Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.The constitutional argument for same sex marriage may not hinge on rights but rather the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However, whether the advocates for same sex marriage win may depend more on the weakness of the argument of the opposition than their own argument. It can be very difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible.
it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
Ideas, beliefs, and opinions change. 20 years ago, there was no legal gay marriage. Most heterosexuals were hardly even aware gays existed. As gays came out of the closet we found out that they were our co-workers, the guy next door, a school board member, our sons, and daughters. And more important, we learned they really weren't such bad people after all. When gay marriage first became legal just 10 years ago, 3 out ever 4 people were opposed to it. Now a majority support it.What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?
Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very first national rule set by the First Amendment.
Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?
I think Hillary's quote in the OP sums it up for many. What don't you get? Many are religious and have their beliefs, which they are entitled to. Just because some stick by that instead of changing according to political winds, you criticize.
I have no problem with people holding convictions and speaking out. The only thing I have problems with are hypocrites who do things for political reasons. And I have issues with those who aren't content to merely state an opinion and go as far as to harm others. Speaking out against gay marriage is acceptable. Beheading gays is unacceptable. I still can't understand why the left ridicules religious people who merely object to gay marriage, yet remain silent on the senseless and brutal murder of gays by a certain other religion.
Neither Clinton nor Obama spoke out against marriage equality and neither ever supported anti gay legislation. If either of them had donated to the Prop Hate campaign, then it could be comparable.
Are people who object to interracial marriage on religious grounds "acceptable" or should their bigotry be called out?
Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????
Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
There is the limitation, they specifically call out racial differences.
The answer lies in the above quote, "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." This is not true for multi-partner marriage, brother sister marriage, child marriage, and marriage to animals.Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????
Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
There is the limitation, they specifically call out racial differences.
Now we specifically call out gender differences with a ban on man/man and woman/woman marriages. And just like in Loving, there is no rational basis for it.
Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.The constitutional argument for same sex marriage may not hinge on rights but rather the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However, whether the advocates for same sex marriage win may depend more on the weakness of the argument of the opposition than their own argument. It can be very difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible.
it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
The answer lies in the above quote, "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." This is not true for multi-partner marriage, brother sister marriage, child marriage, and marriage to animals.
The answer lies in the above quote, "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." This is not true for multi-partner marriage, brother sister marriage, child marriage, and marriage to animals.Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.
The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "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." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?
The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause
So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????
You may feel that the Supreme Court should not have the power to make such changes but they do. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, then the state legislature must make enact a new law. If the court strikes out a portion of the law, the legislature may or may not change the law. However, the Supreme Court ruling will prevail.The rational basis is that the contract has never been considered prior to be applicable between same sex people. If it is to be changed, it has to be changed via legislative action re-defining the contract, not judicial fiat based on nothing but hopes and desires.
You may feel that the Supreme Court should not have the power to make such changes but they do. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, then the state legislature must make enact a new law. If the court strikes out a portion of the law, the legislature may or may not change the law. However, the Supreme Court ruling will prevail.The rational basis is that the contract has never been considered prior to be applicable between same sex people. If it is to be changed, it has to be changed via legislative action re-defining the contract, not judicial fiat based on nothing but hopes and desires.
Same sex marriage (in the public setting) really just comes down to whether or not you think people should have the freedom to make freewill decisions that don't directly interfere in a significant way with the freewill of others.
If gay marriage impeded my ability to choose to get straight married, or start a business, or paint, or do anything else I could possibly wish to do, I might be against its establishment. But it doesn't, so I say "who cares"?
Same sex marriage (in the public setting) really just comes down to whether or not you think people should have the freedom to make freewill decisions that don't directly interfere in a significant way with the freewill of others.
If gay marriage impeded my ability to choose to get straight married, or start a business, or paint, or do anything else I could possibly wish to do, I might be against its establishment. But it doesn't, so I say "who cares"?
Currently that is the problem, worst its being used ex post facto to put people out of business if they refuse to cater to gay couples.
Currently that is the problem, worst its being used ex post facto to put people out of business if they refuse to cater to gay couples.
What does that have to do with gay marriage, though?
AS I recall, it was illegal for different races to marry in California until 1947. That being the case, I suspect that many people maintain that it should still be illegal, because it always had been.
Currently that is the problem, worst its being used ex post facto to put people out of business if they refuse to cater to gay couples.
What does that have to do with gay marriage, though?
Sorry, got my threads crossed, but the point is applicable. Public Accommodation laws are being used to force people to either work at gay weddings as photographers or bakers, or be fined/go out of business. Since one of your items that would make you consider being against it is "going out of business" I thought it was applicable.
