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

[Flaylo]

I would love for you to go into any court in the land, even a conservative one and argue that gays rights are not violated because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex

Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.

Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Have you read the constitution??

Gay activism and homosexuality is a religious right? WTF?

 

[Avatar4321]

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.

They can. No one is stopping anyone from entering into any relationship they want. That doesn't mean the government needs to recognize or regulate that relationship.

Last thing we need is more government involvement in people's lives.

 

[Flaylo]

My argument, revised. Gays cannot use the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

My argument, revised. gays cannot use the 14th Amendments equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

 

[Texanmike]

[That's what i do everytime you make one. LOL Which happens quite often then you come at me with lame personal attacks and works of fiction that you falsely attribute to me.

First of all. I have made no personal attacks, that is your specialty. I said that you had poorly constructed arguments. I can see that you don't like that but I call it how I see it. We can, if you prefer, engage in personal attacks but I would really prefer not to. Second, I don't knwo what works of fiction I am falsely attributing to you but please let me know so I can go back and change the record.

and then comes the 14th amendment to save the day.

Actually, that is what is up for debate, is it not? Have you read the title of the thread?

Thanks for that terribly constructed argument. An honor KILLING requires the violation of a persons right to life which even you agree supercedes the KILLERS right to KILL for honors sake. You have the right to exercise your religion but it ends where someone elses rights begin.

I do not disagree. I was merely arguing that the statement so often made that you cannot violate "religious freedom" is perposterous.

No it's not legal thanks for clearing that up. LOL Should it be illegal? That is a better question for another thread. Go start one right now.

So wait, gay marriage is not legal (in most places) but polygamy, which is unquestionably part of several religions, isn't either. You are going to be the first one to campaign to the status of one but not the other?
Seriously I cannot see the difference here. Neither was legal before the debate began, neither infringe on anyone's "rights" and yet you defend one without the other. Look, I am all for states having the right to determine who can and cannot get married and honestly I don't see why polygamy can't be legal in one state, gay marriage in another state and in yet another state they should both be legal. How you can make the argument against polygamy and not against gay marriage is beyond me. I'm not judging either act or inserting my personal opinion into the situation, I'm merely reading what exists already.

You had me until "but" then you lost me with another of your unsubstantiated claims. Your only argument against homosexual marriages is that it is a "gateway marriage" that COULD lead to other types of marriage and that just is NOT a valid or substnative argument.

Speaking of falsely attributing an opinion to someone...

I have never argued that homosexual marriage is a "gateway marriage". I said that if you are arguing for one, you should be arguing for the other. I dont' care if polygamy is legal, I don't care if beastiality is legal TBQH. All I care about is that we follow the constitution or amend it to fix the problems.

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no. The entire Constittuion can be used however, to support a states right to legalize gay marriage.

Mike

 

[Flaylo]

My argument, revised. gays cannot use the 14th Amendments equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

 

[Ravi]

My argument, revised. gays cannot use the 14th Amendments equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

You sure aren't doing much to discount the notion of our resident white racists that black people are mentally inferior.

 

[Flaylo]

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

You sure aren't doing much to discount the notion of our resident white racists that black people are mentally inferior.

Ravi showing her a racist side, any black who disagrees with her position on homosexual marriage is an inferior black, you prove Charlie right when he said that some white liberals are just as racist as white conservatives.

 

[Ravi]

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

You sure aren't doing much to discount the notion of our resident white racists that black people are mentally inferior.

Ravi showing her a racist side, any black who disagrees with her position on homosexual marriage is an inferior black, you prove Charlie right when he said that some white liberals are just as racist as white conservatives.

See, there you go again. You're just plain stupid.

 

[Flaylo]

You sure aren't doing much to discount the notion of our resident white racists that black people are mentally inferior.

Ravi showing her a racist side, any black who disagrees with her position on homosexual marriage is an inferior black, you prove Charlie right when he said that some white liberals are just as racist as white conservatives.

See, there you go again. You're just plain stupid.

My argument made sense from a legal POV, gays can't invoke the 14th Amendment and claim discrimination when there is no specific discriminatory language is a law that forbids gays from marrying, if the law stated no gays can marry or only heterosexuals can marry then the law has discriminatory language, when one claims discrimination the burden of proof is to demonstrate it.

