Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[Google]

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Seriously? That's your argument? It's not in the Constitution?

Apparently you don't understand how our legal system works. There are whole bodies of caselaw, constitutional doctrines, that have emerged over time and are entirely valid. Not every bit of our laws are embodied in one document. The outline, yes, but not every part in every way.

This silly mantra of some conservatives that if it's not in the Constitution it aint valid is simplistic and childish. You think you have some kind of "gotcha" there. SORRY. The law doesnt work that way.

Now before you go off half-cocked, I respect and revere The Constitution. It IS and always will be the supreme law of our nation. I am not a "living constitution" type either. I'm a mix of "original intent" and "textualist". I do think the constitution is a living document, but only because it can be amended and changed through legislation...not judicial interpretation.

Boy you are dense aren't you. My post was three sentences, but apparently that was too much for you.

My point is that the Supreme Court will not review any of these cases to make a ruling that would either universally uphold or strike down homosexual marriage because no cases cite the US Constitution.

Read more carefully.

Also, I'm glad you agree that homosexual marriage isn't in the Constitution. And what does the Constitution say about such issues? HINT read the damn tenth amendment.

 

[eflatminor]

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

There is no compelling reason for states to attempt to define personal relationships anymore than the Federal government. They need only provide the courts to settle disputes. The ONLY case that can be made for government intervention into personal relationships may have to do with immigration, a responsibility of the Federal government. Knowing your relationships may be necessary for those wishing to become US citizens but still, there is no need to define those relationships at any level.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that it isn't going to happen. Check back after 2012.

Oh puhleese...Even if Ron fucking Paul won the Presidency, you aren't going to get the government out of the business of licencing legal marriage. You aren't just dreaming, you're delusional if you believe that. It will NEVER happen.

Even the most reasonable proposition, that the government would ONLY issue civil unions isn't likely to happen.

And yes, the state DOES have a reason to define relationships...the benefits and privileges that are associated with them...not to mention the biggie...DIVORCE and the equitable division of property.

Just out of curiosity, are you legally married?

I suspect at one time folks said government would always support slavery. Frankly, I don't care what you think might or might not happen.

I strongly disagree that the state should define relationships. That's the point of the contract. Let it define the relationship, its benefits and privileges. Divorce is no different than breaking up a Partnership. Court precedents and the wording of the contract will determine the equitable division of property. No laws defining who can and who cannot enter into a partnership need exist.

Not legally married.

 

[Seawytch]

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Loving v Virginia.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n. 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

The constitution of the US is cited liberally in both Turner and Zablocki.

Are you purposely misrepresenting that court case? That ruling had zero to do with homosexual marriage.

Can you show me one court case involving homosexual marriage where the US, not state constitutions, were cited?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's called precedent. And yes, a number of Federal Judges have ruled both gay marriage bans AND DOMA Unconstitutional.

 

[Vanquish]

BTW, Loving vs Virginia absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with homosexual marriage. The application of the scrutiny standard is a lynch-pin to explaining how it should be applied in other cases of state-inflicted marriage restrictions.

So are bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving? Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

If the courts decide that same sex marriage bans violate either state or the federal constitutions, may state legislatures create "civil unions" for same-sex couples while reserving "marriage" for opposite sex couples? Vermont, as a result of state constitutional litigation on equal protection grounds, already has such a law in place, and New Jersey, Connecticut and other states have followed suit.

See it becomes an issue of scrutiny - strict, rational basis, intermediate.... Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

There's two ways to go about trying to advocate gay marriage: Due Process or Equal Protection. Is sexual orientation predictive of conduct that should be protected from invasion under the Due Process Clause, or a status that should be protected against discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause?

The Bowers case above said there was no substantive due process violation, but the subsequent Lawrence case overruled it. That is to say, if the same case came today or if Bowers had never happened, it might go entirely the other way. Crazy ain't it?

So is homosexuality a mutable trait of powerless people? Can you choose to be homosexual? That's one of the pressing issues in this debate and may never be solved because of its unprovability. I'll tell you from my point of view I can't be homosexual by choice. So I doubt that gay people can choose either.

Protect them, I say.

 

[Vanquish]

BTW, Loving vs Virginia absolutely has EVERYTHING to do with homosexual marriage. The application of the scrutiny standard is a lynch-pin to explaining how it should be applied in other cases of state-inflicted marriage restrictions.

So are bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving? Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

If the courts decide that same sex marriage bans violate either state or the federal constitutions, may state legislatures create "civil unions" for same-sex couples while reserving "marriage" for opposite sex couples? Vermont, as a result of state constitutional litigation on equal protection grounds, already has such a law in place, and New Jersey, Connecticut and other states have followed suit.

See it becomes an issue of scrutiny - strict, rational basis, intermediate.... Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

There's two ways to go about trying to advocate gay marriage: Due Process or Equal Protection. Is sexual orientation predictive of conduct that should be protected from invasion under the Due Process Clause, or a status that should be protected against discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause?

