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

[TheOldSchool]

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.

It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!

 

[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.

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"?

Can't reproduce? You think gays are sterile?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

All of this is just mindless dribble from the indoctrinated. .

Oh the irony! The irony.

Ahem. People of usmb: whenever people speak like this "indoctrinated" you know it's going to be dull and boring

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Do you always state opinions as fact?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Actually marriage is a federally recognized basic right. This itself trumps any state law that would disallow marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract that does not recognize gender. It is a contract between two people. To make a gender distinction like man and woman would take a new law. Marriage contracts are not between man and woman, they are between people. Maybe you are confusing a religious ceremony with a civil one. If so you need to go back to grade school civics class.

The state (federal government) has not defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Laws that are not uniform across the states cannot trump a federal law in the specific area. Read the US Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed. Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this

 

[Faun]

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,...

That's as dumb as dumb can be. That's the same as saying the 18th Amendment didn't bring about a prohibition of alcohol because alcohol was legal in the states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!

yep

 

[bodecea]

Ironically, the posters who wish for a future with no civil laws on marriage, just religious ones wish for a future where just as many gays will get married if not more than now. I was religiously married way before civil gay marriage became legal.

 

[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.

It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!

Sir,
I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?

 

[James Everett]

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.

Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed. Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.

 

[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.

Do you always state opinions as fact?

Do I? You are confused.

 

[Faun]

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.

Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed. Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.

Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed. Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.

A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?

really?

DOMA. Why was it supposed to be needed? That would be like making a federal Free Speech law. D'Oh! already exists.

Blacks won the argument to inter racial marriage on the grounds that a legal contract between two people could not be denied them. Our Southern White Christian Conservative racists tried to use a Jim Crow law stating no one, blacks or whites had a right to marry those of another race.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed. Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.

Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.

The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Do you always state opinions as fact?

Do I? You are confused.

yet one more opinion

see?

 

[MaryL]

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.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!

Sir,
I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?

The thread has just entered Crazytown

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

you need to check into a lunatic asylum
Of course they can and do. They can artificial insemination, adopt, foster..

unless you want to go against Couples that do these things and their children,

 

[MaryL]

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?