 

[Ravi]

The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199

, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7

and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C

) is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. (wikipedia)

...

Under current Florida law, same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not recognized.[1] Same-sex marriage and civil unions were constitutionally banned on November 6, 2008 with 62% of the vote.[2][3] (wikipedia)

 

[Seawytch]

My argument, revised. gays cannot use the 14th Amendments equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

And yet bigots argued that it wasn't discrimination...just like you are arguing.

Gays CAN and do marry. 6 states have made marriage legal for gays and lesbians and they are just the first of 50...

 

[Texanmike]

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

You haven't proven it is a right. You have wished it to be one. I can claim that my right to marry anyone is a right. That is clearly not true. Would you make the argument that I can marry my sister (I don't have one so this is purely hypothetical)? The Constitution does not address things that are not rights, it addresses what is a right. Actually, it addresses what various levels of government can and cannot impose on people. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, is a right that cannot be infringed. As another example, government, at all levels, is prohibited from illegal search and seisure. Congress is prohibited from writing laws that infringe on the people's right to peaceably assemble, the right of freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Congress (the federal level, again) is prohibited from establishing an official religion (by the way this does not apply to the states. 3 states had (and maintained) official religions).

Congress is not granted the authority to make a decision on marriage. That is left to the states.

Mike

 

[Seawytch]

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

You haven't proven it is a right. You have wished it to be one. I can claim that my right to marry anyone is a right. That is clearly not true. Would you make the argument that I can marry my sister (I don't have one so this is purely hypothetical)? The Constitution does not address things that are not rights, it addresses what is a right. Actually, it addresses what various levels of government can and cannot impose on people. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, is a right that cannot be infringed. As another example, government, at all levels, is prohibited from illegal search and seisure. Congress is prohibited from writing laws that infringe on the people's right to peaceably assemble, the right of freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Congress (the federal level, again) is prohibited from establishing an official religion (by the way this does not apply to the states. 3 states had (and maintained) official religions).

Congress is not granted the authority to make a decision on marriage. That is left to the states.

Mike

Congress can overturn the unconstitutional DOMA...

And it is the Supreme Court that will make the decision on marriage, not the states.

 

[Flaylo]

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

And yet bigots argued that it wasn't discrimination...just like you are arguing.

Gays CAN and do marry. 6 states have made marriage legal for gays and lesbians and they are just the first of 50...

I don't give a shat what bigots were arguing, I'm talking legal language in a law SeaWytch, there is no discriminatory language in any law that specifically states that homosexuals can't marry

 

[Flaylo]

Prove it! Where in the constitution does it say that it isn't a right?

I and others have already shown and argued how it is a protected right as part of freely exercising ones religion where as all you have done is make declarative statements that you have failed to substantiated at every turn.

So put up or shut up.

You haven't proven it is a right. You have wished it to be one. I can claim that my right to marry anyone is a right. That is clearly not true. Would you make the argument that I can marry my sister (I don't have one so this is purely hypothetical)? The Constitution does not address things that are not rights, it addresses what is a right. Actually, it addresses what various levels of government can and cannot impose on people. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, is a right that cannot be infringed. As another example, government, at all levels, is prohibited from illegal search and seisure. Congress is prohibited from writing laws that infringe on the people's right to peaceably assemble, the right of freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Congress (the federal level, again) is prohibited from establishing an official religion (by the way this does not apply to the states. 3 states had (and maintained) official religions).

Congress is not granted the authority to make a decision on marriage. That is left to the states.

Mike

Congress can overturn the unconstitutional DOMA...

And it is the Supreme Court that will make the decision on marriage, not the states.

The Supreme Court cannot but take it up with them and the gays will not win because they have no basis for their claim that a law that states marriage is between a man and woman automatically discriminates against gays when there is no law that specifically states in its language that gays can't marry.

 

[Flaylo]

Just like there was no discrimination with anti miscegenation laws. After all...blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, right?

Those laws specifically stated that a black and white could not marry which is discriminatory in its language, there are no laws that specifically state that "homosexuals cannot marry" and or "heterosexuals can only marry." You gotta read the specific language in a law. A law that states that marriage is between a man and woman doesn't exclude gays from marrying.

