SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Vigilante]

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).


>>>>

WOW, everyone of those is a DEEP BLUE SOCIALIST state...aren't you proud?

 

[Faun]

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

When was it written asshat? Was QUEER NATION even thought about then, and riddle me this Statfuckingnameis, in over 135 years why take so long to even bring this up? You mean in 135 years EVERYONE but a few cocksuckers were unaware of this?

You seem angry and you seem to think you can insult people and it will somehow bother them, but you fail at it miserably. I am well aware of when the 14th was written and later, ratified, and smart people know of the circumstances leading up to its creation, but it was very deliberately worded to cover more than the issues of personal liberty related to slavery. In other words, the people who penned the 14th showed great foresight.

So, instead of trolling, learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

NO, it wasn't worded to cover ANY OTHER issue....if so show me a link to somewhere back in the late 1860's to 1890's where it is mentioned by anyone of any renown! You're full of crap, and deserve insulting because YOU are insulting!

Heil Hitlery!

Holyfuckingshit!

The 14th Amendment also declares anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the U.S.

Like everything else in the 14th Amendment, it applies to everyone -- not just blacks.

Dayam, vagisil, someone really beat the shit out of you with the stupid stick.

 

[Faun]

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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

 

[Steinlight]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases. They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work. Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.

Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends

There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year, will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?

A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year.
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

I never said they made 15000 a year, your citation proves my point. A woman making 15000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. This is what I said, if you bothered to read by post closely.

 

[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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

 

[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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Wow!! Just freaken WOW! That s all you have in response to my extensive post citing the constitution and legal precedence ? Cartoons? Pretty pathetic not to mention juvenile. You are done here.

 

[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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Wow!! Just freaken WOW! That s all you have in response to my extensive post citing the constitution and legal precedence ? Cartoons? Pretty pathetic not to mention juvenile. You are done here.

Done?...

 

[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

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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step

 

[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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step

Dude, if you don't like them, don't look at them... by my ratings, it seems that many appreciate POLITICAL SATIRE, if you aren't nuanced enough to enjoy it, I suggest YOU attend the STTAB school of wit!.... Political satire has been around longer than this country has been a independent country.... learn something!

 

[BluePhantom]

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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step

Dude, if you don't like them, don't look at them... by my ratings, it seems that many appreciate POLITICAL SATIRE, if you aren't nuanced enough to enjoy it, I suggest YOU attend the STTAB school of wit!.... Political satire has been around longer than this country has been a independent country.... learn something!

Yeah the problem is, it's not your wit. You are just ripping off the wit of others and announcing victory because someone else has sass and all you have is the ability to search google. All you are doing is copy and pasting. That's the extent of your intellectual acumen it seems

 

[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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step

Dude, if you don't like them, don't look at them... by my ratings, it seems that many appreciate POLITICAL SATIRE, if you aren't nuanced enough to enjoy it, I suggest YOU attend the STTAB school of wit!.... Political satire has been around longer than this country has been a independent country.... learn something!

Yeah the problem is, it's not your wit. You are just ripping off the wit of others and announcing victory because someone else has sass and all you have is the ability to search google. All you are doing is copy and pasting. That's the extent of your intellectual acumen it seems

Isn't America a great place? That's why people POST these little gems on the net....so they can be shared and enjoyed, especially when they put down a NeoCommie! If they didn't want to share them, they would make them so they couldn't be copied....DUH!!!

Are you the originator of your little gem? Do you mind if someone else uses it?

Apparently you don't mind since I just posted it to 2 other sites! Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the fuck makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

Sorry but your irrational hatred and personal beliefs do not apply to anyone else but yourself. THAT is something you need to understand. Other people do not want to, nor do they have to live by your rules or have your approval. Where does your sense of self importance when it comes to other people's LIVES come from? Where do you get off?

Hey fuck face the only hate is from you.

LOL.....the ignorance and the irony is touching.

 

[Faun]

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!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Wow!! Just freaken WOW! That s all you have in response to my extensive post citing the constitution and legal precedence ? Cartoons? Pretty pathetic not to mention juvenile. You are done here.

That one doesn't possess enough functioning brain cells to formulate much of a response beyond posting cartoons.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases. They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work. Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.

Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends

There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year, will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?

A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year.
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

I never said they made 15000 a year, your citation proves my point. A woman making 15000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. This is what I said, if you bothered to read by post closely.

Err, I don't think so. You clearly stated above that a woman making 15,000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. Lie much?

 

[Steinlight]

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases. They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work. Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.

Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends

There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year, will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?

A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year.
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

I never said they made 15000 a year, your citation proves my point. A woman making 15000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. This is what I said, if you bothered to read by post closely.

Err, I don't think so. You clearly stated above that a woman making 15,000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. Lie much?

No. It's not a lie. That is a bold claim. Do you have proof I am lying?

 

[thanatos144]

Hey fuck you. Stop calling those who refuse to celebrate sin bigots .

Truth hurts huh?

The truth that you are bigoted little man? That isn't a secret you despicable little man.... Just come out of the closet already.

I'm bigoted against bigots like you, yes. Why don't you put your stones down and go home. Gays may be legally married now. Your fight to keep your boot on their necks has been lost. You are the weak ass bully that has been shamed. You are dismissed.

Your ignorance is astounding. How is allowing 5 people make law for all of the country a good thing dip shit? You fucking wish to be allowed to marry your homosexual lover clouds your reason.

Read the Constitution. Read case Law. Learn.

I have you or seems has not

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases. They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work. Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.

Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends

There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year, will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?

A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year.
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

I never said they made 15000 a year, your citation proves my point. A woman making 15000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. This is what I said, if you bothered to read by post closely.

Err, I don't think so. You clearly stated above that a woman making 15,000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. Lie much?

No. It's not a lie. That is a bold claim. Do you have proof I am lying?

Maybe you were just mistaken. But if you were mistaken, you wouldn't keep making the same claims.

Income Chart
(Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015)

Household size Gross monthly income (130 percent of poverty) Net monthly income (100 percent of poverty)
1

$1,265 $ 973
2

1,705 1,311
3

2,144 1,650
4

2,584 1,988
5

3,024 2,326
6

3,464 2,665
7

3,904 3,003
8

4,344 3,341
Each additional member

+440 +339

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

 

[Faun]

Truth hurts huh?

The truth that you are bigoted little man? That isn't a secret you despicable little man.... Just come out of the closet already.

I'm bigoted against bigots like you, yes. Why don't you put your stones down and go home. Gays may be legally married now. Your fight to keep your boot on their necks has been lost. You are the weak ass bully that has been shamed. You are dismissed.

Your ignorance is astounding. How is allowing 5 people make law for all of the country a good thing dip shit? You fucking wish to be allowed to marry your homosexual lover clouds your reason.

Read the Constitution. Read case Law. Learn.

I have you or seems has not

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

If you did, you'd understand the Supreme Court has supreme jurisdiction over the judicial branch which is given judicial power over all cases arising under the Constitution.

You don't understand that.

Your lack of understanding of that does not alter the reality which it is -- it only results in your own frustration in thinking you've been wronged. But in reality, the system worked exactly as designed by our forefathers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOYUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects. Welfare programs serve the purpose of smoothing out those unintended consequences and keeping society reasonably stable.