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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With incestuous relationships a particular group of people are also singled out…

No one is singled out because all races, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations are effected equally by laws prohibiting incest. Those who ‘practice’ incest aren’t a specific class because it can be engaged in by all races, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations. If a homosexual were to engage in incest, for example, he could be prosecuted, as the law banning incest isn’t specifically targeted at gays.

what's your point?

That the states are authorized to prohibit activities they consider detrimental provided the restrictions apply to all equally and are predicated on a rational basis. Since laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are directed only at homosexuals and the states can not provide a rational basis for the restrictions, such laws are consequently un-Constitutional.

There is no way to make a laws apply to everyone.

Of course you can. All speed limit laws apply to everyone equally. Now, if a state enacted a law saying only Blacks would be pulled over for speeding, there we'd have a problem.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No one is singled out because all races, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations are effected equally by laws prohibiting incest. Those who ‘practice’ incest aren’t a specific class because it can be engaged in by all races, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations. If a homosexual were to engage in incest, for example, he could be prosecuted, as the law banning incest isn’t specifically targeted at gays.

BS, *INCESTUOUS COUPLES* are the ones being singled out, stop trying to dance around the issue. You can't argue for gays and argue against someone else, if the 14th Amendment means "equally treated" in your mind then by your logic incestuous couples must also be treated the same as non-incestuous couples just as you are claiming that same sex couples should be treated the same as "non same sex couples," why are you for "discriminating" against incestuous couples?

That the states are authorized to prohibit activities they consider detrimental provided the restrictions apply to all equally and are predicated on a rational basis. Since laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are directed only at homosexuals only and the states can not provide a rational basis for the restrictions, such laws are consequently un-Constitutional.

You have no evidence that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are specifically directed at homosexuals, further more same sex relationships technically aren't homosexual by default, two heterosexual people of the same sex could get married if same sex marriages were allowed, I don't see why you're yelling discrimination and talking about preferential treatment that heterosexuals are supposedly getting while simultaneously putting homosexuals above incestuous couples and polygamous relationships, how is that making an argument for equality?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BS, *INCESTUOUS COUPLES* are the ones being singled out, stop trying to dance around the issue. You can't argue for gays and argue against someone else, if the 14th Amendment means "equally treated" in your mind then by your logic incestuous couples must also be treated the same as non-incestuous couples just as you are claiming that same sex couples should be treated the same as "non same sex couples," why are you for "discriminating" against incestuous couples?

Clearly you’re making the mistake of equating incest with homosexual sex, which per Romer/Lawrence it’s not. Take it up with the Supreme Court.

You have no evidence that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are specifically directed at homosexuals...

Here:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

I look forward to reading your cited case law in support of your position.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Clearly you’re making the mistake of equating incest with homosexual sex, which per Romer/Lawrence it’s not. Take it up with the Supreme Court.

This is a strawman, I never made any such equation and heterosexual sex isn't the same as homosexual sex so why argue that homosexuals should have the same as heterosexuals ? Since incest sex isn't the same as homosexual sex on what basis are you making the claim homosexual sex should be treated the same as heterosexual sex? I was talking about marriage not sex any ways.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

I look forward to reading your cited case law in support of your position.

And I can quote other states that make arguments against that, your point being? Whats recognized in one state doesn't apply to all.

 

[kaz]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Your argument is just a rationalization. People cannot tell the government what marriage is to government. I can't go and demand polygamy, to marry a goat or a book. And I can't go demand to marry a man. Liberalism is endless spin and redefinition. Government defines government marriage for government. Two people, opposite sex, applies to everyone equally. My solution to that problem is to limit the role of government to critical functions. Yours is to parse words and then apply them to your whim and then scream hysterically when someone else does the same thing for something you disagree with.

 

[drsmith1072]

I haven't had time to read the One Hundred and fourty thirth amendment yet. I'll go check it this afternoon.


Mike

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

Uh huh. LOL What you refer to as a joke, is what I call a cowardly attempt to attack me personally over a typo because you can't substantiate your own arguments even as you refuse to address the actual content of mine.
Then to follow that up, you only offer more personal attacks because as shown by your own posts you have nothing of substance to offer.

 

[drsmith1072]

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

No, he's just pissed he can't afford to relocate to NY where his marriage would be recognized.

Actually my reasoning has no bearing on me or my heterosexual lifestyle but leave it to you to come at me with baseless personal attacks because you can't defend your LIE where you claimed the dems had the white house, the senate and the congress for 2 years when they only had all three for 9 months. LOL

 

[Wicked Jester]

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

Uh huh. LOL What you refer to as a joke, is what I call a cowardly attempt to attack me personally over a typo because you can't substantiate your own arguments even as you refuse to address the actual content of mine.
Then to follow that up, you only offer more personal attacks because as shown by your own posts you have nothing of substance to offer.

