Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?

I appreciate your well thought out and intelligent response.

 

I am saddened to inform you our country's founding documents were written by nearly all hardcore Bible believing Christians. The few that weren't still admired the morality of the religion.

 

Because if they just let any two "consenting adults" marry it wouldn't be "gay marriage"

 

Zoey Tur did.

 

Not only is that not true, even if it were it is irrelevant. They gave us a secular Constitutional Republic. Laws MUST have a compelling State interest to be legal. "gawd said so" is NOT a compelling State interest.

 

That's an interesting point. Why should this apply to gay couples, who by definition will not procreate?

This government does a lot of stupid stuff, in the current system.

The more important point though, is that the government regularly exceeds its authority and no one complains about it.

 

No. It specifically banned same sex marriage, because same sex couples were looking to get married

Lol, it's not a false set up. It's a legal fact.

And the 14th amendment says John need to be able to marry Jim, if he can marry Joan.

Demonstrably false. Loving v Virginia.

Nope. You can to marry your best buddy, even if you are both straight.

It hasn't always had that. There was no limitation to opposite sex couples anywhere in the law or court ruling until 1971.

Nope. The fact a man can marry a woman but not a man is gender discrimination. Just like a black man could only marry a black woman but not a white woman was racial discrimination.

you can keep claiming that but I'll keep showing you that you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like you have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

But they're not false. And nobody cares whether you recognize it or not m

Marriage is still between a man and a woman. But it's also between same sex partners.

Strawman. Please don't pretend to be stupid. You know very well that's not what this is about.

Without the requirement it's a meaningless statement.

No state banned same sex marriage until 1971.

Nope. It's the attraction to the same sex.

Jim can marry jane, but not Jason because Jason is a man. That is discrimination based on gender.

1971 not hundreds of years.

Which homosexual judge? Walker? You realize he is one of 30 judges to rule against you right?

It says you must be treated equally. Same swx marriage bans, like interracial bans, violate it.

Clearly you don't

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is you think your made up sky fairy has any relevance what so ever to US law. It doesn't.

 

Zoey Tur is trans, not ex gay.

 

Somebody's gonna be crushed if the SC doesn't rule in their favor. Wonder if we'll have gays and gay supporters rioting in the streets?

Question for the more ardent supporters... are you prepared to accept whatever SCOTUS rules?

 

If an interest can't be shown in the denial, then the state can't deny. It's who the constitution works.

Food stamps are not a civil right. Invalid comparison.

Maybe, maybe not. It's irrelevant to the thread, court case and same sex marriage.

 

It's precisely why I don't want the SC ruling on this social issue, which is obviously a social and civil issue(and would remain such if NOT for the Federal Benefits). When's the last time the Court has rendered a middle-ground ruling, which enabled both sides to get what they want? The SCOTUS does not arbitrate justice. It has a CRAPPY record, going back to Slavery.

So expecting the Court now to weigh the legitimate interests of gays and heterosexual Christianity and coming up with a middle-ground ruling to satisfy both is like expecting lightning to strike. Someone is going to lose in this case, and that may or may not be disastrous. I wouldn't be surprised if they file appeals, and it still remains a court battle.

 

Any child born in a same sex marriage obligates both spouses as legal parents.

 

Interesting true story... relevant to this issue.

Met a poster on another site who was in a committed gay relationship. He and his SO adopted a little girl who was the light of their lives. Her pic was his avatar and everyday he posted updates on her. They were very loving and devoted parents.

Last year, the guy who shared his lil girls life with us decided he's really a woman and proceeded to make the change. Unfortunately, his spouse didn't approve, saying if he wanted to be with someone who identifies as female, he wouldn't be gay.

They split... the girl went with the one who left and our friend the transgendered went into a deep depression, never again mentioning their child.

He tried posting on PF for a bit, but his openness resulted in lots of negative feedback and he left and hasn't been back.

Point of the story is this... most gays have lots of psychological issues and it's a shame to drag innocent children into that mess. Hopefully the SC is also considering this unintended consequence of legalizing gay marriage. We'll see.

 

What does this made up story have to do with anything I said?

 

Your declaration that gays are equally responsible for children. Not sure where you pulled that from, but it's simply not true.

As illustrated by a peek into the real world

Kids are often a passing fancy for gays. Just like marriage.

 

Psychological issues are a human trait. The notion they are linked to one's sexual preference is ridiculous.

 

So? Why do you care who gets married? I sure don't. If both are adults, then it shouldn't be a problem. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

 

Marriage is defined differently by different cultures.

 

if the law is out of it, everyone can get married, anyone and everyone, you can't say you want the gov out of it and then say except for these groups

 

Unlike hetrosexual couples who stay married forever and are perfect parents at all times ...

 

have you ever noticed how the worst case is invariably assumed for gay couples
and the best case is invariably assumed for straight couples
i wonder WHY that is?

 

and same gender couples could be the guardians of record just as opposite gender couples

you can't make discriminatory laws in other areas either

so I am ok with either way

though I do think when you spouse dies you should not be taxed for their half of your stuff, marriage prevents that.... we would have to add new IRS rules to prevent that

.

 

Looks like you have no idea what the thread is about. I shouldnt have to explain it to you in multiple ways.

 

Tell that to the 30+ states with gay marriage that prohibit closely related couples from marrying. And I have a problem with government using the discrimination of marriage to promote homosexuality. Promoting homosexuality isn't a legitimate governmental interest. The constitution requires ALL discrimination to be at a minimum to be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest.