Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

I suppose it is your opinion that they still don't? Doesn't change the fact that same-sex couples are now provided recognition of their marriages.

Not taking your bait.

What specific aspect did you want them to address?

That's not what I asked you to do. I asked you to show me where the Court had ever done the sort of the thing you're demanding in a case that arrived before them under the same circumstances as Baker - via a since obsolete automatic appeal process where a case was dismissed via a single sentence without a full hearing on the merits. Show me a case like that where they overturned and said "The Court erred...." etc. If you think they should have done so in Baker, then it stands to reason that they must have done so before, if we're to believe that this is what the Court is supposed to do.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to acknowledge that the Court has no obligation to do what you're demanding they should have, then we can dispense with this whole distraction.

 

I provided the link in post #175.

Here is the current statute:
A civil marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. A lawful civil marriage may be contracted only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the civil marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.

That is the current version as of 2013.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=517.01

Here is the version from 1905
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=70.3552&year=1905
'every male person....'every female person'- not one word about requiring the two persons be of the opposite gender.

The statute did not require or specify.

Even as it did specify that the parties could not get married if either of them was still married, or feeble minded- matter of fact is listed exactly who was not able to get married.

And same gender couples are not listed.

So we have established you have not been able to come up with a single statute that specifically prohibited same gender marriage- why do you think that all of those states- including Minnesota passed laws starting in the 1970's to specifically exclude same gender marriages?

You don't have 'ready access to the Minn statutes?

I provided the link in post #175- and you responded to it- its almost like you don't want to see the actual facts which contradict you

 

I answered what I thought was relevant and worthy of address. If you would like to point me in the direction of something specific that you think I should have addressed but didn't, I will consider doing so.

If, on the other hand, all you've got left is telling me to get over myself and whining that I didn't give your remarks the attention that you think they deserved, then I doubt there's anything productive that will result from you trying to engage me this way.

 

I know. 14th Amendment blah blah blah.

 

Well, I went back to see what you said and my replies to you. In point of fact, I see where I asked you questions that you haven't even attempted to answer.

I feel your points and questions were sufficiently addressed. The characterization above tells us that you apparently just don't like the answers. I'm under no obligation whatsoever to tell you what you want to hear. I'm not part of some echo chamber.

So since you apparently have nothing responsive or of substance to add, I think we're done. I'm not going to trade one-liners with you.

 

Was I wrong?

 

not sure how pointing out a correct statement I made has anything to do with the fact you keep lying about an explanation being provided?

 

About what? Seriously - I'm on the verge of just ignoring you.

 

Well, until very recently, the term marriage never applied to two females living as a couple nor two men living as a couple.

What you ignore is the purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a law or institution was crafted by laws that gave the children the most protection. The wife and husband also were protected but far and away was the right of the innocent children of the union to be protected.

When
I voted in CA for the civil union, I believed i was righting a problem they uniquely had.

Homosexuality is a condition of a very few. Marriage was for those who could bear children and had a husband having coitus with the woman.

It is like handicapped people have rights i lack. They have the right to have a ramp built so they don't have to climb stairs. I may use the ramp but it was not built to please me, but the handicapped in wheel chairs.

The blind have, in my city, unique ways to find out a traffic light turned green. There is speakers saying the light is now green to cross X or Y street. But no way was that done to please me.

Homosexuals wanted to have their cake and eat it to by using laws designed for a man to a woman.

 

Nor do they have any relevance to 2 sterile heterosexuals. Which is why procreation is irrelevant to marriage, and why your argument lost in court.

 

The statement

is a lie.

 

WTF are you talking about ... thousands of couples get married without ever intending to have children. Many have exchanged marriage vows well AFTER the
years of viable conception. Nobody ever raised red flags about the use of the term "marriage" for people who could not have children.

And gay couples do have, and care for, children - so why should children who live in gay households not be "protected" by allowing their parents to marry just
as in heterosexual households?

None of your objections make any sense.

 

uh, it's a legal fact. Baker didn't apply to all districts, just the one. Which is why the only federal district court that sided with baker, had to because it was the only district bound by the precedent.

 

Most heterosexual;l couples aren't sterile and it doesn't make it irrelevant and instead makes it overinclusive. Its like prohibiting two brothers from marrying because if one of them was a sister, they might procreate.

 

I don't know what the heck you think was "equal" at the federal level, but even today same sex marriages are affected by the remaining DOMA section, so there is no equality TODAY, let alone at any other time in US history.

 

Silly, Baker wasn't a District Court decision. It is a United States Supreme Court precedent that applied to the US.

 

No, they were not.

Why lie about such an easily disproved matter?

 

Both a California gay marriage and a California gay partnership were treated identical in all ways by the federal government before DOMA was struck down.

- - - Updated - - -

"WERE" being the operative word.
BEFORE DOMA WAS removed Einstein. They were identical. Why lie about matters you know nothing about.

 

I get it. You hold the homosexual view of life.

Did you forget about the many many homosexuals who never have children nor desire children?

I am still, after a lot of research I must add, believe that to society, the good of marriage ensures the safety and well being of children. The fact not all hetrosexuals that marry have children is of no importance to the basics of the law.

Matter of fact, a huge number of heterosexuals not having children never feel the need to marry.

Those in certain tax brackets never will marry since there is that marriage penalty to pay.

 

No, its a lie you've repeated 100 times. For others who aren't so indoctrinated.

 

The impact of the court decision has plenty of spill over.

It will allow the close family member that wants to marry a father, a mother, a brother, a sister or other family members to marry each other.
It will allow the sect called the reformed LDS to get married. I believe it will lead to the head of that church getting out of prison. How can he be punished for marrying multiple women when homosexuals now may marry?

It makes no sense. Even the age restrictions where the parents of the girl give parental consent, since they are the legal guardians of the daughter can be struck down.

Homosexuals really made a huge mess of marriage laws.

 

nope, makes it irrelevant. which is why the argument lost in court.

it actually nothing like that at all.

 

No, they weren't identical.

Why keep pretending otherwise?

 

Of course it was. It went to SCOTUS on mandatory appeal. They refused to hear the case which left the districts ruling in place. It had no effect on any other district.

nope, it didn't apply outside that district. That's why only one district court was bound by it and was the only court that ruled to uphold same sex marriage bans.

 

yes it was precedent, in that district only. which is why no other district was bound by the ruling, except that one.

lol, you are terrible at this.

- - - Updated - - -

actually this court ruling has nothing what so ever to do with anything you mentioned above.