Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

They are now getting the exact same rights as opposite sex couples. That is equal, not unequal.

 

Actually many states made it a crime for a man to have sexual relations with or even cohabitate with a woman that is not his wife. The Lovings weren't arrested for getting married in DC. They were arrested for cohabitating as husband and wife.
And the interest is served by increasing the number of children with the benefit of both their father and mother in the home and decreasing the number of children with only one or neither in the home. Encouraging heterosexual couples does this. Encouraging any other type of couple does not do so.

The interest served by our city requiring owners of dogs to get a license is served by including all dogs. Its not served by excluding cats.

 

It isn't limited to gays. The issue before the court was can states ban same gender couples from marrying. The court ruled no, the states can't do that. They can't rule on any other issue but he one before them.

 

AAAAND different rights to those who are excluded by law from marriage. Unequal treatment for the benefit of gays.

 

Yes. All races

- - - Updated - - -

The courts made no such ruling. The courts determined that state bans on same sex marriage served no government interest and violated the 14th amendment. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage so banning same sex couples on the basis that they can't procreate is an invalid argument.

 

It was a fiction created by the court. Marriage was never so limited to exclude homosexuals. It was so limited to include all heterosexual couples.
If muslims (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan for the right to plural marriage, efforts to maintain the limit to a single marriage doesn't become an intent to exclude muslims

 

Every state which banned same sex marriage specifically did so in order to ban homosexuals from marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

They are now getting the exact same rights as opposite sex couples. That is equal, not unequal.

 

I notice the Democrats / supporters ... still claim Obergefell is a new law that excludes ...

This from Wikipedia knocks that argument on it's behind.

 

A lot of people who want to marry still are getting the shaft.

With homosexuals endorsement from what I see posted here.

 

Who? Seriously who are these people wanting to marry but can't? Show me.

which is a reflection of your ocular ability, not reality.

 

Challenge met.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-says-sex-son-incredible-7712560

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-arrested-sex-16-year-old-boy-son-friend.html

 

Gee wiz Sparky! That is just %^&*$ BRILLIANT! You right about Muslims because there others besides Muslims who might want the right to a plural marriage. But, who the %^*&$ else besides gays want to marry someone of the same sex.? Do you really think that you can get over with that kind of nonsense?

 

They were arrested because their marriage was not recognized by Virginia as a defense against the charge secondary to the races of the two. And that was discriminatory in that Virginia recognized licenses from other states as a defense against the same charge.

Denying couples who can't have children a marriage license did not serve the interests of the state to increase the number of children with two parents, e. There is no connection between this restriction and that population. It does not impact unmarried couples who may have kids, in the least that gays are excluded, or infertile couples, or the elderly. It did not serve those interests enough that the state tried to deny anyone else who could not 'potentially procreate' a license. Hell they did not even bother to ask any fertility questions in any state except insofar as infertility could be grounds for one of the parties to seek a divorce. The state could not annul a marriage, because it was none of their business beyond the narrow issue of a deceptive practice not to disclose.

 

Exactly, and this is why you lose.

- - - Updated - - -

You're wrong about what the case was and why do you feel the need to throw walls of text against anyone you disagree with? I see that as weakness on your part.

 

The only way I can say this is that you are dumb. I'd like to be nice to you but I can't. Equal protection means one thing and one thing only. You obviously aren't into it.

 

Not sure of the relevance of your point.

That's what I said. NO interest is served by excluding ANYBODY. It is only served by including those with the potential of procreation. The interest served by providing welfare isn't served by excluding Bill Gates, it is only served by INCLUDING the poor. Sooooo, not sure of your point.

 

Not sure of the relevance of your point.

That's what I said. NO interest is served by excluding ANYBODY. It is only served by including those with the potential of procreation. The interest served by providing welfare isn't served by excluding Bill Gates, it is only served by INCLUDING the poor. Sooooo, not sure of your point.

 

A law that treats mixed race couples, same race couples, same gender couples and opposite gender couples equally when it comes to marriage laws and traffic laws is indeed correct.

Mildred Loving understood discrimination and understood equality- she stood with equality- as she said:

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

http://www.dallasvoice.com/mildred-loving-becomes-our-ally-in-gay-marriage-fight-1022796.html

 

Yeah, just like there might be others beside gay couples who might want the right to marry. Not sure of your point, other than to demonstrate mine.

 

Yes there is an interest is excluding minors who are presumed to be too immature to contract. Yes there an interest in excluding multi-party marriages if they are presumed to be conducive to abuse and coercion. Yes, there is an interest in excluding the comatose who cannot express consent. Yes there is an interest in excluding incest couples if again such relationships are conducive to abuse and coercion. Lots of 'anybodys' there. Now the question is whether or not they are rational or compelling enough to warrant disparate treatment.

Again just because 3 + 4 = 7, does not mean you can throw any number in there with the 3, and expect '7' to be the sum.

 

They were charged and convicted for getting married out of state

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[10]

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.

They fought the discriminatory marriage laws that banned their marriage- and then Mildred opposed the discriminatory marriage laws that prevented same gender couples from marrying- and if anyone would know the real purpose of marriage- and discrimination- it would be her:

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/mildred-loving-becomes-our-ally-in-gay-marriage-fight-1022796.html

- - - Updated - - -

Just as in Loving v. Virginia they only ruled on mixed race marriages.

Not on same gender marriages, not on the marriage rights of parents who owed child support or the marriage rights of prisoners.

Each case is distinct to the circumstances.

 

There you go again declaring that I'm wrong but making no attempt to explain why. I'm deeply sorry for having burdened you with the task of trying to understand an actual argument. You inability to do so is your weakness. We are done here.

 

Nonsense, Marriage was always limited to men and women because only a man and a woman can become husband and wife, father and mother to their children. Marriage has always been limited to men and women for the same reason this statute is limited to men and women.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Had nothing to do with sexual orientation. And the many homosexuals who have married someone of the opposite sex demonstrates the absurdity of your claim.

 

Same gender couples and opposite gender couples are now being treated equally.

By your 'logic' heterosexual couples were getting unequal treatment for the benefit of heterosexuals prior to Obergefell.
And by your 'logic' mixed race couples got unequal treatment for the benefit of mixed race couples after Loving.

You just can't stand that gay couples and hetero couples are being treated equally before the law.

 

Really? People who are heterosexual who want to marry someone of the same gender? Where are they? Bring them on, and I don't mean your fictitious "mother and grandmother down the street" Real people Sparky!