The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[Texanmike]

Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.

It's an inevitability.

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

You know the term inalienable right doesn't actually carry any legal weight in the Constitution right?

Mike

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.

It's an inevitability.

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

 

[Nic_Driver]

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

Sure it is, it's a religious freedom.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

Sure it is, it's a religious freedom.

Prove it. Gays are not using the first Amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

The SCOTUS has said it is (at least three times).

 

[Nic_Driver]

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

Sure it is, it's a religious freedom.

Prove it. Gays are not using the first Amendment.

Prove what exactly?

That marriage exists and excluding a segment of the population from it based on bigotry is wrong?

That seems self-evident and eventually it will be taken as the fact it is. You can run with your bigoted bad self for now if you'd like but inevitably marriage will be open to gays.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

The SCOTUS has said it is (at least three times).

It has not.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

The SCOTUS has said it is (at least three times).

It has not.

Most certainly has.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The SCOTUS has said it is (at least three times).

It has not.

Most certainly has.

It most certainly has not been.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

The SCOTUS has said it is (at least three times).

It has not.

That's not an argument, that's a contradiction.



Loving v Virginia
Zablcki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safly

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh, I see your problem, your mistaking an inalienable right with a law.

Marriage isn't am inalienable right.

Sure it is, it's a religious freedom.

Geeze... really?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It has not.

Most certainly has.

It most certainly has not been.

Has too!

 

[Too Tall]

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

IT IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! I am going to stir the pot here IT IS A SIN!

And where under US law is "SIN" defined. Many many marriages are sinful according to the Gospels. Most divorced people who remarry are committing adultery according to Jesus.

What does Jesus say about same sex marriage? From what I read on the newspapers and on this board, the vast majority of gay and lesbians HATE Jesus and those that follow his teachings.

 

[CryingKoala]

"I don't believe that is addresed by the 14th amendment. I do think the states have the right to (though I wish they wouldn't, personally) make that determination if the people of that state grant the state that authority."

The 14th Amendment HAS been applied before to the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (1960). A state's rights argument won't fly.

The Federal government has to be involved thanks to a little piece of legislation called the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents Federal Courts from having to consider the subject. If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.

If you'll notice, I specifically stated that it is unconstitutional.

Mike

So you made an argument why DOMA is illegal. That undermines your whole argument that marriage is a "state's rights" issue, where the 14th Amendment does not apply.

The 14th Amendment has already been applied to the subject of marriage where it conflicts with state laws. The whole point of the Equal Protection clause is to take issues of personal liberties out of the hands of the states.

 

[CryingKoala]

What does Jesus say about same sex marriage? From what I read on the newspapers and on this board, the vast majority of gay and lesbians HATE Jesus and those that follow his teachings.

The great thing about a religious argument is it can be ignored freely. The law doesn't have to care what you think Jesus said.Your religious views have no bearing on the matter.

Separation of Church and State and whatnot.

As for marriage, as a right it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Governments grant marriage licenses and ultimately have the final say as to who is married or can be married.

 

[Texanmike]

IT IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! I am going to stir the pot here IT IS A SIN!

And where under US law is "SIN" defined. Many many marriages are sinful according to the Gospels. Most divorced people who remarry are committing adultery according to Jesus.

What does Jesus say about same sex marriage? From what I read on the newspapers and on this board, the vast majority of gay and lesbians HATE Jesus and those that follow his teachings.

Jesus actually never addressed same sex marriages, then again, Jesus did not come to be divisive. If you want my opinion, based on a general knowledge of the Bible but without any specific study of the Bible, I do not believe that he would have had an opinion with regards to same sex marriages as it pertains to legality. Of course it is immoral and a sin, that is clear, but the walk with Christ is a personal one, not a matter of public policy. God, of course does not recognize a marriage between two men but I don't believe that we are called to come between two men (no pun intended) or women. I can't "un-marry" them and government is an institution of man, not God. Gods concern would, I would imagine, be more directed at a Church that condoned same sex marriage.

Does that answer a question?

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

"I don't believe that is addresed by the 14th amendment. I do think the states have the right to (though I wish they wouldn't, personally) make that determination if the people of that state grant the state that authority."

The 14th Amendment HAS been applied before to the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (1960). A state's rights argument won't fly.

The Federal government has to be involved thanks to a little piece of legislation called the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents Federal Courts from having to consider the subject. If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.

If you'll notice, I specifically stated that it is unconstitutional.

Mike

So you made an argument why DOMA is illegal. That undermines your whole argument that marriage is a "state's rights" issue, where the 14th Amendment does not apply.

The 14th Amendment has already been applied to the subject of marriage where it conflicts with state laws. The whole point of the Equal Protection clause is to take issues of personal liberties out of the hands of the states.

The argument hinges on how equal protection is exercised. So long as, within a state, there are uniform laws that apply universally, then equal protection is applied. The DOM act defines a marriage as between one man and one woman and that no state may be required to recognize the marriage of another state.

Ironically, I don't have a problem with the second part of the statement. I have a problem with the first part of the statement. The federal government was not given the authority to define marriage. It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with the definition, it matters that the federal government simply does not have that authority because it was never given to the federal government by the states. A Defense of Marriage Amendment would obviously be Constitutional (but I would protest against such an over reach into the personal lives by the federal government).

Speaking of overreach. Did you hear that the USDA/FDA made another big bust today? I'm so proud of them. They busted some more of those radical raw milk sellers! Thank GOD for that. :sarcasm:

Mike

 

[WorldWatcher]

The argument hinges on how equal protection is exercised. So long as, within a state, there are uniform laws that apply universally, then equal protection is applied. The DOM act defines a marriage as between one man and one woman and that no state may be required to recognize the marriage of another state.

Ironically, I don't have a problem with the second part of the statement. I have a problem with the first part of the statement. The federal government was not given the authority to define marriage. It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with the definition, it matters that the federal government simply does not have that authority because it was never given to the federal government by the states. A Defense of Marriage Amendment would obviously be Constitutional (but I would protest against such an over reach into the personal lives by the federal government).

Speaking of overreach. Did you hear that the USDA/FDA made another big bust today? I'm so proud of them. They busted some more of those radical raw milk sellers! Thank GOD for that. :sarcasm:

Mike

That's a right good post there.


>>>>

 

[drsmith1072]

ah so that is your excuse for putting words into my mouth and charging me over arguments and comments I never made. Got it.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. You have asserted over and over and over that I am making a "slippery slope" argument, which I clearly am not. I have tried to explain my positon and you disagree. So be it.

Mike

No we are not going to get anywhere because you have not and apparently can not make a substantitve argument as to WHY the 14th does not apply. You merely continue repeating the unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't even as you throw out incest, polygamy, and etc in a desperate attempt to claim those might become legal if gay marriage is allowed.

If you are not making a slippery slope argument then why even bother bringing up incest, polygamy and etc?? What is the point you are trying to make by "obfuscating" the debate by bringing in topics that have no bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to gay marriage or not??

BTW don't you fund it the least bit hypocriticial on your part that you try to call me out for "ignoring" part of your post which I responded to later even as you "ignore" every response I gave to your post??

 

[drsmith1072]

There is no law on the books at the federal and or state level that mention specifically anything about heterosexuals having a right to marriage so the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless for sodomites to use in their gay promoting agenda.

What is your point?

HOW is the 14th meaningless? Please explain your argument in detail instead of merely stating it and believing that makes it true.