Quit your fuckin' whining, and grow the fuck up........Nobody cares.

 

[Texanmike]

So you check in to attack me over a typo?? Really?? That is just sad and shows how little you actually have to offer.

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

Uh huh. LOL What you refer to as a joke, is what I call a cowardly attempt to attack me personally over a typo because you can't substantiate your own arguments even as you refuse to address the actual content of mine.
Then to follow that up, you only offer more personal attacks because as shown by your own posts you have nothing of substance to offer.

You can call it whatever you want to. You take great interpretative liberty with every other argument I've seen you a party to.

I have nothing to offer you because you want something specifically excluded when the Constitution. The Constitution does not list the exceptions, it lists the rules. You have misapplied the 14th amendment from the very beginning. I don't even know why I bother to read your posts at this point.


Mike

 

[Wicked Jester]

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

No, he's just pissed he can't afford to relocate to NY where his marriage would be recognized.

Actually my reasoning has no bearing on me or my heterosexual lifestyle but leave it to you to come at me with baseless personal attacks because you can't defend your LIE where you claimed the dems had the white house, the senate and the congress for 2 years when they only had all three for 9 months. LOL

You are correct....Now, tell us what they did in those 9 months....In fact tell us what Obama and congress did for those two years to address the issues that eventually caused the downgrade.

Tell us what they did to try and address the debt, deficit, spending, borrowing, etc.

In fact, how about giving us the record that Obama is going to show that he's been such an effective leader economically during the past 2 1/2 years of his disastrous economy.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Here ya' go Dr........So we don't have to go off topic on this thread, and put up with your usual whiney spins and deflections, take your ass over to the following thread and tell us exactly what your beloved Obama's going to use as his record showing all the things he's done to address the problems of the economy.....Surely he must have a record beyond blaming everybody else for his abject failngs.....You'll notice over there, not one of your fellow Obamabots can come up with Jack Shit beyond the usual Obamabot spin and deflection they've become masters at these days.

www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/180186-ok-libs-its-obama-campaign-time.html

 

[drsmith1072]

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Gays are not being treated unequal under the law since there are no laws that specifically treat homosexuals unequally just as there are no laws that specifically give heterosexuals more "rights" and privileges than homosexuals, you can't cite one.

WOW again?? BTW I am still waiting on a link to a site that defines discrimination as being specific, intentional and openly disciminating before it counts as discrimination.

Since that is that definition that you seem to be basing your argument on why can you provide a source?

 

[manifold]

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

Contradictory thread title is contradictory.

 

[konradv]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Your argument is just a rationalization. People cannot tell the government what marriage is to government. I can't go and demand polygamy, to marry a goat or a book. And I can't go demand to marry a man. Liberalism is endless spin and redefinition. Government defines government marriage for government. Two people, opposite sex, applies to everyone equally. My solution to that problem is to limit the role of government to critical functions. Yours is to parse words and then apply them to your whim and then scream hysterically when someone else does the same thing for something you disagree with.

Why wouldn't a new law saying two people, any sex, apply to everyone equally, also?

 

[drsmith1072]

Only 1.7% of Americans are homosexual.

In your opinion, what it the cutoff percentage that United States Citizen have to reach before they can expect equal treatment under the laws?


>>>>

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

WOW I honestly am beginning to believe that all of these posters are the same person posting the same moronic talking points under diffrerent names after it embarasses itself under a previous name.

They all present the same arguments over and over again with nothing of substance to support their spin. This one is parroting the previously stated talking point that it's not discrimination because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Funny how the first few who attempted this BS are no longer posting in the thread isn't it?


The fact that it is exclusive and not inclusive is the problem.
One relationship is actually recognoized by the government for tax and spousal rights purposes and therefore counts as more than another. Seems to be a pretty basic violation of equal protection and any state that limits recognition of marriage to being just between a man and a woman violates the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the 14th.

BTW how can they marry "the exact same people?" Wouldn't that be polygamy? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

It may not be the Constitution, but I'd say that the declaration of Independance pretty much covers tha question of gay marriage:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Not allowing gays to marry certainly violates their right to liberty and the persuit of happiness.

I would be thrilled if government would just leave me the fuck alone. Gays can actually live together and live their lives as they see fit. That their right to pursue happiness requires that they get government recognition, a piece of paper and payoff for their relationship because they can't be happy without government validation and money is ridiculous. They can "pursue" happiness, they cannot "demand" it.

WOW. It's nice to know how you really feel about the so-called "sanctity of marriage" LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Equal treatment is literal not formulamatic. Gays and straights can both marry in any state the exact same people. Saying that because they want something different then me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous.

That logic was attempted by the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. Let's check the logic be switching the basis "Coloreds and white can both marry. The law says colored can marry coloreds and whites can marry whites and saying that because they want something different than me means they don't have the right that I do is preposterous". Yes the State made the claim that because Colored were barred from marrying whites and that Whites were barred from marrying Colored, that they were being treated equally under the law.

