Here's the plan to combat "gay marriage"

Why would I bother with that when there are no rights enumerated as inherent/unalienable anywhere in the Constitution?

Where the hell you ever got the idea I'm arguing in support of "SSM" is surely a mystery, especially considering how long we've both been on this board.

Didn't bother reading further.

 

Loving v. Virginia was about inter-racial marriage, I noticed you left that out. The Court ruled that state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Again...race is a Federally protected class, the State law banning inter-racial marriage was deemed un-Constitutional because it involved discriminating against a protected class...race in this instance.

Again, referring back to the Amendment XIV ratified to protect freed slaves...hence using this Amendment in the Loving v. Virginia case is legitimate. Blacks were denied their equal right to marry whites denied by State law. The Federal Courts decided, appropriately.

Sexual orientation is not a protected under Federal civil law. The United States therefore first needs to protect sexual orientation and they do this through legislation, not the judiciary.


US v. Windsor.
The Windsor case is more accurately described as the defense of states' rights case. In Windsor, the court found that a federal law could not trump the rights of states to determine what marriages it would recognize.

Guess what discriminating against sexual orientation in terms of marriage rights was not unconstitutional based upon the fact sexual orientation was not a protected class under Federal civil law. Therefore federal law can't trump the rights of states to determine marriages based upon an interpretation of XIV as was used for Loving v. Virginia - 1967.

The Civil rights Act of 1964 essentially gave the United States to ban State laws that made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry.

The Supreme Court has put the proverbial cart before the horse, again this is Judicial Activism.

 

You're defending the Supreme Court decision, what other opinion can be gathered but your alliance with same sex marriage. I'm not mind reader. I see text, not context.

I don't care one way or another about the gay marriage, the core issue to me is not gay marriage.

The core issue is what is reserved for the States to decide and what is reserved for the United States to decide aka Federal government. That's what I care about.

What I also care about is the proper way to go about this to limit judicial activism.

First. Enact legislation offering protection to sexual orientation from discrimination at the Federal level.

Otherwise discriminating against sexual orientation is not unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has no basis in saying it is. Marriage is a state issue supported by US v. Windsor; unless of course it discriminates against a Federally protected class...i.e. blacks, Methodists, veterans, disabled...these are Federally protected classes under civil law.

XIV was ratified to protect freed black slaves...certainly not homosexuals which is fine. Make sexual orientation a Federally protected class under civil law. I have no problem with that at least the People would be part of the process as our legislature is elected not appointed.

 

I have never come within lightyears of defending Obergefell, so I trust you will cease and desist from wasting any more of my time with such preposterous accusations.

Now you're either willing to tell me where you get the cockamamie idea that marriage is not an inherent right or you're not. If not, do me a big favor and don't bother responding.

 

James Madison was against including the Bill of Rights because he said that some people might use it to say those were our ONLY Constitutional Rights. And you are doing exactly that.

I have yet to understand WHY I have some rights in some states to do what is Jail Time in others, nor do I understand how it protects our liberty that such is so.

 

Well if the intent was actually to inhibit procreation outside of marriage it has been a colossal failure. Time to give it up since it didn't accomplish it's objective.

 

The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

Military officers and enlisted both perform an oath to support and defend the Constitution...

It is the very foundation of our country.

Amendment X...explicitly states, whatever is not spelled out to be a Federal matter is reserved for the States.

Marriage itself is a State issue, well it was anyway...unless the State discriminates against a protected class which they did in Loving v. Virginia. Then the Federal government can step in using Amendment XIV and throw out the State law which clearly is discriminatory.

As sexual orientation is not a protected class as race is...using the same argument, Amendment XIV to throw out State law banning same sex marriage is simply over-stepping the bounds of the Federal judiciary system.

As I've stated, this is the inherent danger in the Obergfell decision. It is no less than judicial activism, and there are ways to squash this as I've also stated....

Article III of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to decide what cases the Supreme Court hears.

Everything...revolves around the Constitution...

Men and women in our armed forces are willing to lay down their lives to support and defend it.

To dismiss it's importance is to dismiss their sacrifice.

It is not a liquid document in the sense of judicial interpretation. This is the problem with liberal activist courts, it assumes the Constitution can be bent and shaped to reflect modernity and this was not the intent of the authors and those who have ratified it throughout America's history.