The Bowers case above said there was no substantive due process violation, but the subsequent Lawrence case overruled it. That is to say, if the same case came today or if Bowers had never happened, it might go entirely the other way. Crazy ain't it?

So is homosexuality a mutable trait of powerless people? Can you choose to be homosexual? That's one of the pressing issues in this debate and may never be solved because of its unprovability. I'll tell you from my point of view I can't be homosexual by choice. So I doubt that gay people can choose either.

Protect them, I say.

 

[Seawytch]

I suspect at one time folks said government would always support slavery. Frankly, I don't care what you think might or might not happen.

I strongly disagree that the state should define relationships. That's the point of the contract. Let it define the relationship, its benefits and privileges. Divorce is no different than breaking up a Partnership. Court precedents and the wording of the contract will determine the equitable division of property. No laws defining who can and who cannot enter into a partnership need exist.

Not legally married.

Allow me to suggest a gentleperson's wager then. I bet that not only will marriage equality be universal across all 50 states within the next 10 years, the libertarians will also not have been successful in "getting government hands off" legal, civil marriage.

 

[Google]

Are there obesity organizations attempting to indoctrinate school children that being, and I'll use the term indelicately, fat is a healthy lifestyle alternative?

It's not indoctrination, it's the truth. Living a lie is a lot more unhealthy than being gay. Just ask all the kids that kill themselves. Oh right...you can't.

A kid can't stop being gay, but they can stop being overweight.

There is a fundamental difference, and it is one that you are completely overlooking. The institution of marriage is one whose primary goal is to secure the family unit. Study after study has proven that children raised in a one parent households are drastically more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, ect, ect.

Agree 100%. So why would you want to deny the children of gay parents that stability and security?

Oh, and by the way, it is not REQUIRED that people have children to get married.

The left artfully employs propaganda to disavow these statistics. What you are championing is an assault on family--advocating instead that society embark on a grand experiment and in future generations we will determine the end result for children placed in the care of homosexual couples.

The results are already in...our kids are all right. In fact, all studies show that are children are at no disadvantage to those raised in heterosexual households. The key is what you cited above...kids do better in two parent households. Why is my family less deserving of this safety and security than YOUR family?

Let me ask you this, should my child be forced to be educated on the homosexual lifestyle in 2nd grade?

Should a 2nd grader know that gays exist and that there is nothing wrong with that? Yes, they should. I'm gonna clue you in on a little something...our kids are going to school with your kids. Gay kids are going to school with your kids. Schools should be teaching tolerance and that differences are accepted and respected.

What is the "homosexual lifestyle"?

Here's another little "FYI" for ya...the kids get it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBkQ8yww0Ho]‪Little Boy's 1st Gay Encounter With 2 Husbands‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Listen, I understand that I'm coming off a little insensitive here. I do have gay friends, and I love them as much as any of my friends.

I believe that this should be an issue for the states to decide, and the courts to rule on. I would like to see a Supreme Court ruling on it, but I have extreme doubts that will ever happen.

I am not opposed to homosexuals entering into legally binding agreements that ensure the same rights as married individuals, and that is an option.

What is hard for you to see is the bigotry and hatred directed at those that disagree with the political homosexual agenda. Nor do I believe the comparison of homosexual 'civil' rights to what blacks went through in the sixties holds any water.

Attack dogs were unleashed on African-Americans during their marches. Men in thongs parade around drunk, committing obscene sexual acts on street corners--with zero police interference--certainly you can admit that?

 

[eflatminor]

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

There is no compelling reason for states to attempt to define personal relationships anymore than the Federal government. They need only provide the courts to settle disputes. The ONLY case that can be made for government intervention into personal relationships may have to do with immigration, a responsibility of the Federal government. Knowing your relationships may be necessary for those wishing to become US citizens but still, there is no need to define those relationships at any level.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that it isn't going to happen. Check back after 2012.

Yes there is a compelling argument, and that is the F-ing 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes, it is incumbent upon the citizens of the states to determine if they want to participate in this social experiment.

I think I get your point and I would agree, it's a state issue. Personally, I do not believe the citizens of my state need a government that defines personal relationships to the benefit of some and the exclusion of others.

 

[Google]

Want to try an interesting experiment. Try Googling 'Constitutional Arguments against same sex marriage' or any variation and see if you get anything but pro-homosexual websites for the first four pages.

I once Googled images of 'google', looking for random pics for my profile, and the first page was pictures of Jesus Christ, I swear to god. I refreshed a few times, but kept getting Jesus pics. I called a friend and told him to do the same and it gave him actual pics of Google. I hit refresh and it was gone.

 

[Google]

Want to try an interesting experiment. Try Googling 'Constitutional Arguments against same sex marriage' or any variation and see if you get anything but pro-homosexual websites for the first four pages.

