The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[OODA_Loop]

Article IV section 1 says your state needs to honor the decisions made by other states. In Loving v Virginia we have a case where this was ruled as applying to marriage.

What is your state's response going to be if the court rules that your state is required to recognize the marriages performed by other states?

A state can't be forced to comply to something specifically against its constitution by virtue of the legislative action of another sovereign.

Come on now.

Again, we saw exactly this happen with interracial marriage. Read Loving v. Virginia.

Virginia actually jailed Loving because of being in Virginia in an interracial marriage - as was their law.

State constitutions do not preempt our federal constitution. We've already seen the SCOTUS rule on the federal DOMA. Cases based on article IV will be a challenge to state DOMAs.

Because race is protected qualifier, incorporated by the States.

Florida does not have to honor everything which is legal in Washington.

 

[WillReadmore]

Ive heard your empty sophistry before Jones

What is called common law is really judge made elitist law, something the founding generation wanted to eliminate over time. Marriage is a holdover from the church-state of England. It was law left to the states. So the federal constitution never addressed it.

The simple common sense view AND intent of the 14th amendment also did not address marriage, as proven by subsequent amendment.

If you cant respect the views of the people at the time, you must respect them now. And Californians did not want to keep gay marriage. Who knows, maybe it was just a reaction to overbearing, arrogant courts forcing it upon them? Maybe if voted on now they would change their mind.

A gay writer, whose general political view I share, Gore Vidal, said he couldn't care less about gay marriage. A gay activist from Australia called it self-indulgent crap. It certainly didn't address the tax inequality experienced by single people.

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that marriage is exempt from the 14th amendment.

Also, finding some gay guy who isn't interested in marriage has no bearing whatsoever, obviously.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the machine currently stomping out the vote of 7 million in California. In case any of you want to know if the myth that the gay agenda exists and where it comes from:

Homosexual Media Manipulation

James Komack was the producer of many top Television programs of the 60s and 70s Welcome Back Kotter, Chico and the man, Love American Style and others. In **The homosexual revolution: End time abomination** by David A Noebel , he is credited with the following statement. "Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women's lib or any nationalist or racist group. It's the gays. If you don't have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don't go on the air." Perhaps this is one reason that you will rarely see a homosexual "bad guy" in the media.

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....

"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)

Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);

All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)

A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);

Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)

It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)

Throughout the 1990s, the media message pertaining to treatment of Homosexuals was "Tolerance". However, as society became more tolerant of their affliction largely through educational and media mind programming we have become less tolerant of those who refuse to subscribe to this political correctness. It’s difficult to fathom, but there was a time not long ago, when morality and virtue was celebrated in mainstream society. Today, anybody in the public eye particularly the mainstream media who dares to disagree with homosexuality or homosexual viewpoints will more than likely be fired, branded and blacklisted.

Through the media, homosexuals have won the tolerance and sympathies of the huddled masses.



Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual. Gay and Lesbian Media influences

So, are people in the middle voting block REALLY in support of gay marriage and gay everything else? Or is some funny rift widening between fantasy and reality?

 

[WillReadmore]

A state can't be forced to comply to something specifically against its constitution by virtue of the legislative action of another sovereign.

Come on now.

Again, we saw exactly this happen with interracial marriage. Read Loving v. Virginia.

Virginia actually jailed Loving because of being in Virginia in an interracial marriage - as was their law.

State constitutions do not preempt our federal constitution. We've already seen the SCOTUS rule on the federal DOMA. Cases based on article IV will be a challenge to state DOMAs.

Because race is protected qualifier, incorporated by the States.

Florida does not have to honor everything which is legal in Washington.

Race is mentioned only with respect to voting.

I highly doubt the SCOTUS will support the notion that Florida can nullify the marriages of those married in other states.

In fact, the federal level of our government is confident enough of that that they are recognizing marriages performed in WA even if the married couple now lives in FL.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

Well there are two sides to that coin.

Those whose efforts are to deny Marriage Equality to gays is also not about marriage, its about forcing their views on the rest of society. its about government mandated thought control.


>>>>

You can have gay marriage...the day after you legalize polygamy.

