Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.
You'll have to take that up with the SCOTUS. It was them that decided marriage is a fundamental right. You'll also want to look into the 14th amendment.
Then fight those, not marriage equality. Good luck though.
The "keep jewish people from marrying" argument is a strawman, as there has never been a case of banning marriage WITHIN a group since before slavery was banned.
Within a group? What are you talking about? Would a law saying that only Protestants were not allowed to legally marry pass the Constitutional smell test? Why does it if it's "the gheys"?
All marriage is really is a government sanctioned contract. That contract has been by precedent and tradition in this country between 1 man, and 1 woman. Now all of a sudden you want to change said contract to make it basically two of either, which has no precedent, and no tradition in western culture outside small enclaves.
If you want to convince people to change the law, fine. What does not exist is a consitutional "right" to it. A marriage between people of two races that is betweem people of different sexes does violate equal protection, as there is no difference between a same race couple, and a mixed race couple.
There is a difference between a same sex couple, and a heterosexual couple no matter how much doublethink a person applies to make it seem not so.
Again, if you want to change it, do it in the legislature (the constituion is neutral on the subject) or if you really want to make it protected, go via an amendment. Remember that most racial civil rights laws have a strong contitutional basis on the recontruction amendments, and it was only the misbehaviour of the very courts you place so much trust in that led to the Jim Crow era and all those shennanagans.
I find people's reliance on the decsion of 5 of 9 appointed for life lawyers to preserve and create thier liberites disturbing. Its a cheap and quick method, and leads itself to autocracy. If someone really believes in something, they should fight it in the legislatures, not in the courts, especially if it involves "made up" rights.
Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.
You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?
I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.
Actually there is...
United States Constitution
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.
Yes they are not mandated by the Constitution, however Public Accommodation laws exist at the State level so you wouldn't expect them to be mandated in the federal Constitution.
>>>>
You'll have to take that up with the SCOTUS. It was them that decided marriage is a fundamental right. You'll also want to look into the 14th amendment.
Then fight those, not marriage equality. Good luck though.
Within a group? What are you talking about? Would a law saying that only Protestants were not allowed to legally marry pass the Constitutional smell test? Why does it if it's "the gheys"?
All marriage is really is a government sanctioned contract. That contract has been by precedent and tradition in this country between 1 man, and 1 woman. Now all of a sudden you want to change said contract to make it basically two of either, which has no precedent, and no tradition in western culture outside small enclaves.
If you want to convince people to change the law, fine. What does not exist is a consitutional "right" to it. A marriage between people of two races that is betweem people of different sexes does violate equal protection, as there is no difference between a same race couple, and a mixed race couple.
There is a difference between a same sex couple, and a heterosexual couple no matter how much doublethink a person applies to make it seem not so.
Again, if you want to change it, do it in the legislature (the constituion is neutral on the subject) or if you really want to make it protected, go via an amendment. Remember that most racial civil rights laws have a strong contitutional basis on the recontruction amendments, and it was only the misbehaviour of the very courts you place so much trust in that led to the Jim Crow era and all those shennanagans.
I find people's reliance on the decsion of 5 of 9 appointed for life lawyers to preserve and create thier liberites disturbing. Its a cheap and quick method, and leads itself to autocracy. If someone really believes in something, they should fight it in the legislatures, not in the courts, especially if it involves "made up" rights.
There are 11 legal entities that now recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island [performed in other states], Washington, and the District of Columbia).
The majority of those entities have accepted Same-sex Civil Marriage either through legislative action or popular vote. The majority did not occur through legal action.
>>>>
I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.
Actually there is...
United States Constitution
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.
Yes they are not mandated by the Constitution, however Public Accommodation laws exist at the State level so you wouldn't expect them to be mandated in the federal Constitution.
>>>>
I'm sorry, but same sex and heterosexual relationships are not equal, as they are not biologically the same thing. Inter-racial marriage is biologically the same thing, and original marriage law did not take race into account. That only happened after the fact during slave times.
Even with my statement above, if a state wants to vote in Same sex marriage, or even plural marriage, it is thier right to do so. I would vote for same sex, and probably against plural marriage. To me, though there is no equal protection case here, as they are not equal.
All marriage is really is a government sanctioned contract. That contract has been by precedent and tradition in this country between 1 man, and 1 woman. Now all of a sudden you want to change said contract to make it basically two of either, which has no precedent, and no tradition in western culture outside small enclaves.
If you want to convince people to change the law, fine. What does not exist is a consitutional "right" to it. A marriage between people of two races that is betweem people of different sexes does violate equal protection, as there is no difference between a same race couple, and a mixed race couple.
There is a difference between a same sex couple, and a heterosexual couple no matter how much doublethink a person applies to make it seem not so.
Again, if you want to change it, do it in the legislature (the constituion is neutral on the subject) or if you really want to make it protected, go via an amendment. Remember that most racial civil rights laws have a strong contitutional basis on the recontruction amendments, and it was only the misbehaviour of the very courts you place so much trust in that led to the Jim Crow era and all those shennanagans.
