Here's the plan to combat "gay marriage"

Sour grapes.

 

It doesn't matter what branch of the government does it. It gets done either way. I don't care if it was hypocritical. I just care that my desires were fulfilled.

Truthfully, I'm glad it got done this way. I'm happy to force the more backwards states into the present.

 

In the UK, 45% of young adults claim they are bisexual. So much for a person being born straight or gay.

 

Yeah, it gets old doesn't it? Like sour grapes over the Supreme Court declaring corporations have a constitutional right to spend as much money in politics as they want to. Why doesn't everyone stop with the sour grapes about that ruling of the Supreme Court. Everyone knows that Supreme Court rulings are always correct and just.

 

Finally, a member who admits to having no interest in intellectual integrity in messages and instead simply declares you are for whatever benefits you personally and against anything that isn't in your benefit.

 

I don't know why Homosexuality has become such a big deal in our society, other "civilized" societies have already shut God out and taken upon their liberties of relative truth and doing what is right for them, so that the may be happy. The only answer to why this is such a big deal is because God still live in America, we aren't ready to give Him up, and we sure is hell are not going to give Him up like the liberals want us to do. The real question is why do we try and come up with all the garbage excuse to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, when this great nation was founded, the framers never mentioned homosexuality because the wouldn't believe that our society would experience so much moral degradation that people actually believe its morally acceptable to be gay. I'm tired of trying to hide behind made up science, God said all sin is evil, Christian should fight against homosexuality just like they do against gambling or pornography. Personally what two men or women do behind close doors is none of my business, I just want my children to grow up in a society where it doesn't matter who's in the White House, it matters who's in God's house. Love the Sinner, hate the Sin.

 

Yep. If it's a good policy, I only care that it's implemented. And if a policy benefits me, I obviously think it's a good policy.

 

Their reasoning holds up just fine. Marriage limited to men and women in order to improve the wellbeing of children that only men and women produce is perfectly constitutional and has been upheld repeatedly in courts.
It is marriage, limited to men and women in order to "disparage and injure homosexuals" that was declared unconstitutional. ABSURD. Would be like claiming marriages limitation to just one spouse is all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" mormons.

 

Certainly there are religuous people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. But as an atheist I am opposed to gay marriage because while improving the well being of children that only men and women produce is a legitimate interest of government. Marriage intended to help gays feel better about being gay, to win more "respect and dignity" for gays is not a legitimate governmental interest.

 

I would argue that "gay marriage" as opposed to marriage for any two consenting adults who desire to be married, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

 

The crux of the issue is there is no Constitutional right to be married. If it's not a protected right, it goes to the States to decide what rights are granted..this includes the right to be married.

This is where I bring up the 10th Amendment which specifically limits the powers of the Federal government on issues not pertaining to our Constitution. Well, the Supreme Court decided the Federal government has the power to define marriage...which it does NOT. DOMA was thrown out on the basis of it's Constitutionality, yet simultaneously, the Federal courts decided the States have no right to define marriage, and laws banning gay marriage were struck down as un-Constitutional...on what grounds?

There is NO Constitutional right to get married!

This is Judicial activism at it's finest.

We the People have been kicked in the teeth by the courts....

It's time we fought back and limit the powers of the Judiciary...through Congress!

 

I was making an equal protection argument. ANY discrimination in the law, whether it involves a constitutional right or not, must at a minimum be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Helping gays feel better about their homosexuality is not such an interest.

 

How about the 14th? You think that has no application here?

So what would you have Congress do, exactly?

 

The US Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage; it is a weak argument, unless you adopt the notion of an “evolving” Constitution.

What can Congress do?

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."


Article III of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

It is within Congressional authority to limit the cases the Supreme Court can hear.

 

Agreed, you're more focused on the 14th Amendment which is indeed what the Supreme Court argued the case based on. I'm saying they shouldn't even have had heard the case to begin with...if it's not a Constitutional issue it belongs with the States...10th Amendment.

Congress has the authority to limit the cases the Supreme Court can hear...this is one of those cases.

The good citizens voted on several State referendums defining marriage, which is indeed within the States authortiy. Meanwhile the Federal government essentially over-turned the will of the people on an issue that should be of no concern to the Federal goverment based upon the Constitution.

Marriage rights fall within the domain of States, not the Federal government!

States can establish laws, for example, that set up a minimum age, and these vary by State.

So why are the Feds being "buttinskies" and putting their noses where it doesn't belong...mainly regarding the institution of marriage?

Judicial activism, that's why. Congress has the authority to put the brakes on this by limting the cases they can hear.

 

I'm perfectly aware of that, but you're dodging the question. If marriage isn't a protected right under the Constitution, how do you square that with the due process clause of 14A?

OK, so the 4th Circuit says there's no "SSM" and the 9th Circuit says there is. I suppose that's better than what we have now, but its still leaves states in the 9th Circuit under an illegitimate federal edict; and besides that, I don't know that such legislation could have any effect on Obergefell.

 

You're dodging my question.


What about the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right.

What does Amendment XIV say?
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

In other words the rights as defined in the Constitution....1st and 5th Amendments

There is no inherent right to be married.

State's grant these rights and establish the parameters which includes limits...for example 1st cousins, and the States set the minimum age..another example. This varies by State...in fact some States, like Texas say if you live with someone long enough you're a common law marriage. Not all States have the same laws on marriage and it's never been a Constitutional issue, because it's NOT a Constitutional issue.

