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

[Gadawg73]

There is absolutely a need for this. If something is not covered under the Fedral Constitution and the States Constitution then it has to be voted on at the ballot, and if 51% vote yay, then the measure is in. If not, then it isn't.
*Note: California has voted on this multiple times, and even though it has been voted down the leftists keep trying to use judges to legislate gay rights from the bench.

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Over half of those 86% are failures at marriage so what does that prove?
They know nothing.
I bet you $$$ that 51% of those 86% did not graduate high school.
After all, you did say MISSISSIPPI.

 

[Seawytch]

It doesn't matter which state is more anti-gay than another state. Civil rights should never be voted on. If we had waited for majority support for interracial marriage, we would have waited 20 years after the Loving v Virginia ruling for it to be "popular".

 

[WorldWatcher]

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Mississippi's Amendment 1 was on the ballot in 2004 as a result of Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming legal in Massachusetts. The ballot initiatitives in 2000 & 2004 resulting in the slew of anti-same-sex Civil Marriage laws were placed on the ballots by social authoritarians wanting to block equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws and not placed there by supporters reading the polls. (In fact I can't think of any marriage initiative to date placed on the ballot by supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage, it's always been opponents. I think Maine will be the first next year if they make the cutoff of signatures.)

There were no polls in 2004 showing that a majority (or even a plurality) of Americans supported Same-sex Civil Marriage. The first national polls showing such didn't occur until 2011. Years AFTER Mississippi voted.

The trend lines are unmistakable, support for Same-sex Civil Marriage is growing, opposition to Same-sex Civil Marriage is declining. While "86%" is touted because of the high number, the reality is that the last two votes on Same-sex Civil Marriage would have had a different outcome with only a 2-3% change in voter response. Maine will be interesting to watch next year. In 2009 Maine's Question 1 blocked Civil Marriage equality after being passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The measure passed by only 2.75%. With the trend being toward more acceptance of Same-sex Civil Marriage it will be interesting to see if they have a shot at in 2012 of becoming the first State to approve of Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box.

That would be a major game changer.



>>>>

In Mississippi gay marriage will always be voted down, these were the people of the state who voted against gay marriage, the people, not social authoritarians voting, don't side step, its funny how the polls never match the votes.

1. Never say never, it has a way of biting you in the ass.

2. However I do agree with you that it would be some time before Mississippi would pass Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box. Hell if as late as 2000 just over 40% of Alabaman's voted against a provision to abolish the prohibition of interracial marriage and just last year Mississippians fought to prevent a lesbian from attending a Prom then that shows a lot.



How long ago did many Mississippians claim they would never allow negro's to marry whites?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

How long ago did many Mississippians claim they would never allow negro's to marry whites?
>>>>

Well, just back in April 46% of Republicans there said they want to see it banned...


46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It doesn't matter which state is more anti-gay than another state. Civil rights should never be voted on. If we had waited for majority support for interracial marriage, we would have waited 20 years after the Loving v Virginia ruling for it to be "popular".

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Over half of those 86% are failures at marriage so what does that prove?
They know nothing.
I bet you $$$ that 51% of those 86% did not graduate high school.
After all, you did say MISSISSIPPI.

I was one of those 86% that voted against gay marriage for Mississippi, my marriage is happy and fine, the rest of your post in personal attack and sheer rage.

 

[CryingKoala]

It doesn't matter which state is more anti-gay than another state. Civil rights should never be voted on. If we had waited for majority support for interracial marriage, we would have waited 20 years after the Loving v Virginia ruling for it to be "popular".

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It doesn't matter which state is more anti-gay than another state. Civil rights should never be voted on. If we had waited for majority support for interracial marriage, we would have waited 20 years after the Loving v Virginia ruling for it to be "popular".

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

 

[CryingKoala]

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

Why? Because you say so?

The fact that you had to use a slur as part of your response shows that you don't really have a logical basis to your argument and you are going on pure bile here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage isn't a civil right and stop comparing faggot marriage to interracial marriage, one was blatantly discriminatory while the other isn't. Your logic is voting is good if it goes in your favor and no good if it doesn't.

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

I'm not seeing the difference. Denial of Civil Marriage based on race for no compelling government interest is discriminatory, denial of Civil Marriage based on gender for no compelling government interest is not discriminatory.

