Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

[TNHarley]

They just want the same right as everyone else. The government got involved with marriage. Therefore, I think the equality cause is justified.
They shouldn't have gotten involved with it, but they did. Big surprise, I know...
Anything else is really irrelevant IMO

 

[TheDude]

1. Marriage is not a Constitutional right.

2. Homosexuals DID NOT fall under marriage discrimination. No matter the right, you have to meet standards and there's no exemption. If a homosexual doesn't like tits that's not society's problem. Move on with your life and mind your own fucking business.

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary.

Personally I believe gay civil unions were in order. These would offer NEARLY the same rights as marriage. The LGBT agenda is to disburse confusion from the individual to the public. This is the result of boredom, a pampered public, and liberal cause-seeking, because they simply ran out of ideas. At the end of the day, homosexuality IS NOT equal to heterosexuality. Don't take your argument up with me, take it up with the universe, because the universe says I'm correct.

 

[whitehall]

Look around. Anyone can live together in the most tolerant Country in the world but there is no way around government being involved in marriages. You need a license and you usually need (except in rare conditions) an agent of the government to perform the ceremony. If we have government involved in marriage it's incumbent on government to set the rules and so far in the history of the great Republic, the majority of the people elect the government agencies that make the rules. Since the supreme court authorized sodomite marriages it's a moot point anyway but the 1st Amendment freedom of religion came way before the sodomite marriage decision.

 

[Syriusly]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

We have marriage for all.

It is settled.

Set up your own system and let others set up theirs. By my system it was already a right under religious freedom so no court ruling was needed, that freedom already exists and has always existed. Syriusly

My own system is set up- my wife and I have been legally married for over 20 years. The only change is that in the last 50 years, courts have overruled states who have tried to restrict the rights of mixed race couples and gay couples from marrying. Doesn't affect my marriage at all.

By contrast- you want to end my legal marriage so a few Christians feel better.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Marriage is not a Constitutional right.
t.

Marriage is a constitutional right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"



—Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96.

(a) Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right to marry under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 . Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship. Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 , distinguished. Pp. 94-96.

expressions of emotional support and public commitment .... many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock).

 

[TheDude]

I never got the "government should stay out of marriage business". This may come as a complete shock, but:

A. The government processes/records the certificates and divorce.

B. The government adjusts taxes on who and who isn't married. Course those tax breaks were intended for families, you know, reproduction? Somehow that's over the liberal head, cuz they so smart.

C. The government dictates laws and regulations for property ownership, beneficiary, etc. etc. etc. etc.


Saying the Govt. shouldn't be involved is STUPID RHETORIC

 

[Syriusly]

2. Homosexuals DID NOT fall under marriage discrimination. No matter the right, you have to meet standards and there's no exemption. If a homosexual doesn't like tits that's not society's problem. Move on with your life and mind your own fucking business..

Gay couples had their rights recognized by governments and the courts- they can now marry in all 50 states.

So why don't you move on with your life and mind your own fucking business- no one will be forcing you to gay marry.

 

[TheDude]

2. Homosexuals DID NOT fall under marriage discrimination. No matter the right, you have to meet standards and there's no exemption. If a homosexual doesn't like tits that's not society's problem. Move on with your life and mind your own fucking business..

Gay couples had their rights recognized by governments and the courts- they can now marry in all 50 states.

So why don't you move on with your life and mind your own fucking business- no one will be forcing you to gay marry.

Hey dude, it's not me pretending to be homosexual. You're just projecting.

 

[Syriusly]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

 

[Syriusly]

2. Homosexuals DID NOT fall under marriage discrimination. No matter the right, you have to meet standards and there's no exemption. If a homosexual doesn't like tits that's not society's problem. Move on with your life and mind your own fucking business..

Gay couples had their rights recognized by governments and the courts- they can now marry in all 50 states.

So why don't you move on with your life and mind your own fucking business- no one will be forcing you to gay marry.

Hey dude, it's not me pretending to be homosexual. You're just projecting.

And again- why don't you move on with your life and mind your fucking business- no one will be forcing you to gay marry.

Two men or two women marrying doesn't affect you at all- just mind your fucking business.

 

[Syriusly]

Personally I believe gay civil unions were in order. These would offer NEARLY the same rights as marriage. The LGBT agenda is to disburse confusion from the individual to the public. This is the result of boredom, a pampered public, and liberal cause-seeking, because they simply ran out of ideas. At the end of the day, homosexuality IS NOT equal to heterosexuality. Don't take your argument up with me, take it up with the universe, because the universe says I'm correct.

Why are you projecting your confusion and boredom on everyone else?

The universe doesn't say anything- and if you really believe it is talking to you- well then you have other problems.

 

[Syriusly]

Course those tax breaks were intended for families, you know, reproduction? Somehow that's over the liberal head, cuz they so smart.

As a married man, with a wife and a child- care to tell me what tax break I get for being married AND having a child?

Hint: unmarried couples with a child get the same tax break for having a child as my wife and I do.
Married couples without a child get no tax break for the child they don't have.

I am always bemused by this 'tax break' thingie because in the last 20 years my wife and I have paid MORE taxes for being married at least 3 times than if we were single filing separately.

Of course if we were millionaires and died- well then one of us would get a big break. But of course again- whether or not we had children wouldn't matter- and our children would not get any tax break because we were married when we died.

 

[TheDude]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

You know what the word intent means? Jesus Christ, you throw out one instance and declare that the purpose? I get it Romeo, marriage is about love.

Okay, so you want to claim marriage and reproduction are fully mutually independent, and intent has no purpose. Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

 

[TheDude]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

You know what the word intent means? Jesus Christ, you throw out one instance and declare that the purpose? I get it Romeo, marriage is about love.

Okay, so you want to claim marriage and reproduction are fully mutually independent, and intent has no purpose. Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Crickets.

 

[Syriusly]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

 

[Syriusly]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

You know what the word intent means? Jesus Christ, you throw out one instance and declare that the purpose? I get it Romeo, marriage is about love.

Okay, so you want to claim marriage and reproduction are fully mutually independent, and intent has no purpose. Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Crickets.

Lunch.

And it was steak- not crickets.

 

[Syriusly]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

I get it Romeo, marriage is about love.

Where did I mention love?

Here is a quote I like from the Supreme Court


Here is a quote that I like from the Supreme Court


"Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."


I like that- a 'bilateral loyalty'- hopefully enduring and intimate.

 

[TheDude]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry? This make-believe? I'm super dumb dude, but I'm positive you can provide one example for "your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea? I believe this is code for you're afraid to answer a direct question, because you realize I'm right, and you just don't like the comparison.

 

[whitehall]

If sodomites think "marriage can be practiced equally without relying on govt" the solution is easy. Simply put your hand over your partner's favorite body part and pronounce yourselves married. What seems to be the problem?

 

[Syriusly]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry? This make-believe? I'm super dumb dude, but I'm positive you can provide one example for "your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry.

Yes you are super dumb dude.

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary.

A brother and a sister can reproduce just fine- with no more chance of birth defects than non-related couples who happen to carry the same genes that cause birth defects.