I find people's reliance on the decsion of 5 of 9 appointed for life lawyers to preserve and create thier liberites disturbing. Its a cheap and quick method, and leads itself to autocracy. If someone really believes in something, they should fight it in the legislatures, not in the courts, especially if it involves "made up" rights.
There are 11 legal entities that now recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island [performed in other states], Washington, and the District of Columbia).
The majority of those entities have accepted Same-sex Civil Marriage either through legislative action or popular vote. The majority did not occur through legal action.
>>>>
And they did it the right way, at the state level, and good for them.
Also, I do believe that for basic services, all states have to at least recognize the marriage liscense, as they recognize the drivers liscense, at least for basic governmental services and interstate commerce regulations.
That rolls into my belief that states have to respect carry permits from out of state as well.
Actually there is...
United States Constitution
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
Yes they are not mandated by the Constitution, however Public Accommodation laws exist at the State level so you wouldn't expect them to be mandated in the federal Constitution.
>>>>
I'm sorry, but same sex and heterosexual relationships are not equal, as they are not biologically the same thing. Inter-racial marriage is biologically the same thing, and original marriage law did not take race into account. That only happened after the fact during slave times.
Even with my statement above, if a state wants to vote in Same sex marriage, or even plural marriage, it is thier right to do so. I would vote for same sex, and probably against plural marriage. To me, though there is no equal protection case here, as they are not equal.
1. Actually same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equal. Biology is irrelevant.
2. You know that "there is no equal protection claim" idea was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the SCOTUS in the Loving v. Virginia case. The SCOTUS rejected it.
>>>>
There are 11 legal entities that now recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island [performed in other states], Washington, and the District of Columbia).
The majority of those entities have accepted Same-sex Civil Marriage either through legislative action or popular vote. The majority did not occur through legal action.
>>>>
And they did it the right way, at the state level, and good for them.
Also, I do believe that for basic services, all states have to at least recognize the marriage liscense, as they recognize the drivers liscense, at least for basic governmental services and interstate commerce regulations.
That rolls into my belief that states have to respect carry permits from out of state as well.
Regarding the bolded. No State one doe not have to recognize Civil Marriage Licenses issued from one State by another.
>>>>
I'm sorry, but same sex and heterosexual relationships are not equal, as they are not biologically the same thing. Inter-racial marriage is biologically the same thing, and original marriage law did not take race into account. That only happened after the fact during slave times.
Even with my statement above, if a state wants to vote in Same sex marriage, or even plural marriage, it is thier right to do so. I would vote for same sex, and probably against plural marriage. To me, though there is no equal protection case here, as they are not equal.
1. Actually same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equal. Biology is irrelevant.
2. You know that "there is no equal protection claim" idea was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the SCOTUS in the Loving v. Virginia case. The SCOTUS rejected it.
>>>>
Biology is irrelevant? Really? This seems to be a case of wishing something was true instead of it being true.
Yes, and again I covered that point in my post.
What is it with progressives and this concept that just because they like some idea it has to be true/constitutional/right?
And they did it the right way, at the state level, and good for them.
Also, I do believe that for basic services, all states have to at least recognize the marriage liscense, as they recognize the drivers liscense, at least for basic governmental services and interstate commerce regulations.
That rolls into my belief that states have to respect carry permits from out of state as well.
Regarding the bolded. No State one doe not have to recognize Civil Marriage Licenses issued from one State by another.
>>>>
See there is an issue, because of the "full faith" clause between the states. Granted it would only have to be for government functions and basics such as hospital visitation during travel etc. If drivers liscenses are usable while in the state, then marriage liscenses should cover the basics, same as a concealed carry permit.
Now if you want to MOVE there, that is a different case.
1. Actually same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equal. Biology is irrelevant.
2. You know that "there is no equal protection claim" idea was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the SCOTUS in the Loving v. Virginia case. The SCOTUS rejected it.
>>>>
Biology is irrelevant? Really? This seems to be a case of wishing something was true instead of it being true.
Yes, and again I covered that point in my post.
What is it with progressives and this concept that just because they like some idea it has to be true/constitutional/right?
RE: Biology. Yep pretty irrelevant as it pertains to Civil Marriage unless you can show laws within a given State that requires certain biological acts as a requirement/condition of being issued a Civil Marriage license.
I'm not a "progressive", I've been a registered member of the Republican party since 1978 and smaller less intrusive government is actually a very "conservative" principal. That's why I support Same-sex Civil Marriage (as there is no compelling government interest in intruding into those personal decisions) and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws (as applied to private entitites).
>>>>
He is correct, biology is legally irrelevant. Unless you want to argue that couples have to prove they have all their appropriate body parts and they work at 100% in order to be allowed to marry.I'm sorry, but same sex and heterosexual relationships are not equal, as they are not biologically the same thing. Inter-racial marriage is biologically the same thing, and original marriage law did not take race into account. That only happened after the fact during slave times.
