Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

[James Everett]

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.

Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.

You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry doesn't deprive them of human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false argument. Bullshit, not buying it.

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Again, we are all treated differently when it comes to sex. Separate sex restrooms, men going topless in public, while women cannot, etc. redefining a specific contract such as a marriage contract which is between a man and a woman, is not a fundamental right, such rights may be achieved via the right to contract a civil union,

Obscenity and nudity laws can be changed. It is about the moral standards and a state interest. The nation does not consider same sex marriage to be immoral. No one has used that argument in Court because it would be laughed out of court. .

Unisex bathrooms. Open to all sexes -- one at a time. Marriage isn't about sex either. Try that argument in a court and get laughed out again.

 

[Faun]

Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply

Like in Wisconsin

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional

Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.

The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 654, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.

Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.

You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.

You are lost in confusion. Both a civil union and a marriage are civil contracts.

State laws cannot trump federal laws, so your gambling example is nutty as a fruit cake at a gay wedding

 

[Faun]

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
Husband being male, wife being female.

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a right to contract. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you WHY you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.

Do you want me to give you the answer?

Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.

Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.

You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.

If I'm confused, it's from trying to keep up with your nonsense.

You said the answer to the question, "why do you think marriage is an inalienable right," is the "right to contract."

I merely extended that to it's logical conclusion that if the Constitution's contract clause establishes marriage as an inalienable right because of the contract clause, then that would render anything legal bound by contract as an inalienable right.

You don't think your positions through before you spit them out, do ya?

 

[Faun]

Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

No, I'm defending them.

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?

You can't?

sadly,
History is full of examples.

Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....

WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?

No, I'm defending them.

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?

You can't?

sadly,
History is full of examples.

Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....

WHY do you think marriage is an inalienable right?

Jesus. Marriage is NOT an inalienable right. The Court has said marriage is a basic right, one of the most basic.

seriously.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Faun

you may be interested in this
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

While writing about fundamental rights and in Loving v Virginia “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” the Court is asked to rule on specific legal challenges. While political and ideological arguments get into the court records as reasoning and argument, they are usually not the points ruled on such as seeking redress under the 14th amendment, 2nd amendment, equal protection clause of...and necessary and proper clause and on and on...

The Court does not rule on text out of the Declaration of Independence. That document is NOT the law of the land

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

no where does the Court do what James Everett claims: mention marriage as only between a man and a woman

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not merely opining when I state GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact. Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a empty one at that.

It's not only not a fact, it is amazingly wrong. It is also hypocritical because you would not dream of using that argument in the case of heterosexual people who really can't have children. My father, for example, remarried after my mother died. He was in his late 70's and she in her late 60's, so you would clearly have denied them the right to marry - correct? You think people should have to take tests to make sure they can have children before they are allowed to marry - right? Because if you don't, then your argument is nothing more than an excuse.

What other people need is really none of your business.

 

[PratchettFan]

What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?

Ahhh.. the old "it isn't happening to me so it can't be important" argument.

 

[James Everett]

Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.

The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. But not the marriage contract, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934​

This is referenced by:

This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses. (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978.​

Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.

 

[Syriusly]

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

 

[bodecea]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

 

[James Everett]

Says

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

 

[James Everett]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Says

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.

Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?

 

[James Everett]

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet? They could really use the help.

The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.

Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?

Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.

 

[James Everett]

Says

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman, forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the 14th amendment to your CONstitution.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.

Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.

Not one of the cases I cited.

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.