An example of the false dilemma fallacy. It is false that SSCM and polygamy are tied together in each case the arguments would be different.

In SSCM, the government must supply a compelling interest as to why like situated couples are treated differently based on gender. Those like situated groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, Adults who are allowed to enter into different sex Civil Marriage in any state of the Union. The same government treatment is denied to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, Adults who seek a same sex marriage are allowed to Civilly Marry in only a few of the States of the union.

To date, no such secular arguments justifying the different treatment of same-sex and different-sex couples as a function of Civil Law have survived in impartial review.


********************************************

As to polygamy. There are a number of arguments against Bigamy, which is actually an inssue of it's own discussoin and has nothing to do with SSCM. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Well there are two sides to that coin.

Those whose efforts are to deny Marriage Equality to gays is also not about marriage, its about forcing their views on the rest of society. its about government mandated thought control.


>>>>

You can have gay marriage...the day after you legalize polygamy.

An example of the false dilemma fallacy. It is false that SSCM and polygamy are tied together in each case the arguments would be different.

In SSCM, the government must supply a compelling interest as to why like situated couples are treated differently based on gender. Those like situated groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, Adults who are allowed to enter into different sex Civil Marriage in any state of the Union. The same government treatment is denied to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, Adults who seek a same sex marriage are allowed to Civilly Marry in only a few of the States of the union.

To date, no such secular arguments justifying the different treatment of same-sex and different-sex couples as a function of Civil Law have survived in impartial review.


********************************************

As to polygamy. There are a number of arguments against Bigamy, which is actually an inssue of it's own discussoin and has nothing to do with SSCM. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

10,000 lawyers just had an orgasm.

 

[hunarcy]

Florida does not have to honor everything which is legal in Washington.

Well, that's not exactly true.

Article 4, section 1:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage law according to Christian dogma is "special rights".

Marriage is marriage; end of story.

 

[Seawytch]

If you are going to rely on the courts it does matter what the FF thought to a certain extent, and what the populace at the time thought. Slavery was abolished with an amendment that represents the will of the people. Women can vote due to an amendment also.

We can see now where you’re confused.
You’re incorrectly perceiving that Supreme Court rulings such as Windsor somehow ‘change’ the Constitution, or ‘change’ the original intent of the Framers, the same way an amendment makes a change to the Constitution.
Again, this is incorrect.
When the Windsor Court stuck down DOMA, for example, it did so in accordance with the original intent of the framers, and in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
It’s time once again to remind conservatives of the Framers’ original intent, as Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Framers did not presume to possess a finite understanding of what constitutes individual liberty, and it was not their intent to codify such an understanding in the Constitution.
Their intent was to codify the fundamental principles underpinning individual liberty, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of that liberty in all its “manifold possibilities.”
Consequently, that slavery was ended or women allowed the vote as a result of Constitutional Amendments has no bearing whatsoever concerning the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law. As to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment, and since such a prohibition violates the fundamental principles of liberty codified by the Framers in the Constitution, so too does it violate the Framers’ original intent as to the very nature of the expression of that individual liberty.

Ive heard your empty sophistry before Jones

What is called common law is really judge made elitist law, something the founding generation wanted to eliminate over time. Marriage is a holdover from the church-state of England. It was law left to the states. So the federal constitution never addressed it.

The simple common sense view AND intent of the 14th amendment also did not address marriage, as proven by subsequent amendment.

If you cant respect the views of the people at the time, you must respect them now. And Californians did not want to keep gay marriage. Who knows, maybe it was just a reaction to overbearing, arrogant courts forcing it upon them? Maybe if voted on now they would change their mind.

A gay writer, whose general political view I share, Gore Vidal, said he couldn't care less about gay marriage. A gay activist from Australia called it self-indulgent crap. It certainly didn't address the tax inequality experienced by single people.

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Care to guess what "the people" thought of interracial marriage at the time?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage never was legal in California, ever. Just because a judge defies the law, doesn't make the law binding. A single judge cannot unilaterally declare gay behaviors a protected class and therefore laws prohibiting them marrying "unconstitutional". It has been determined in DOMA that not only must states respect their citizen's consensus on gay marriage, that that respect has to be retroactive to the founding of the country.