Is denying 1st cousins the right to marry violating the 14th Amendment?

This is about the 10th Amendment....period.

Marriage is not a constitutional issue, it is not a Federal issue, it is a State's rights issue unless the State is violating a citizen's CONSTITUTIONAL rights...hence the 14th Amendment.

You can vomit the 14th to your heart's content, but it was written specifically to address the issue of freed slaves the 13th Amendment created..not gay marriage.

 

Pretty neat trick, seeing you never asked me a question.

Its scope was substantially reduced by the 14A incorporation clause, that's what.

Really? You think only 1A and 5A are incorporated? And that the liberties protected under 5A are exclusive of rights not enumerated in the Constitution?

And you figure that how, exactly?

 

You bigots have already lost. Time to move on to bestiality or some cause where you have a chance.

 

Helping heterosexuals feel better about their sexuality is also not a legitimate government interest.

If you Conservatives really want to pretend you are helping children by promoting marriage you should get off your little hobbyhorses and introduce legislation prohibiting divorce.

 

Find the clause in the Constitution that includes marriage as an inherent liberty and/or right, otherwise this argument is over.

At the time the 14th Amendment was included in our Constitution, homosexual behavior was a crime in every State in the Union.

It is inconceivable the authors of the amendment and those who ratified it into existence as binding law, meant to include "gay" marriage as the protected right of the citizenry the States could not infringe upon.

Instead, the liberal activist Federal court system, more specifically, the Supreme Court has decided many cases based upon a liquid document...meaning as the culture changes, so does the document.

While many may seem this as a favorable viewpoint today...it could be tomorrow's nightmare as governmental powers become increasingly centralized. Power given to the States and to the People in Amendment X, are being eroded by a loosely interpreted Constitutional text...an almost abstract version of law. It's absurd, and an abuse of power.

There is no argument to think the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted to include protecting homosexual behavior from being an inclusive part of what was previously a heterosexual domain, marriage. The 14th Amendment was authored and ratified to protect freed slaves that the 13th Amendment liberated.

Homosexuality was illegal in 1868.

period.

As the culture changes so does the Constitution according to activist Judges, this is the inherent danger.

Find anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is discussed...anywhere....then perhaps you'll have a point.

Gay marriage is therefore a matter to be decided upon by the States...it's clearly delineated in Amendment X to give to the States and to the people, those matters not specifically given to the United States aka Federal Government.

To circumvent Amendment X, the Supreme Court argued on the basis of Amendment XIV; boldly proclaiming in essence..."well times have changed and the interpretation should change with it." Textbook activism...and this is not the job of the Supreme Court. Their job is to interpret the text, and the word "marriage" does not exist in the body of the Constitution, it's not even a part of the text. Therefore it is a matter to be decided by the individual States. If a gay couple does not like their State laws, they are free to move to a State that supports them.

This is a legal issue, not a religious issue..and even Justice Scalia stated in one of his dissenting opinions...

“a system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

So celebrate gay marriage, who cares.... that is not the core issue. The issue is an unbridled form of Judicial activism that the authors of our Constitution did not foresee. It is time to put the brakes on this runaway train.

 

That was never traditional marriages purpose or intent. States didn't make it a crime for a man and woman to have sex without being married, to make heterosexuals feel better about their sexuality. They did so to inhibit procreation outside of marriage. Because a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father is too frequently the result.

 

While I dissent from your philosophical stand point, I admire your brash honesty when it comes to the problems presented in relation to effects on children and the fact that is matter is not up to the government.

 

Homosexuality, more specifically sexual orientation, is not a Federally protected class....it is a protected class in many States, but what is a Federally protected class you ask?

What is and what Federal civil law it pertains to.

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Arguing a State denies a gay couple from the same right to marry based upon discrimination?

If the State was denying a black man from marrying a white woman...yes that is discrimination as race is a Federally protected class.

You'll notice homosexuality has no protection under Federal civil law...

Now it does of course, States must allow gays equivalent marriage rights as heterosexuals in all 50 States...bringing up the point, is it the Supreme Court's job to create law? This is essentially what they've done in the Obergfell decision.

It is not!!! Their job is to interpret law.

Judicial Activism at it's finest...you've been forewarned, today's celebration will be tomorrow's nightmare.

One of the most sacred Amendments to our Constitution..aside from the Bill of Rights...is Amendment X. This clearly limits the powers of the United States and gives those powers not clearly delineated in our Constitution, to the States.

 

Marriage was declared a Constitutional right because states made it a crime for unmarried men and women to have sex, or even cohabitate in the same home without a marriage. The Lovings of Loving v Virginia weren't arrested for going to DC and getting married, they were arrested for cohabitating in Virginia without a valid marriage. We have a Constitutional right to choose a mate and create a family. If states are going to require a marriage license to do that, the right to a marriage license became a constitutional right. Now that its legal to have sex with and cohabitate with anyone you like, with or without a marriage license, I would argue government recognition of marriage is no longer a constitutional right. A license required to create your own family is a constitutional right. A license required to receive certain beneficial tax breaks and governmental entitlements is not a constitutional right. Government could stop recognizing any marriages tomorrow, and certainly it cant be argued that the Constitution requires that government must do so.