Both race and gender are biological conditions, the argument didn't work on race and more and more people don't see it working based on gender either.


>>>>

Your strategy is to take the words of the Constitution and parse them so the courts can dictate whatever you think is "fair" is what the Constitution said. I think it's our job to fight for it in the legislatures. My wife is Korean, my ass is white. But no, interracial marriage isn't in the Constitution. The Federal government wasn't created to be the arbiter of fair. If you want it to do that, it's a living document. And it even says how to alter it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It does not say it can be altered by 5/9.

I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea that if I object to the morality of my State I'm free to move to another one then I am with allowing the Federal government to decree it's morality everywhere leaving me no choice anywhere.

Uh have you read the 14th amendment??

 

[drsmith1072]

BS, when the laws defining marriage were created there was no intentional agenda to discriminate against gays and thats because homosexuality wasn't promoted and accepted like it is now, only recently with homosexuals pushing their agenda that its become an issue. The claim by gays is that they should have everything the "same" like heterosexuals but their argument fails because homosexuality isn't the same as heterosexuality and heterosexuals have no laws that specifically give them more rights than gays.

1. When the laws were changed (I'm thinking DOMA and the slew of laws passed in 2000 and 2004) there was every intention of denying Same-sex Civil Marriage to homosexuals. I lived in Viriginia when our Constitutional Amendment (15A) to define Civil Marriage and deny any semblance of marriage (i.e. Civil Unions) was passed in 2004 and the VERY ARGUMENT USED WAS TO DENY HOMOSEXUALS ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Claiming it wasn't is an outright lie.

2. Yet those very laws do give special rights to heterosexuals. A heterosexual man can marry a woman (if she agrees), yet a lesbian is denied equal treatment under the law because (in Virginia) she is not allowed to marry a woman (if she agrees). Heterosexuals have the right in this State to marry a consenting adult where mutual attraction exists. Homosexuals do not have that right in this State.


>>>>

There is written into the language of *NO* law that heterosexuals specifically have more rights than homosexuals, Not all heterosexuals can marry, a brother can't marry his sister and a mother can't marry a son.

Again, where do you get your definition of discrimination?? Could you please cite the source so it can be shown where you get a definition that states it must be intentional and specifically discriminating before it counts as discrimination.?

Oh and stop trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing in incest. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

You need a hug or something man. Lighten up. It was a joke. Do you have daddy issues or something?

Mike

Uh huh. LOL What you refer to as a joke, is what I call a cowardly attempt to attack me personally over a typo because you can't substantiate your own arguments even as you refuse to address the actual content of mine.
Then to follow that up, you only offer more personal attacks because as shown by your own posts you have nothing of substance to offer.

Quit your fuckin' whining, and grow the fuck up........Nobody cares.

LOL and yet you care enough to stalk me into two threads now don't you?
I haven't been on this board in over a month and the moment I come back you jump into both threads I enter and come at me with your usual tirades and baseless perosnal attacks.

Thanks for showing how much you care. LOL

Now have you explained your LIE about how you claimed that obama "had all 3 government entities for two years. The WH, senate and congress" when the fact is that dems only had the senate for 9 months?

 

[Texanmike]

1. When the laws were changed (I'm thinking DOMA and the slew of laws passed in 2000 and 2004) there was every intention of denying Same-sex Civil Marriage to homosexuals. I lived in Viriginia when our Constitutional Amendment (15A) to define Civil Marriage and deny any semblance of marriage (i.e. Civil Unions) was passed in 2004 and the VERY ARGUMENT USED WAS TO DENY HOMOSEXUALS ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Claiming it wasn't is an outright lie.

2. Yet those very laws do give special rights to heterosexuals. A heterosexual man can marry a woman (if she agrees), yet a lesbian is denied equal treatment under the law because (in Virginia) she is not allowed to marry a woman (if she agrees). Heterosexuals have the right in this State to marry a consenting adult where mutual attraction exists. Homosexuals do not have that right in this State.


>>>>

There is written into the language of *NO* law that heterosexuals specifically have more rights than homosexuals, Not all heterosexuals can marry, a brother can't marry his sister and a mother can't marry a son.

Again, where do you get your definition of discrimination?? Could you please cite the source so it can be shown where you get a definition that states it must be intentional and specifically discriminating before it counts as discrimination.?

Oh and stop trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing in incest. LOL

Do you really not understand? I swear to God you are just being an ass on purpose.

Incest = something some people find disgusting.
Homosexuality = something some people find disgusting.
State requirements for marriage = a states stance on who you are eligible to marry.
Your stance on same sex marriage = I don't find it offensive. You should be able to marry whoever you want.
Your stance on incest = I find it offensive. Hell no you can't marry whoever you want.

It is THAT simple.

Mike