And yet bigots argued that it wasn't discrimination...just like you are arguing.

Gays CAN and do marry. 6 states have made marriage legal for gays and lesbians and they are just the first of 50...

Then go to one of those six states, there are others that define marriage as between a man and woman, marriage laws vary state by state, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the laws in one state must be the same as in another state.

 

[drsmith1072]

I was merely pointing out the OP's ignorance of the constitution..

The OP was assuming marriage was legally defined - it's not, hence it's a state issue until it is.

No it is not specifically defined in the constitution however, it is defined in law and recognized by the governemnt for tax purposes and spousal rights so it's not as if we are making new law out of nothing.

I do agree that it is an issue for states to decide but if their decision violates federal laws including the constitution (freedom of religion) then their decision should be struck down.

Where is it defined in law?

Are you serious? DOMA the Defence of Marriage Act defines marriage.

So now homosexual marriage is a religion??

Now you are just being stupid as you repeat something that another moron already said. There are plenty of homosexuals that are religious and have just as much a right to freely exercise their religion as you do.

Also, in what universe is an individual forbidden to manifest a civil contract that leaves their same sex partner with the same legal rights as that of spouse in a heterosexual marriage?

Their marriage (not just about a contract moron) is not recognized by the state (in most cases), the fed and in most cases they do not have the same rights as heterosexual marriages have. This is about how some citizens of this country are considered to be less than others based on how they, as allegedly equal citizens, are supposed to be equally protected under the law but are not.

Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.

You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.

There you go again trying to insert your misguided and delusional opinions as mine. That only serves to make you look desperate and dishonest.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes, but Amendments cannot contradict other Amendments and our Fourth Amendment is quite clear... The Sixteenth Amendment is illegitimate.

How so?? The 4th guarantees against "UNREASONABLE" seizure and how is something that was ratified by the country (42 states by 1913) considered UNREASONABLE?

Please explain.

Because "reasonable" was never defined...

Reasonable is very subjective ..

Given the subject and nature of the Bill of Rights (not to mention the abundance of literature available of the period) one could assume the fathers were referring to tyrants and criminals.

In short one would have to have just cause, a warrant and due process would have to take place before the government could take ones assets to make restitution to those who were victimized by a crime committed and monetarily damaged by that said crime.

You should really realize how foolish you would sound 200 years ago.

Gay marriage and federal taxation would sound preposterous.

So if reasonable is "not defined" and "very subjective" then how do you defend your previous argument that the "Fourth Amendment is quite clear?"

How can it be both "quite clear" and "very subjective" at the same time??

LOL Good job sticking your foot in your mouth and you think i sound fooloish???

Furthermore 42 states thought it was reasonable when they ratified the 16th amendment so it would seem that you once again don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You haven't proven it is a right. You have wished it to be one. I can claim that my right to marry anyone is a right. That is clearly not true. Would you make the argument that I can marry my sister (I don't have one so this is purely hypothetical)? The Constitution does not address things that are not rights, it addresses what is a right. Actually, it addresses what various levels of government can and cannot impose on people. For example, the right to keep and bear arms, is a right that cannot be infringed. As another example, government, at all levels, is prohibited from illegal search and seisure. Congress is prohibited from writing laws that infringe on the people's right to peaceably assemble, the right of freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Congress (the federal level, again) is prohibited from establishing an official religion (by the way this does not apply to the states. 3 states had (and maintained) official religions).

Congress is not granted the authority to make a decision on marriage. That is left to the states.

Mike

Congress can overturn the unconstitutional DOMA...

And it is the Supreme Court that will make the decision on marriage, not the states.

The Supreme Court cannot but take it up with them and the gays will not win because they have no basis for their claim that a law that states marriage is between a man and woman automatically discriminates against gays when there is no law that specifically states in its language that gays can't marry.

While everyone knows the purpose of the law (DOMA, the desire to deny equal treatment under federal law for legal Civil Marriages of homosexuals) a strict interpretation of the words used in the law does not show discrimination against homosexuals (although that is the intent), the letter of the law is discriminatory based on gender. Gender, a purely biological factor just as race is a purely biological factor.

A situation that brings the arguments against same-sex Civil Marriage even closer to the arguments against inter-racial Civil Marriage.



Good job.


>>>>