Both are biological factors, not seeing the difference.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Under Estate Tax law a surviving can claim up to $500,000 as a exemption for the sale of a residence for up two years following the death of a spouse. ($500,000 being twice the single exemption rate.) This is achieved for the cost of about $50 for a marriage license.


So what is the far simpler solution that doesn't cost more than $50 which allows a spouse to take a married exemption, something that cannot be duplicated under contract law for non-spouses?



>>>>

At least unlike your friends who think writing a contract is far more work then getting married, you did raise and actual difference and I hadn't addressed it so it's a fair question. On this one, I oppose the death tax. Liberals support it. Liberals support gay marriage. Liberals suddenly don't want gays to have to pay the death tax, oops, contradiction.

So I'm going to agree to let them off the hook for the death tax for gays? I don't think so. Let's let EVERYONE off the death tax and that will include gay couples then.

That's not the "death tax", it's an exemption for a tax that would normally be applicable so in actuality the exemption is the exact opposite of the death tax. The exemption applies to the sale of property owned by a single individual (the surviving spouse is single after the passing of the other spouse) and the tax derived on the income generated as profit on the sale.

Just say'n.


>>>>

I realized you were referring to real estate, but you started with the bolded above saying it was the death tax. Now you're arguing what you said was the death tax isn't the death tax. Fine, whatever.

My answer when you decide if you mean the death tax or not is the same. There should be no death tax, there also should be no capital gains tax. Taxing the value of an asset increasing in value is ridiculous. And factually there are few taxes that approach the capital gains tax in terms of just being pure job killers and promoting economic inefficiency by disincenting investors from moving money to better investments.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No they are both discriminatory. Especially in the tone of the people opposing it.

You made it perfectly obvious that you have left any pretense of a logical argument behind and are going on sheer bile here.

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

I'm not seeing the difference. Denial of Civil Marriage based on race for no compelling government interest is discriminatory, denial of Civil Marriage based on gender for no compelling government interest is not discriminatory.

Both are biological factors, not seeing the difference.


>>>>

This same sex civil marriage BS about inequality on became an issue when homosexuality became more accepted. Race is *NOT* biological, its social and there is no disrimination based on gender.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A law that defines marriage as being between a man and woman isn't discriminatory, telling specifically that they cannot marry a person of a different race is.

I'm not seeing the difference. Denial of Civil Marriage based on race for no compelling government interest is discriminatory, denial of Civil Marriage based on gender for no compelling government interest is not discriminatory.

Both are biological factors, not seeing the difference.


>>>>

This same sex civil marriage BS about inequality on became an issue when homosexuality became more accepted. Race is *NOT* biological, its social

The color of a persons skin is not biological? WTF???

and there is no disrimination based on gender.

Here is a very simple question for you. Let's see if you will answer it straight up or will deflect:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

What is the basis of the denial of Civil Marriages licenses in the above list, is it sexual orientation or is it the gender of the couple?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Here is a very simple question for you. Let's see if you will answer it straight up or will deflect:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

What is the basis of the denial of Civil Marriages licenses in the above list, is it sexual orientation or is it the gender of the couple?


>>>>

You seriously don't understand what "illegal" means? I doubt that frankly, you just like the way it sounds. Marriage between men or between women isn't "illegal" it just isn't recognized by government as marriage. There is no law stating that a red ball is red. Does that make it not a red ball? I don't see why gays need government to validate their union is marriage any more then a ball needs to be validated by government that it's red.

 

[Valerie]

Why do same-sex couples want to marry?

Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings.

Many parents want the right to marry because they know it offers children a vital safety net and guarantees protections that unmarried parents cannot provide. And still other people — both gay and straight — are fighting for the right of same-sex couples to marry because they recognize that it is simply not fair to deny some families the protections all other families are eligible to enjoy.



Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married straight couples. Among them:

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.


...



Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont, New Jersey or New Hampshire receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,100 federal benefits and protections of marriage.

HRC | Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Valerie]

You can't tell a homosexual who is in love with a homosexual that they have equal access to marriage if they would only marry someone they are not in love with.




Marriage laws are state laws thus the 14th amendment argument...


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[kaz]

You can't tell a homosexual who is in love with a homosexual that they have equal access to marriage if they would only marry someone they are not in love with.

Why not? I tell heterosexuals the same thing, why do you need government to validate your relationship? I'm not going to change my message for gays, sorry.

Marriage laws are state laws thus the 14th amendment argument...

