Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you're incorrect.Again, you are incorrect.....A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?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.No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.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.
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
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.
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.
What exactly is "phony"?I am astounded by all the intelligent people here that are so hoodwinked by the phony homosexual propaganda. You are better than that, think for YOURSELVES. If what you people post is your own opinion YOU came too as an individual, I can resect that. But somehow, I don't think that's how most of your minds work. Bahhh, we are poor witto sheep that lost our way...
You didn't answer the question ... how is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?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?
There is no 'homosexual propaganda,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.I am astounded by all the intelligent people here that are so hoodwinked by the phony homosexual propaganda. You are better than that, think for YOURSELVES. If what you people post is your own opinion YOU came too as an individual, I can resect that. But somehow, I don't think that's how most of your minds work. Bahhh, we are poor witto sheep that lost our way...
Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman. What is being attempted, and successfully is a re- defining of what a marriage contract is, which at some point will require the exclusion of a group such as polygamists, incest, etc, else such contract becomes so diluted as to be useless as a contract, as there are no perimeters.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.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.
Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined...legally as a contract between a man and a woman
Are my questions so tough, no one can answer them?Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman. What is being attempted, and successfully is a re- defining of what a marriage contract is, which at some point will require the exclusion of a group such as polygamists, incest, etc, else such contract becomes so diluted as to be useless as a contract, as there are no perimeters.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.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.
The legal argument should not extend beyond the U.S. CONstitutions enumerated right to contract, else all the LGBT communities are doing is begging to grant a fictional jurisdiction to the government into their private lives wherein they have always fought to keep it and religion away from its interjection.
No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?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.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.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?
Still no answer ...No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?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.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.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?
What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?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
There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?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."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.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.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
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.
Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?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.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.
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
If there's no infringement, there's absolutely no legal excuse to ban them from getting married. The law is not restricted by "tradition."What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?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 JusticeThere is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?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."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.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.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
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.
Marriage is the topic you know....not procreation.No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?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.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.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?
Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.Who are you asking ?Still no answer ...No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights don't take it seriously anymore.You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get marriedIf we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?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.
How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love equal to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
You said they're equal -- I'm searching for equality here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
