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

[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.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is the issue before the Supreme Court:

“[W]hether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/1d121333b449f82a71_icm6ivueb.pdf

 

[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.

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.

Again, you are incorrect.....
Loving v Virginia was a case concerning the "MARRIAGE " contract between a man and a woman of different race, hence such fit the definition of a marriage, that being " a contract between a man and a woman".
You are attempting to equate apples and ham.

 

[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?

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.

You're using a political argument. This is a legal issue.

No one is redefining a civil marriage contract.

your legal argument is who can be denied one

the other side's argument is about unlawful discrimination on the part of government in the are of civil contracts

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Fortunately you don't get to make that decision – one of the many benefits of living in a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a democracy.

 

[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?

equal application of the law?

stop making your side look so dumb. seriously

Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.

On which side do you think I'm on?

And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?

 

[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.

It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.

invective?

wtf are you, 13 years old?

 

[James Everett]

This is the issue before the Supreme Court:

“[W]hether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/1d121333b449f82a71_icm6ivueb.pdf

Yet, here is no violation of the fourteenth. Your SCOTUS will likely claim there is in order to further expand it fictional jurisdiction, no surprise there, it is simply the people begging to have more government regulation in their lives, such is the wish of fools.

 

[MaryL]

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

Damn you spelled it right and everything. Do you understand the reference, too, sweetie?

 

[TheOldSchool]

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

Damn you spelled it right and everything. Do you understand the reference, too, sweetie?

Better than you understand the law, clearly

 

[Faun]

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.

It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.

invective?

wtf are you, 13 years old?

No, but I am trying to maintain an adult conversation.

 

[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.

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.

Again, you are incorrect.....
Loving v Virginia was a case concerning the "MARRIAGE " contract between a man and a woman of different race, hence such fit the definition of a marriage, that being " a contract between a man and a woman".
You are attempting to equate apples and ham.

you are wrong yet again and horribly wrong


Legal provision: Equal Protection

Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Question
Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."​

 

[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.

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.

If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.

On which side do you think I'm on?

And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?

You are definitely NOT on the side of factual truth. Do not misrepresent your own side. It always comes back to bite you in the ass -- gay straight, transgendered or bi...

 

[MaryL]

I will defend anyone that is actually being hurt. Gays not be able to marry, really? How is that a issue? How is that hurting anyone? Get real. They have EVERY and I mean EVERY right anyone, man woman or child has, so what, what is that BIG FLIPPIN deal?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?

You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

During arguments for Loving v Virginia James Everett
"Persons"

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.
Loving v. Virginia LII Legal Information Institute
...

The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes​

 

[Faun]

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

Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.

On which side do you think I'm on?

And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?

You are definitely NOT on the side of factual truth. Do not misrepresent your own side. It always comes back to bite you in the ass -- gay straight, transgendered or bi...

What do you contend I've misrepresented?

And again, why do you refuse to answer -- what do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?

 

[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.

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.

If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?

You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married

Certainly, you don't have to. But it is a primary reason.

And again, what do you think makes marriage a fundamental right?