California literally, since this Prop 8 defiance-sedition, is no longer a state where the citizens set laws. That constitutional consensus has been disenfranchised from them, forcibly. The elected leaders ordered county clerks there to defy the findings in DOMA and to issue marriage licenses to two [or more, you cannot discriminate arbitrarily against polyamory] people play acting husband and wife of the same gender. Their officials ordered other officials to be in contempt of their own constitution, the initiative law and the US Supreme Court.

It's legal now. It was legalized in 2008...18,000 married. Prop 8 passed (those 18,000 were still legally married) and then was ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS chose not to hear an appeal to that ruling, making it THE ruling on Prop 8. The result? Gay marriage legal AGAIN in CA.

 

[dcraelin]

Ive heard your empty sophistry before Jones

What is called common law is really judge made elitist law, something the founding generation wanted to eliminate over time. Marriage is a holdover from the church-state of England. It was law left to the states. So the federal constitution never addressed it.

The simple common sense view AND intent of the 14th amendment also did not address marriage, as proven by subsequent amendment.

If you cant respect the views of the people at the time, you must respect them now. And Californians did not want to keep gay marriage. Who knows, maybe it was just a reaction to overbearing, arrogant courts forcing it upon them? Maybe if voted on now they would change their mind.

A gay writer, whose general political view I share, Gore Vidal, said he couldn't care less about gay marriage. A gay activist from Australia called it self-indulgent crap. It certainly didn't address the tax inequality experienced by single people.

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Care to guess what "the people" thought of interracial marriage at the time?

I meant to say gay"marriage" was not addressed by the 14th amendment. Your willful misreading shows also your willful misreading of the constitution.

The continual and pathetic reference to racial discrimination by those on your side shows you have lost the argument. If you truly have an argument it should be made without an illegitimate appeal to emotions.

The racial component of law was decided by a war and a couple of amendments. Loving was a case where a couple was actually physically kept apart. Please have the simple decency not to equate that with the situation today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..

And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....

You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.

all I am saying is that neither side is going to change the minds of the other side. the voters in CA said no to gay marriage twice, and the will of the people was ignored.

I don't care if gays hook up and want to legally commit to each other, and when they do that they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. But what they have is not a marriage.

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

Incorrect.

Citizens seeking their inalienable rights unlawfully denied them by the state in no way constitutes ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

And government is not ‘mandating’ anything; rather, government is being compelled to acknowledge and respect those inalienable rights unlawfully denied, as to deny citizens their fundamental rights, in this case equal protection of the law, is offensive to the Constitution, where those laws are appropriately invalidated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ive heard your empty sophistry before Jones

What is called common law is really judge made elitist law, something the founding generation wanted to eliminate over time. Marriage is a holdover from the church-state of England. It was law left to the states. So the federal constitution never addressed it.

The simple common sense view AND intent of the 14th amendment also did not address marriage, as proven by subsequent amendment.

If you cant respect the views of the people at the time, you must respect them now. And Californians did not want to keep gay marriage. Who knows, maybe it was just a reaction to overbearing, arrogant courts forcing it upon them? Maybe if voted on now they would change their mind.

A gay writer, whose general political view I share, Gore Vidal, said he couldn't care less about gay marriage. A gay activist from Australia called it self-indulgent crap. It certainly didn't address the tax inequality experienced by single people.

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Care to guess what "the people" thought of interracial marriage at the time?

I meant to say gay"marriage" was not addressed by the 14th amendment. Your willful misreading shows also your willful misreading of the constitution.

The continual and pathetic reference to racial discrimination by those on your side shows you have lost the argument. If you truly have an argument it should be made without an illegitimate appeal to emotions.

The racial component of law was decided by a war and a couple of amendments. Loving was a case where a couple was actually physically kept apart. Please have the simple decency not to equate that with the situation today.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law and the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons have access to all of a state’s laws.

Because there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there’s nothing for the 14th Amendment to ‘address.’