Even with my statement above, if a state wants to vote in Same sex marriage, or even plural marriage, it is thier right to do so. I would vote for same sex, and probably against plural marriage. To me, though there is no equal protection case here, as they are not equal.
1. Actually same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equal. Biology is irrelevant.
2. You know that "there is no equal protection claim" idea was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the SCOTUS in the Loving v. Virginia case. The SCOTUS rejected it.
>>>>
Biology is irrelevant? Really? This seems to be a case of wishing something was true instead of it being true.
Yes, and again I covered that point in my post.
What is it with progressives and this concept that just because they like some idea it has to be true/constitutional/right?
He is correct, biology is legally irrelevant. Unless you want to argue that couples have to prove they have all their appropriate body parts and they work at 100% in order to be allowed to marry.1. Actually same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equal. Biology is irrelevant.
2. You know that "there is no equal protection claim" idea was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the SCOTUS in the Loving v. Virginia case. The SCOTUS rejected it.
>>>>
Biology is irrelevant? Really? This seems to be a case of wishing something was true instead of it being true.
Yes, and again I covered that point in my post.
What is it with progressives and this concept that just because they like some idea it has to be true/constitutional/right?
Regarding the bolded. No State one doe not have to recognize Civil Marriage Licenses issued from one State by another.
>>>>
See there is an issue, because of the "full faith" clause between the states. Granted it would only have to be for government functions and basics such as hospital visitation during travel etc. If drivers liscenses are usable while in the state, then marriage liscenses should cover the basics, same as a concealed carry permit.
Now if you want to MOVE there, that is a different case.
If Jane and Joan get Civilly Married on New York and then move to Georgia, their Civil Marriage is not recognized in Georgia. So no, States are not currently required to accept valid and legal Civil Marriages from outside their own State.
>>>>
See there is an issue, because of the "full faith" clause between the states. Granted it would only have to be for government functions and basics such as hospital visitation during travel etc. If drivers liscenses are usable while in the state, then marriage liscenses should cover the basics, same as a concealed carry permit.
Now if you want to MOVE there, that is a different case.
If Jane and Joan get Civilly Married on New York and then move to Georgia, their Civil Marriage is not recognized in Georgia. So no, States are not currently required to accept valid and legal Civil Marriages from outside their own State.
>>>>
here is an idea, don't move to Georgia. However if you want to visit, and you end up in the hospital, your significant other should be able to visit you.
If Jane and Joan get Civilly Married on New York and then move to Georgia, their Civil Marriage is not recognized in Georgia. So no, States are not currently required to accept valid and legal Civil Marriages from outside their own State.
>>>>
here is an idea, don't move to Georgia. However if you want to visit, and you end up in the hospital, your significant other should be able to visit you.
You indicated that States are required to accept Civil Marriage licenses from other states, I was just pointing out that that is not true. Valid Civil Marriages from one State are currently not required to recognized in another State.
I like Virginia, I have no plans to move to Georgia.
>>>>
here is an idea, don't move to Georgia. However if you want to visit, and you end up in the hospital, your significant other should be able to visit you.
You indicated that States are required to accept Civil Marriage licenses from other states, I was just pointing out that that is not true. Valid Civil Marriages from one State are currently not required to recognized in another State.
I like Virginia, I have no plans to move to Georgia.
>>>>
Accept would imply acceptance of transfer, i.e. treated the same as another state's marriage liscense.
What i propose is the states wouldnt have to issue thier own to a same sex couple, however they would have to allow the basics when it comes to people visiting, i.e. hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.
You indicated that States are required to accept Civil Marriage licenses from other states, I was just pointing out that that is not true. Valid Civil Marriages from one State are currently not required to recognized in another State.
I like Virginia, I have no plans to move to Georgia.
>>>>
Accept would imply acceptance of transfer, i.e. treated the same as another state's marriage liscense.
What i propose is the states wouldnt have to issue thier own to a same sex couple, however they would have to allow the basics when it comes to people visiting, i.e. hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.
And what I'm trying to point out is currently, not the why you think it should be, but the way it currently is, States are not required to accept valid Civil Marriage licenses issued outside the State whether it is a "visit" or a permanent transfer of residence.
>>>>
Accept would imply acceptance of transfer, i.e. treated the same as another state's marriage liscense.
What i propose is the states wouldnt have to issue thier own to a same sex couple, however they would have to allow the basics when it comes to people visiting, i.e. hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.
And what I'm trying to point out is currently, not the why you think it should be, but the way it currently is, States are not required to accept valid Civil Marriage licenses issued outside the State whether it is a "visit" or a permanent transfer of residence.
>>>>
Then THAT is what the courts can fix. Full faith and credit does apply, just like with a drivers liscense, and what should apply with a concealed carry liscense. However once you move to a state you SHOULD get a liscense from that state, just because people don't do it doesnt make it legal.
