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.
By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.
IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.
Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?
Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.
1. Because I am a guy. If equal protection was absolute, it would not matter.
2. What about people the military rejects? If Equal protection is absolute, that would be a violation, as that person does not have equal access.
3. Again, what does age have to do with equality if it is absolute?
4. Same thing.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
Is maternity leave a right?
Is having the exact baker or photographer you want at your wedding a right?
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?
And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.
Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.
Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.
It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.
When you make up rights, you are making up laws.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
Is maternity leave a right?
Is having the exact baker or photographer you want at your wedding a right?
Is having the exact customer you want a right?
If there is a legal contract to show up, he/she better.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
Then they are participating, and in your world you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there or do the work to show up and do the work or face government sanction.
When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.
So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.
So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....
Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.
Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.
The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.
The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.
The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.
Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.
The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.
The photographer is providing a service, not a product. He can only be in one place at a time, so he is either available or he isn't. Now, whether he lies about his availability on that date is a different matter from what we are discussing.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
What the fuck do you think you accomplish by such tyrannical tactics? This is America not fucking Cuba. Government should NEVER have the power to force a business to serve a customer that goes against thier religous or morale beliefs. What next forcging a church to officiate a wedding they know to be a sin?The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.
Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.
yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.
Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?
Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.
1. Because I am a guy. If equal protection was absolute, it would not matter.
2. What about people the military rejects? If Equal protection is absolute, that would be a violation, as that person does not have equal access.
3. Again, what does age have to do with equality if it is absolute?
4. Same thing.
We have been through this before- a state can only deny 'rights'- which in this case would be equal protection under the law if the State can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so.
And if you can't see a compelling reason why the State can make a compelling argument that the physical situation is different for a woman who has just given birth and is nursing and the father who gave the sperm donation 9 months before...then there is no hope for you.
The photographer is providing a service, not a product. He can only be in one place at a time, so he is either available or he isn't. Now, whether he lies about his availability on that date is a different matter from what we are discussing.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
That's different from a bakery which does not bake cakes in real time. Or a Tux rental place, who doesn't manufacture tux' on demand, and does not only have one tux to rent.
When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.
So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....
Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.
Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.
The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.
The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.
The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.
Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.
The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.
If there is a legal contract to show up, he/she better.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
Then they are participating, and in your world you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there or do the work to show up and do the work or face government sanction.
Like I have said before- your argument then is with public accommodation laws. Which have nothing to do with this thread.
Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?
And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.
Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.
Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.
It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.
When you make up rights, you are making up laws.
Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.
Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexualI agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.
Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.
It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.
When you make up rights, you are making up laws.
Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.
So Equal protection is absolute then?
And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.
No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liarNo dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep withWe're talking about marriage, ya dumb fuck.That isnt a law banning them from fucking other consenting adults. Man up or shut the fuck upThey have been accepted on the SCOTUS docket. Look them up yourself, boy.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.
Oh, prophesy, oh, self fulfilling prophesy, thanatostard is thy name.The retard is you since you dont comprahend simple English statements. Oh and gramer policing never proves anything other then you have nothing valid to say.If rape is legal in Maryland should all the USA be forced to male it so?So the below will also now be legal in all 50 states as well?
"A New York Magazine interview revealed an 18-year-old woman's plans to marry her long lost father. Next on their to-do list is to move to New Jersey, where incest between adults happens to be legal."
Report Woman Plans To Marry Her Long Lost Father Move To NJ - FOX 29 News Philadelphia WTXF-TV
The two are not related.
But do you believe that government is too big and too intrusive?
So do you believe government should step in and prevent the situation you posted about?
How do you reconcile those two beliefs?
How is it not related? It's legal in NJ, it must be extended to all Americans no matter what state they live in.
"The Equal Protection doctrine of the 14th Amendment will require SCOTUS to extend that right to ALL Americans no matter what state they live in."
For those saying marriage is between two consenting adults, rather than between an adult man and woman, then anything goes because the definition of marriage is now changed, so yes a daughter and father can now marry. So can a brother and sister, or sister and sister. Of course the government is too big and intrusive. How are they going to prevent a daughter and father from marrying if SCOTUS deems ssm as 'the norm'?
Well, that's the second most retarded thing I've read here at the usmb. (forced to male it so ... bit of slip there eh?)
Why can't two consenting adults marry each other just because they are related?
Bullshit. You homosexuals are not opressed.It is a civil rights issue if the government recognizes and gives over 1000 protections and privileges to some law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and NOT to other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without a solid, measurable reason to do so.What Bullshit. Homosexual marrige is no where near on par with civil rights fights. No one is banning homosexuals from marrige the nuptials are just not recognized. The faux victimhood of he homosexual is insulting to those who actually werethe relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.
if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.
You were saying?
approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.
Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.
It's making up a right that doesn't exist in the document.You may see it as a natural right, but until its written in there it is not a constitutional right.
When you make up rights, you are making up laws.
Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.
So Equal protection is absolute then?
And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.
Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?
The Air Force is state-based?