What is addressed, however, is the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and consequently their right to access marriage law in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Race is not the sole purview of Equal Protection Doctrine, classes of persons such as homosexuals are also entitled to protection afforded all persons by the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996). The Loving Court invalidated Virginia law denying interracial couples access to that state’s marriage law because it disadvantaged a class of persons based on race, absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end, just as Proposition 8 was invalidated because it also disadvantaged a class of persons – same-sex couples – absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end.

 

[dcraelin]

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Care to guess what "the people" thought of interracial marriage at the time?

I meant to say gay"marriage" was not addressed by the 14th amendment. Your willful misreading shows also your willful misreading of the constitution.

The continual and pathetic reference to racial discrimination by those on your side shows you have lost the argument. If you truly have an argument it should be made without an illegitimate appeal to emotions.

The racial component of law was decided by a war and a couple of amendments. Loving was a case where a couple was actually physically kept apart. Please have the simple decency not to equate that with the situation today.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law and the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons have access to all of a state’s laws.

Because there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there’s nothing for the 14th Amendment to ‘address.’

What is addressed, however, is the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and consequently their right to access marriage law in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Race is not the sole purview of Equal Protection Doctrine, classes of persons such as homosexuals are also entitled to protection afforded all persons by the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996). The Loving Court invalidated Virginia law denying interracial couples access to that state’s marriage law because it disadvantaged a class of persons based on race, absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end, just as Proposition 8 was invalidated because it also disadvantaged a class of persons – same-sex couples – absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end.

like I have said before, if it was known at the time of the amendment that it would permit gay "marriage", the 14th amendment would not have passed, thus disadvantaging blacks. If it was thought to address gender issues it would have permitted women to vote....it didnt. To say it addresses gay "marriage" (a historic self-defined term) is irrational.

 

[Seawytch]

I meant to say gay"marriage" was not addressed by the 14th amendment. Your willful misreading shows also your willful misreading of the constitution.

The continual and pathetic reference to racial discrimination by those on your side shows you have lost the argument. If you truly have an argument it should be made without an illegitimate appeal to emotions.

The racial component of law was decided by a war and a couple of amendments. Loving was a case where a couple was actually physically kept apart. Please have the simple decency not to equate that with the situation today.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law and the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons have access to all of a state’s laws.

Because there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there’s nothing for the 14th Amendment to ‘address.’

What is addressed, however, is the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and consequently their right to access marriage law in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Race is not the sole purview of Equal Protection Doctrine, classes of persons such as homosexuals are also entitled to protection afforded all persons by the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996). The Loving Court invalidated Virginia law denying interracial couples access to that state’s marriage law because it disadvantaged a class of persons based on race, absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end, just as Proposition 8 was invalidated because it also disadvantaged a class of persons – same-sex couples – absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end.

like I have said before, if it was known at the time of the amendment that it would permit gay "marriage", the 14th amendment would not have passed, thus disadvantaging blacks. If it was thought to address gender issues it would have permitted women to vote....it didnt. To say it addresses gay "marriage" (a historic self-defined term) is irrational.

From Wiki:

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

There is no new bigotry. Blacks weren't supposed to marry whites when the 14th amendment was ratified, but that's what happened.

Race isn't mentioned at all in the 14th amendment, it's simply about equal treatment under the law. Gays aren't being treated equally under the law.

 

[dcraelin]

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law and the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons have access to all of a state’s laws.

Because there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there’s nothing for the 14th Amendment to ‘address.’

What is addressed, however, is the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and consequently their right to access marriage law in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Race is not the sole purview of Equal Protection Doctrine, classes of persons such as homosexuals are also entitled to protection afforded all persons by the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996). The Loving Court invalidated Virginia law denying interracial couples access to that state’s marriage law because it disadvantaged a class of persons based on race, absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end, just as Proposition 8 was invalidated because it also disadvantaged a class of persons – same-sex couples – absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end.

like I have said before, if it was known at the time of the amendment that it would permit gay "marriage", the 14th amendment would not have passed, thus disadvantaging blacks. If it was thought to address gender issues it would have permitted women to vote....it didnt. To say it addresses gay "marriage" (a historic self-defined term) is irrational.

