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

[bodecea]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

In case you haven't noticed, they are slowing shifting their focus onto PA laws.

 

[bodecea]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Certain people wanted integration to be a states rights issue as well.

 

[bodecea]

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!

If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.

Like slavery in 1861?

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?

If they were black....yes.

 

[bodecea]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!

Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage? Because that's fine with me. Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.

That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL. Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.

 

[bodecea]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

Oh....let's see here. You want to cut gay citizens (who pay taxes too) from access to the very protections YOU enjoy (that we pay for too)....Can your marriage now become MY business?

 

[bodecea]

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.

???
Sorry TheOldSchool
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.

Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.

Ignorant nonsense.

The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'

Yes C_Clayton_Jones
So why not keep marriage in the church and in private where it isn't subject to govt regulations!
Exactly!

I think you have hit on the next big ticket item for the Social Conservatives on the Right to work for....the appeal of all state civil marriage laws.

 

[MaryL]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

 

[bodecea]

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.

Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.

 

[bodecea]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”

Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.

But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.

Thus the PA end-around.

 

[bodecea]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

So all our children don't exist?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

Nice viewpoint. Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!

 

[MaryL]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

So all our children don't exist?

All our children is a soap opera. What is your question, clarify.

 

[MaryL]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

Nice viewpoint. Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!

Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

Nice viewpoint. Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!

Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.

Cool

Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!

 

[MaryL]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

Nice viewpoint. Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!

Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.

Cool

Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!

Across the land? Wrong! And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals offspring by either artificial insemination or adoption outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because THEY THEM THEMSELF can not nor will they ever be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.

Nice viewpoint. Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!

Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.

Cool

Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!

Across the land? Wrong? And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?

37 states, and soon to be 50

 

[MaryL]

I question that, and where you got that number. But most of all, I question your rationale for thinking that conformity is right, let alone accepting something so basically unreasonable and unnecessary as homosexual marriage is acceptable to begin with.

 

[James Everett]

Some excellent points....

Townhall ^
The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...

Is marriage a legal entity in all states?

Is homosexual behavior currently illegal?

Marriage is legal in all of the States within the union, however, marriage is by historical, traditional and legal definition existed as a contract between a man and a woman, not a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. There is no right for a minority to redefine a marriage contract to include something that it does not. There are other contracts that can be established between same sex partners.
The laws are not uniform throughout the union of States, if they were, then I would have every right to arm myself in every State as I do I my home State.

 

[James Everett]

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land. That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.

TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!

Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage? Because that's fine with me. Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.

That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL. Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.

No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.

 

[James Everett]

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.

Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.

The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.