XIV was certainly not written to protect sexual orientation...I can tell you that much....and if it is to be interpreted to include sexual orientation the proper channel to legally protect sexual orientation is through the legislature...not the judiciary.

Laugh it up...celebrate gay marriage...I don't care.

Rome is burning, and Nero fiddles.

America is nothing without her Constitution...it should be treated as the sacred document that it is.

 

No, pass a federal law banning discrimination based upon marital status instead of adding another special-rights group.

 

I was using the Loving case to demonstrate why marriage was considered a constituional right. The racial issue was irrelevant to my point.

 

????? Since when do laws need to be 100% effective to be something other than a colossal failure? Speed limits arent 100% effective at keeping people from driving at unsafe speeds but they are effective in inhibiting such driving.

 

Nice try at pretending an idiot prejudice worked. Actually since illicit image children have increased you could probably consider the law a 100% failure.

Stupid Conservatives need to ban divorce if they want to preserve their imaginary families.

 

You lost me at "Martin Luther King"

Did you compare gay marriage to nazism further down the OP?

 

It is Obama and Democrats that just voted to release $150,000,000,000 to Iran, a country that imprisons and kills LGTBs, so that must be the "American Christians exporting hate to coutries" you are referring to. I agree with you that they are "evil and immoral people."

You tend to post such messages too.

 

Prove it.

 

I think marriage should only be allowed for people with children; if a gay couple is legally allowed to adopt then they can marry.

This would be a simpler solution and would tie more into the original intent of marriage laws - since they were supposed to be a benefit to encourage a couple's raising of children, not an entitlement to any two people who are "in love".

 

Wouldnt be much security for a woman who agrees to give birth to a mans child, in exchange for only the hope that he will marry her after the birth.

 

They were shot on the streets for being heterosexual? I'm sure you'll provide proof of that.

 

Was the homosexual shot for being homosexual? Sounds like he shot the guy for giving him a hard time for peeing on the restaraunt. Whenever a crime against a homosexual occurs, its just presumed its a hate crime. Had it instead been an oriental man giving him a hard time for pissing on the restaraunt, he probably would have shot him, yelling racial epitaphs regarding being oriental. Doesnt mean he shot him because he was oriental. He shot him because he gave him a hard time for pissing on the sidewalk. Had it been a fat guy, he would have shot him yelling insults about being fat.

 

I didn't write the manifesto quoted in the OP. I posted it to expose what one particular anti-gay group is up to.

- - - Updated - - -

Then the same should be applied to heterosexual couples. Only provide them with the benefit of a legal marriage after they produce kids or adopt.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, did nobody read my comments about what I was quoting in the OP?

 

Haha! It's true. They always lose.

 

- - - Updated - - - And only while they are performing this state function of raising kids. If there are no longer minor dependents in the marriage household, then the state should annul the marriage. Once Junior has moved out, there is no state value to continuing the marriage contract, with its many perks and privileges. Grandma and Grandpa should be annulled, and they can get a civil union to replace the marriage contract if they want to.

 

Marriage may not be defined in the Constitution, but it does not need to be. The Federal government didn't pass a law that makes same-sex marriage legal. The Supreme Court basically said that if marriage is going to exist, it cannot be limited by gender. If a state is going to allow people in it's jurisdiction to get married, it cannot limit those marriages by gender. Therefore, the federal government has no need to pass a law that specifically says same-sex marriage is legal, because the laws that have attempted to make it illegal were themselves illegal within the preexisting framework of the Constitution. If a state were to abolish it's entire institution of marriage, same-sex marriage would be gone as much as traditional marriage would. The decision did not cement marriage as a right to everyone in every state, it prohibits the discrimination against same-sex marriages for state's that do offer marriage.

Basically, it's all or nothing. Either there's marriage and both same-sex and traditional couples can have one, or there's no marriage at all. State's are still free to decide whether they recognize marriage or not so the federal government has not taken power away from the states. However, some are falsely assuming the state had the legal authority to discriminate in the first place. They didn't lose that power, they never lawfully had it to begin with.

You can always change the Constitution instead. But then, YOU'D be the dreaded.....activist.

 

My response was to your post #44. Try to keep up.

 

There is a simple solution remove the issue by removing civil marriage in all the States and Washington D.C. leaving the households to be up to the adults and how they care to organize it using private marriage contracts. Then religions could have religious marriages separate from those. There you go.