From Wiki:

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

There is no new bigotry. Blacks weren't supposed to marry whites when the 14th amendment was ratified, but that's what happened.

Race isn't mentioned at all in the 14th amendment, it's simply about equal treatment under the law. Gays aren't being treated equally under the law.

you make my point with your quote and yet you think it somehow proves YOUR point???? It was apparent it was about race and only willful ignorance says other wise.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was. Therefore, our fall is inevitable as we eat away at the underpinnings of the nation until, like a two legged table, it falls.

It is sad to see. We were once such a great nation and now it's time for someone else's turn.

Orly?!

 

[Seawytch]

like I have said before, if it was known at the time of the amendment that it would permit gay "marriage", the 14th amendment would not have passed, thus disadvantaging blacks. If it was thought to address gender issues it would have permitted women to vote....it didnt. To say it addresses gay "marriage" (a historic self-defined term) is irrational.

From Wiki:

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

There is no new bigotry. Blacks weren't supposed to marry whites when the 14th amendment was ratified, but that's what happened.

Race isn't mentioned at all in the 14th amendment, it's simply about equal treatment under the law. Gays aren't being treated equally under the law.

you make my point with your quote and yet you think it somehow proves YOUR point???? It was apparent it was about race and only willful ignorance says other wise.

Where is race mentioned in the 14th? Oh, it isn't? What can that mean? It means the 14th is being cited when overturning anti-gay marriage laws.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no new bigotry. Blacks weren't supposed to marry whites when the 14th amendment was ratified, but that's what happened.

Race isn't mentioned at all in the 14th amendment, it's simply about equal treatment under the law. Gays aren't being treated equally under the law.

Marriage is about a man marrying a woman. So trying to say that man "y" and woman "x" cannot marry IS discriminatory under any conditions. Unless there are local ordinances forbidding the joining of this reproductive-potential pair that are too closely blood related, from all we know about the disasters if inbreeding.

However, banning marriage between anything else but a man and a woman not related by blood is perfectly acceptable because within the definition of the word "marriage" as implying "a reproductive-potential pair" is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable legislating. Just because that pair may be infertile, doesn't mean they don't qualify. Theirs is only to fit the potential to reproduce together or to officiate as a reproductive pair, sterile, but that who officiates over raising adopted children, providing they pass a criminal and mental health background check. This is the icon We have Decided to set for Ourselves in this nation.

Banning two people of the same gender from marrying is the same as banning more than two people, banning minors, banning those too closely related by blood. We, as a society, have decided to adhere to the standard of "one man and one woman, fully mature, not related by blood too closely". That is what we call marriage. You can call whatever you're trying to make legal something else. Just don't call it marriage because it's not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage is about a man marrying a woman.

No it's not. There are 17 legal entities (16 states and DC) where this is not the case.

However, banning marriage between anything else but a man and a woman not related by blood is perfectly acceptable because within the definition of the word "marriage" as implying "a reproductive-potential pair" is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable legislating.

No it's not, not in one state in the Union is there any need to be a breeding pair a requirement or even mentioned as a function of law.

As a matter of fact there are laws on the books that required infertility prior to be eligible for a Civil Marriage License.

Just because that pair may be infertile, doesn't mean they don't qualify.

Well if the definition includes "a reproductive-potential pair" then being infertile sure is excluded from that definition.

Banning two people of the same gender from marrying is the same as banning more than two people,

Not related at all, the state would have to supply a compelling government interest which it has already done.

banning minors,

Not related at all, minors are not consenting adults.

banning those too closely related by blood.

Not related at all, however the state would have to supply a compelling government interest for such bans to continue.

We, as a society, have decided to adhere to the standard of "one man and one woman, fully mature, not related by blood too closely". That is what we call marriage. You can call whatever you're trying to make legal something else. Just don't call it marriage because it's not.

No need to call it something else. "Marriage" is just fine.

Society has been shifting for quite awhile not toward more acceptance. Society is accepting the term "marriage" just fine, some individual find the change unacceptable, that that's OK.


>>>>