Supreme Court gets it right all the time? Did I say that society gets it right all the time? What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Who interprets the constitution? Each individual? The legislature, the president? You say the USSC cannot interpret their own meanings into the constitution, but that sounds suspiciously like you are saying the court cannot interpret the constitution in ways you disagree with. The USSC has been interpreting the constitution for many years. Now, with this particular ruling, suddenly it's a problem for you?

Yes, the court is one of three co equal branches of government. From what you post, it gives the impression you would prefer they were far from equal and instead more of a rubber stamp to the legislature.

No one was denied the ability to marry a man based on their gender? No one was denied the ability to marry a woman based on their gender? Of course they were. Whether or not that involved a denial of rights is of course debatable, but that it is true is objectively observable.

No new institution was created with Obergefell. The already existing institution of marriage was expanded to include same sex couples.

You can claim that Obergefell means that anyone MUST be granted marriage should they wish it. I disagree; it does nothing of the sort.

 

[Boss]

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?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

 

[Boss]

What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Based on your opinion that the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people, as they did in Obergefell. From the very inception of our nation, slavery was an issue of moral right and wrong. This matter was left to the people and states to decide. The court did not have the power to confer citizenship on slaves and ordain them with Constitutional rights. Too bad it wasn't the 2015 court because they WOULD have!

 

[Syriusly]

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 premiset.

As opposed to Boss- who keeps posting his own opinions- quoting himself, citing himself- claiming that everyone but himself has a 'false premise'

Poor bigoted Boss.

Still so frightened that gay men will be trying to pass laws to force him to have sex with them.

 

[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.

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

Thanks spam master

 

[Syriusly]

What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Based on your opinion that the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people, as they did in Obergefell. From the very inception of our nation, slavery was an issue of moral right and wrong. This matter was left to the people and states to decide. The court did not have the power to confer citizenship on slaves and ordain them with Constitutional rights. Too bad it wasn't the 2015 court because they WOULD have!

And if the 2015 court had said that Africans were human beings, Boss would be saying that was going to lead to incestuous marriage also.

 

[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

Thanks spam master

Hey- you are welcome- always glad to post the good news

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

 

[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.

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

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy

They're hear, they're near, they're related. Get used to it you haters.

 

[Pop23]

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

Thanks spam master

Hey- you are welcome- always glad to post the good news

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

Spam Man!!!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

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

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win,

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

12 years of the same legal situation in Massachusetts- 12 years of the Catholic League making the same predictions- and 12 years with no incestuous or polygamous marriages in Massachusetts.

 

[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.

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

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy
.

Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss.

Not hard at all.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

 

[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.

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.

Of course you are. But your lifestyle is your choice, why you whining about hanging around the insane?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy
.

Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss.

Not hard at all.

And yourself! Which is what your doing.

 

[Pop23]

What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Based on your opinion that the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people, as they did in Obergefell. From the very inception of our nation, slavery was an issue of moral right and wrong. This matter was left to the people and states to decide. The court did not have the power to confer citizenship on slaves and ordain them with Constitutional rights. Too bad it wasn't the 2015 court because they WOULD have!

And if the 2015 court had said that Africans were human beings, Boss would be saying that was going to lead to incestuous marriage also.

Africans are human beings! Damn, you ARE A RACIST

 

[Pop23]

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.

Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy
.

Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss.

Not hard at all.

Then why can't you and the other gnats run us off?

Oh, maybe it's cuz we exposed you as Faux Progressives?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2008-02-03 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

 

[Boss]

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

Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain their kind of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.

Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled? You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution. Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.

The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.

If you want to twist and distort things around to make some other argument, we're not going to have it.... you can do it... I won't respond to it.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights.

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished.

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.

You said this :

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.

Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government. Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.