I once Googled images of 'google', looking for random pics for my profile, and the first page was pictures of Jesus Christ, I swear to god. I refreshed a few times, but kept getting Jesus pics. I called a friend and told him to do the same and it gave him actual pics of Google. I hit refresh and it was gone.

 

[BDBoop]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

And as long as they ARE recognizing straight, and NOT recognizing gay, then gays are being discriminated against, and you are wrong if you see it any different.

 

[Google]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

And as long as they ARE recognizing straight, and NOT recognizing gay, then gays are being discriminated against, and you are wrong if you see it any different.

Oh, well that settles it then. I'm wrong. No one has ever said that before, thanks for clearly things up.

Another illuminating point

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

And as long as they ARE recognizing straight, and NOT recognizing gay, then gays are being discriminated against, and you are wrong if you see it any different.

Who appointed you moral compass of America?

 

[eflatminor]

I suspect at one time folks said government would always support slavery. Frankly, I don't care what you think might or might not happen.

I strongly disagree that the state should define relationships. That's the point of the contract. Let it define the relationship, its benefits and privileges. Divorce is no different than breaking up a Partnership. Court precedents and the wording of the contract will determine the equitable division of property. No laws defining who can and who cannot enter into a partnership need exist.

Not legally married.

Allow me to suggest a gentleperson's wager then. I bet that not only will marriage equality be universal across all 50 states within the next 10 years, the libertarians will also not have been successful in "getting government hands off" legal, civil marriage.

I cannot deny a gentleperson! Shall we say a beer, cocktail or other libation?

 

[eflatminor]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

And as long as they ARE recognizing straight, and NOT recognizing gay, then gays are being discriminated against, and you are wrong if you see it any different.

So stop recognizing straight marriage. Gays should not be discriminated against but nor should any other people that wish to enter into a personal relationships. Allowing gays to "drink from the whites only fountain" does nothing to end discrimination against others. Stop trying to segment the society into groups that get and do not get privileges. It's unAmerican!

 

[Vanquish]

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Seriously? That's your argument? It's not in the Constitution?

Apparently you don't understand how our legal system works. There are whole bodies of caselaw, constitutional doctrines, that have emerged over time and are entirely valid. Not every bit of our laws are embodied in one document. The outline, yes, but not every part in every way.

This silly mantra of some conservatives that if it's not in the Constitution it aint valid is simplistic and childish. You think you have some kind of "gotcha" there. SORRY. The law doesnt work that way.

Now before you go off half-cocked, I respect and revere The Constitution. It IS and always will be the supreme law of our nation. I am not a "living constitution" type either. I'm a mix of "original intent" and "textualist". I do think the constitution is a living document, but only because it can be amended and changed through legislation...not judicial interpretation.

Boy you are dense aren't you. My post was three sentences, but apparently that was too much for you.

My point is that the Supreme Court will not review any of these cases to make a ruling that would either universally uphold or strike down homosexual marriage because no cases cite the US Constitution.

Read more carefully.

Also, I'm glad you agree that homosexual marriage isn't in the Constitution. And what does the Constitution say about such issues? HINT read the damn tenth amendment.

Ahhh and here come the insults. That's what happens when you've been vanquished. I expected as much.

Your legal training must have been immense. Oh wait, you were probably self-taught. It's easy to tell from your simplistic 10th Amendment answer.


Romer v. Evans
May 20, 1996

Facts
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution banning laws which protected gays from discrimination based on their gayness.
[procedural crap omitted]

Question
Does the Colorado Amendment, forbidding the extension of official protections to people suffering discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Romer v Evans is the case that you're looking to find but can't because of your stupidity. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause of the US CONSTITUTION[/B]. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

When you add that to Lawrence v. Texas where the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause of the US CONSTITUTION. After obliterating Bowers's idiotic premises, the Court reasoned that "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Exactly how is marriage different, as an activity, than sex? It's not. The government should stay out of it.

Your pedantic "waaaaa it's not in the Constitution" was spoonfed to you by some website or media outlet at some point, which by now you can't remember and think is your own "critical thinking." Put down your rusty spoon and pick up a damn scalpel.

You hate gays and want to justify that. We get it. If your Christian, you might want to listen to Jesus a little more and hate a lot less.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people.

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Loving v. Virginia was based on State Code Sections 258 and 259, not the State Constitution.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia cites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as justification for overturning State Code, even though mixed race marriages are not part of the federal Constitution.


>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people.

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

A perfect example of why government should stay out of personal relationships. The problem is government meddling. The solution is not more government meddling.

 

[Vanquish]

They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people.

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

A perfect example of why government should stay out of personal relationships. The problem is government meddling. The solution is not more government meddling.

But marriages have legal ramifications - ownership of property, child custody, rules of criminal evidence (spousal privilege)...the list goes on and on. As long as marriage has legal significance, the government has to be involved.

No offense, but posts like yours, while I think they are well-meant, are examples of the extremism that "anti-government" memes have gotten us to.