SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “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.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “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.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!

 

[Statistikhengst]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “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.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

 

[Vigilante]

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “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.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!

Lets see if you can possibly understand this. It's a little complicated and sophisticated so I'll understand if you can't but give it a try:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Selected Excerpts

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.

Since its decision, Bowers has been used as a precedent to uphold a myriad of morality laws.


The Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision sinisterly declares "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today

In addition to overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the phrases used in the Lawrence decision establish a new precedent that may be used to overturn all laws related to adult consensual sex. The ruling declares "…liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their lives in matters pertaining to sex."


Court proclaims that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, as in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


In addition

Though the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land was never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the Court has exercised the power of judicial review ever since the extremely controversial case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Inherent in the power of judicial review is the definition of penumbral rights.


Then, in 1965 the coagulation of the so-called "Right to Privacy" began. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional because of a penumbral "right to privacy" that had been previously established in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and other intervening cases. The penubras of the enumerated constitutional rights created a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without a compelling state interest.

Other milestones:

1972 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. A Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was found unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

1973 the greatest contortion of this new "Right to Privacy" took place in the form of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

In 1992, the Court again advanced the "Right to Privacy" in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. The decision partially upheld and partially struck down a Pennsylvania law that put certain restrictions on getting an abortion. Referring to the decisions of past cases including Carey and Griswold, the Court declared, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" and that "our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

"Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

And consider this as well:

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??


There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!

Anyone stupid enough to think that Jew is a "NaziBoy" has indeed already earned his "batshit crazy for life" membership card.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

And consider this as well:

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??


There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!

Brilliant.!! Just fucking brilliant.,. Call me a Nazi. It would appear that you have become unhinged.

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!

Lets see if you can possibly understand this. It's a little complicated and sophisticated so I'll understand if you can't but give it a try:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Selected Excerpts

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.

Since its decision, Bowers has been used as a precedent to uphold a myriad of morality laws.


The Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision sinisterly declares "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today

In addition to overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the phrases used in the Lawrence decision establish a new precedent that may be used to overturn all laws related to adult consensual sex. The ruling declares "…liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their lives in matters pertaining to sex."


Court proclaims that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, as in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


In addition

Though the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land was never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the Court has exercised the power of judicial review ever since the extremely controversial case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Inherent in the power of judicial review is the definition of penumbral rights.


Then, in 1965 the coagulation of the so-called "Right to Privacy" began. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional because of a penumbral "right to privacy" that had been previously established in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and other intervening cases. The penubras of the enumerated constitutional rights created a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without a compelling state interest.

Other milestones:

1972 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. A Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was found unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

1973 the greatest contortion of this new "Right to Privacy" took place in the form of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

In 1992, the Court again advanced the "Right to Privacy" in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. The decision partially upheld and partially struck down a Pennsylvania law that put certain restrictions on getting an abortion. Referring to the decisions of past cases including Carey and Griswold, the Court declared, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" and that "our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

"Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Let's see if you understand pictures, you seem to be hung up on SCOTUS words..

Need more pictures to explain things to you?

 

[Vigilante]

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!

Anyone stupid enough to think that Jew is a "NaziBoy" has indeed already earned his "batshit crazy for life" membership card.

George Soros...I rest my case...LOOK a 2 WORD WIN!!!!!!

 

[Vigilante]

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

This amendment!???

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, with a voter turnout of 34.66%.[3]

State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.

Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!

Brilliant.!! Just fucking brilliant.,. Call me a Nazi. It would appear that you have become unhinged.

I call you a Socialist, I call Stathisfuckingnameis a Nazi!

 

[RKMBrown]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!

Lets see if you can possibly understand this. It's a little complicated and sophisticated so I'll understand if you can't but give it a try:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Selected Excerpts

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.

Since its decision, Bowers has been used as a precedent to uphold a myriad of morality laws.


The Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision sinisterly declares "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today

In addition to overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the phrases used in the Lawrence decision establish a new precedent that may be used to overturn all laws related to adult consensual sex. The ruling declares "…liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their lives in matters pertaining to sex."


Court proclaims that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, as in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


In addition

Though the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land was never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the Court has exercised the power of judicial review ever since the extremely controversial case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Inherent in the power of judicial review is the definition of penumbral rights.


Then, in 1965 the coagulation of the so-called "Right to Privacy" began. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional because of a penumbral "right to privacy" that had been previously established in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and other intervening cases. The penubras of the enumerated constitutional rights created a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without a compelling state interest.

Other milestones:

1972 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. A Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was found unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

1973 the greatest contortion of this new "Right to Privacy" took place in the form of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

In 1992, the Court again advanced the "Right to Privacy" in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. The decision partially upheld and partially struck down a Pennsylvania law that put certain restrictions on getting an abortion. Referring to the decisions of past cases including Carey and Griswold, the Court declared, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" and that "our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

"Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Let's see if you understand pictures, you seem to be hung up on SCOTUS words..

Need more pictures to explain things to you?

You're a piece of shit moron.

 

[Vigilante]

Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.

They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself. What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?


Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html


Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!

Lets see if you can possibly understand this. It's a little complicated and sophisticated so I'll understand if you can't but give it a try:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Selected Excerpts

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.

Since its decision, Bowers has been used as a precedent to uphold a myriad of morality laws.


The Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision sinisterly declares "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today

In addition to overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the phrases used in the Lawrence decision establish a new precedent that may be used to overturn all laws related to adult consensual sex. The ruling declares "…liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their lives in matters pertaining to sex."


Court proclaims that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, as in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


In addition

Though the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land was never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the Court has exercised the power of judicial review ever since the extremely controversial case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Inherent in the power of judicial review is the definition of penumbral rights.


Then, in 1965 the coagulation of the so-called "Right to Privacy" began. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional because of a penumbral "right to privacy" that had been previously established in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and other intervening cases. The penubras of the enumerated constitutional rights created a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without a compelling state interest.

Other milestones:

1972 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. A Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was found unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

1973 the greatest contortion of this new "Right to Privacy" took place in the form of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

In 1992, the Court again advanced the "Right to Privacy" in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. The decision partially upheld and partially struck down a Pennsylvania law that put certain restrictions on getting an abortion. Referring to the decisions of past cases including Carey and Griswold, the Court declared, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" and that "our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

"Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Let's see if you understand pictures, you seem to be hung up on SCOTUS words..

Need more pictures to explain things to you?

You're a piece of shit moron.

Moi?

 

[BluePhantom]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

What happened when some states refused to follow a federal order to end segregation? How did that work out for George Wallace?

It turned him into a Presidential candidate that almost took it all in 72

Why? Whats your fucking point?

My fucking point is that he refused to obey a federal order so the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry forced him to.

 

[BluePhantom]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!

But here's the difference. The Supreme Court's interpretation actually matters where yours is totally irrelevant.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!

But here's the difference. The Supreme Court's interpretation actually matters where yours is totally irrelevant.

Yepp.

 

[Vigilante]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!

But here's the difference. The Supreme Court's interpretation actually matters where yours is totally irrelevant.

True, but where is the outrage when Obama refuses to obey courts?

Obama s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law RealClearPolitics

 

[BluePhantom]

A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage

The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons. Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law

No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!

But here's the difference. The Supreme Court's interpretation actually matters where yours is totally irrelevant.

True, but where is the outrage when Obama refuses to obey courts?

Obama s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law RealClearPolitics

Oh I bitch about that jack-ass on a daily basis

 

[WorldWatcher]

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1.

Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?

To ensure passage, they had the vote taken on the same day as the Republican primary and not later in the year on the General Election Ballot.

The last 4 times Marriage appeared on a general election ballot it won (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota).


>>>>