Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

I guess before he changed his mind, he was a right wing nut job.

Hillary is also on record as one man to one woman = marriage. Another right wing nut job I suppose.

[video=youtube;_iTrqHvTk_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iTrqHvTk_0[/video]

Let's review Obama

Watch him tell the pastor that he believes in civil unions. Yet when I voted for them, I am ripped to pieces by the left wing.

[video=youtube;rJhQBZ1La0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w[/video]

 

Robert, all of this stuff about procreation is just as a requirement for marriage is just bleeping ridiculous! That argument has been failing in court for years and in the more recent cases, the defendant states knew better than to even bring it up. I find it hard to believe that at this late date, anyone at all is pushing this clap trap. Here is a history lesion for you:

 

Clearly you don't.

You cant even comprehend your own material and still don't have a clue.

"If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

The Lovings weren't arrested for getting married in DC. They were arrested for cohabitating as husband and wife.
Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
They were charged and convicted for getting married out of state.

And my statement remains true- they were charged and convicted for getting married out of state.

 

Marriage equality would involve marriage made equally available to any two consenting adults who desire a marriage. Gay marriage is INEQUALITY by design for the benefit of the gays.

 

Let me introduce you to both Hillary Clinton and Obama over marriage.

[video=youtube;rJhQBZ1La0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w[/video]

[video=youtube;_iTrqHvTk_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iTrqHvTk_0[/video]

 

Here is more that you can send to your lawyer friend. They are old cases but you will see a pattern here.

 

You seem confused by this.

Right Wing Nut Jobs are the ones who refuse to every change their opinion.

Barack Obama
Hilary Clinton
Dick Cheney
John Huntsman
Bob Barr

The list continues to grow of those who changed their minds on same gender marriage.

Just like the list changed on mixed race marriages- A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 94 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage

 

Any "requirement for marriage" is your strawman. Strawman are usually ridiculous by design to make it easier for you to knock it down. Congratulations, you've knocked down that strawman for the 100th time.

 

When did you change your mind so that you approve homosexual men marrying men?

Frankly, it is up to those who marry but for what it is worth, a black man does his race a favor by marrying a black woman.

 

Many people changed their mind, but he words of the Constitution remain the same.

 

I remember that one. What a beautiful demonstration of the suspension of reality required to argue for gay marriage

 

Also Walker v. Wolf Wisconsin
"The lack of any attempts by the state to dissuade infertile persons from marriage is proof that marriage is about many things, including love, companionship, sexual intimacy, commitment, responsibility and procreation and that Wisconsin respects the decisions of its heterosexual citizens to determine for themselves how to define their marriage.

"....which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that doe not produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples...."

- - - Updated - - -

"....which itself is proof that [Dixon] sees value in marriages that doe not produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples...."

- - - Updated - - -

True- both in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably about.....20 years ago. I remember having that discussion with a gay friend of mine when I didn't agree- I thought Americans weren't ready for it. I never had a moral problem with it, I frankly worried for the safety of gay couples.

 

My Straw Man?? Are you going to tell us that I fabricated your argument that gay' should not be allowed to marry because they- as two people - can't produce a child in quite the same way that a heterosexual couple can? That I then used that to discredit you when that was not your argument?

Are you going to deny that you have been blathering about procreation for pages now on a thread that is about the legality and constitutionality of same sex marriage? If you think that I set up a strawman here you either do not know what a strawman is, or it's a pathetic attempt to crawl out of the hole that you dug for yourself with all that nonsense. That is what is ridiculous.

 

BIZZARRE interpretation. I don't believe reality should ever be suspended by the courts.

 

Who says they have to have children?Maybe they don't even want kids. I don't want children, does that mean I should be denied a marriage license if I want to marry someone?

 

I quoted your strawman. That procreation is a "requirement for marriage". But of course, that is why you want to run elsewhere

 

Why is it always about the men? Do you approve of women marrying women?

Maybe race preservation isn't the first concern people have when planning a family. They aren't competing in their West Minster Kennel Club show for crying out loud.

 

Why marry at all?

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly can't come up with a single reason why any woman would want to marry some other woman.

 

No one says they have to have children. That's just the favorite strawman around here. AND the majority of pregnancies are unplanned, to couples who "don't want children" at the time. Marriage BEFORE such unplanned pregnancies helps establish the paternity of the child.

- - - Updated - - -

A desperate grasp for normalcy. Aping heterosexual couples to gain acceptance.

 

Are you now going to tell us that has not been your position here? If not what is it? Clearly you are opposed to gays marrying. You just asked how two men can have a child together. You are clearly obsessed with procreation in the context of this issue about same sex marriage. If I'm wrong, provide us with a clear and concise reason for being opposed to SSM without mentioning children and procreation.

 

Love, asset protection, inheritance after death, to avoid gift tax when you do inherit after death, guaranteed medical decision making and power of attorney for your significant other, visitation rights and rights to medical information if your significant other is incapacitated, insurance, beneficiary of your significant other's retirement account, I could go on but you get the idea.

Same exact answer as above.

 

And it hasn't been.

 

That is the question every person needs to decide. I presume that other couples marry for the same reason my wife and I married- but who knows why anyone decides they want to marry?

But this quote captures what I feel very well:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

- - - Updated - - -

This is Dixon's predictable bait and switch.

I look forward to his non-response.

 

Bob Hope and his wife Dolores were married, were unable to reproduce together, and adopted 4 children. Why did they marry?

If Angela and Dolores marry, and adopt 4 children- why did they marry?

 

Oh look, you dishonestly quoted someone.

Here's the part you omitted........

- - - Updated - - -

None of those rulings made any such distinction.