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

[Faun]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

 

[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.

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,

Hmm, nice response. ARTIFICIAL insemination, adoption, not exactly what I call healthy sexuality. No. totally false dead end argument to support homosexual marriage. If we allow people to eat human flesh, that makes cannibalism alright too. No, get off the groupthink
express, Junior.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

go away Crazy Mary.. maybe go look for Jakey?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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're as hateful as you are ignorant.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry in all 50 states – do you 'think' infertile opposite-sex couples need marriage anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. Is it just an empty status symbol for them as well?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?

 

[Faun]

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?

That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.

 

[MaryL]

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

Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Faun I do know this:

In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​

 

[Faun]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?

No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?

No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?

To quote Obama "words matter"

and you're wrong

 

[Faun]

Faun I do know this:

In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​

What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?

 

[Faun]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?

No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?

To quote Obama "words matter"

That doesn't actually answer my question, now does it?

 

[James Everett]

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.

You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however, a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

for Faunnon too bright

Equal Protection: An Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however, a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.

The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a most basic right

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?

No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?

equal application of the law?

stop making your side look so dumb. seriously

 

[James Everett]

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?

No, the case is to redefine a contract, specifically a "marriage contract" to include something that it never has included, thus re-defining what a marriage contract is, hence expanding the central governments authority over the rights of the individual by granting further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS.
The happiness can be pursued via the constitutional right to contract, not the redefining of a specific contract.

 

[Faun]

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.

You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however, a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.

Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?

 

[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?

That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.

To me this is a totally artificial issue. We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts. Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.

*cuckoo