Marriage laws are applied to all Americans in the same way, the 14th doesn't apply. If you want to get gay marriage, you have to do it the right way, through the legislature. Sorry it involves work, dear. But it's the only legal way to do it. Imagine, convince people. Shudder. Finding a liberal judge happy to appoint themselves dictator is just so much easier.

 

[Valerie]

You can't tell a homosexual who is in love with a homosexual that they have equal access to marriage if they would only marry someone they are not in love with.

Why not? I tell heterosexuals the same thing, why do you need government to validate your relationship? I'm not going to change my message for gays, sorry.

Please fix your quote ^^^

Marriage laws are state laws thus the 14th amendment argument...

Marriage laws are applied to all Americans in the same way, the 14th doesn't apply. If you want to get gay marriage, you have to do it the right way, through the legislature. Sorry it involves work, dear. But it's the only legal way to do it. Imaging, convince people. Shudder. Finding a liberal judge happy to appoint themselves dictator is just so much easier.

Why not? Because in America consenting adults are free to love whomever they love and the government can't dictate our relationships. Since state laws currently confer certain legal benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples they are constitutionally required under the 14th amendment to provide the same to homosexual couples.

 

[kaz]

Why not? Because in America consenting adults are free to love whomever they love and the government can't dictate our relationships

We're not discussing "dictating" we're discussing "recognizing." If you think your relationship isn't a relationship because government didn't say it was you're a sad person indeed.

Since state laws currently confer certain legal benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples

First it was about love, now it's about gays need money to have their relationship validated. So let's update the score. By not recognizing gay marriage as marriage and giving gays money, government is dictating...something. To be honest I never got the dictating thing.

they are constitutionally required under the 14th amendment to provide the same to homosexual couples.

A lie repeated is still a lie. Gays are subject to the same laws in the same way straights are. The 14th would apply only if straights could marry same sex and gays couldn't. The 14th does not say, if it makes a liberal's heart bleed then it's Unconstitutional, it says the law needs to apply to all people in the same way. If Steve is like me in every way but that he's gay, he and I can marry the exact same people.

My God woman, liberals are so lazy. Always looking for the shortcut over working to get people to support your view. Run to a dictator in robes. Laziness both physically and intellectually really drives your religion. It's pathetic.

 

[Texanmike]

Hey, we had this boards most infamous lezbo sporting a California flag with rainbow colors in her avatar. Obviously thinking that this is some kind o' gay state.......Completely ignorant of the fact that the gay marriage BS has been rejected twice by the voters, and will be again.

It's a states issue period. Let the perv's move to NY if they want to play their twisted game of Ozzie and Ozzie, or Harriet and Harriet.....Whatever their twisted case may be.

Fortunately the Constitution and Supreme Court disagree with you. Because our rights are inalienable, and per the rule of law, the majority may not decide who will and who will not have his rights; one’s rights are not subject to majority approval.

The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, it enjoins the states from violating the rights of their citizens and denying them equal access to, and equal protection of, the law.

Consequently this it’s not a ‘states’ rights’ issue, the states have no authority to preempt citizens’ rights, it is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Constitutional case law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

See in support: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

The 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. If it does I challenge you to make the case. Don't spout some case that was decided a decade ago, I'd love to see you make the case from the original document. It is virtually impossible uless you use several generations of perversions of the amendment. As late as the 80's (of the 1800's) the SCOTUS determined that the first and second amendments did not incorporate the first and second amendments to the states. In Gitlow v. NY, the court case usually regarded as the jumping off point for the incorporation doctrine, suddenly they decided to. In fact they come out and say:

The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

.. and later in the opinion...

We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543 , 42 S. Ct. 516, 27 A. L. R. 27, that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question.

And what is the incidental statement they have determined is not determinative of this question?

The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

They give no justification, no reason, they are just not regarding it as valid. It seems pretty clear. And this brings us to the problem with case law. As you go farther and farther into the future you begin to amass a library that encompases just about every view possible. For almost 60 years it was understood that equal application of the law without regard for race (as a protection for former slaves) was the point of the the Amendment. It was not meant to alter the course of history or to restrict the states from doing anything to ordinary citizens. The authors of the 14th were clearly fearful that the states would use race or status as a freed slave in discriminatory fashion. There was never an intention to suddenly alter the relationship between the people and the states. That was understood for sixty years. As late as 1890 the courts were declaring those arguments in their arguments explicitly. There is no clear definition for the chagne to the incorporation other than a Justice's whim which should not be sufficient to change the meaning of a law.

Mike