Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

As far as I can tell the decision still left marriage between two persons and all the other restrictions in place save gender pairings requiring gender to be off the table, which is a Federal protected consideration, by banning two men or women from marrying the States unfairly restricted marriage which is under State laws to Men and Women pairings only that is what is unconstitutional. So close blood ties, plural marriage and other considerations so far apply and are unlikely to change. The Court didn't need to consider that slippery slope issue since it was considering only the case before them they will deal with other cases as they come up.

 

That's because the concern isn't with married couples having or not having children and the concern is instead unmarried couples doing so. Most common alternative to being born to their married mother and father is being born to a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father. Not a problem among homosexual couples as their coupling doesn't lead to procreation.

 

It is my belief that due to the reasoning in said case, it will spill over to the things I spoke of.

If two men may marry, why can't some sister marry her mom or her father as the Phillips girl and her father spoke of doing in her book?

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mackenzie-phillips-sexual-affair-dad/story?id=8647172

 

I have no idea what you mean by a "gay partnership".

And, the issue is equality for same sex couples - which the US government does not even provide TODAY, let alone any time in US history.

 

The woman and husband are considered adults or the law would ban them marrying.

The two are equals.

But the real protection provided by marriage is the children.

This dates back per my research to at least ancient Roman law. The usa uses a lot of law that was put into the legal code by the Romans.

- - - Updated - - -

I hoped you understood how laws work.

To elaborate, homosexuals won the marriage right only because heterosexuals had the right. They claim they gained equality. But how can they be equal while others such as I named are not equals? See the connection to the case now?

 

Dude, I do NOT believe that a year after Obergefell you are talking about baker.

"for want of a substantial federal question" Obviously, the current court, by virtue of the SIMPLE FACT that they heard the case shows that they no longer believe that there is a "want of a substantial federal question" That is the SIMPLE answer and the only one needed.

In addition, even before Obergefell, Baker was pretty much dead.

 

Not at all. I'm not obligated to prefer your version of what the purpose of marriage is to my own deeper understanding of the word.

So, what you're doing here is attempting to "straightsplain" marriage to me, as if I were dropped here by aliens, and as if I knew nothing about the history of marriage, which at one time was actually a business transaction between two men - the groom and the male relative responsible for the woman, who was looked upon more as a form of property. Today, there is more equity in marriage between the sexes. As for the legal institution being about protecting children, there are laws predicated on marriage that do this, but marriage itself remains an agreement between two people, who may or may not produce children.

Seriously, don't presume that you understand more about marriage than I do.

Did you campaign to stop marriage between a man and a woman too old to bear him children? Did you campaign to terminate the legal recognition of a marriage after the woman reaches such an advanced age, or in the case where one spouse or the other has had surgery to prevent further conceiving of children? If not, then I don't buy that you really believe a marriage is about bearing children.

It's nothing like that at all. Two people of the same sex have just as much ability to enter into the agreement of marriage by their mutual consent as any opposite-sex couple. And no, that isn't about pleasing you either, nor about your personally held beliefs concerning marriage. Maybe it's time you realized as much.

Go right ahead and continue feeling superior to "homosexuals", for all the good it will do you or anyone else.

 

So I can deal with what you said as opposed to dealing with my former comments ... I will take a good run at this.

I don't see a bit of proof on your part that your understanding of marriage is even as deep as mine is, much less deeper than mine. But if you want to feel superior, that was your best shot. (notice, when posters fire at me, I fire back)

I would expect aliens to be far more curious and act as if I am an equal human being.

I maintain that in the beginning, and even until the most recent change of laws, so far as society cares, they care most about the children and give the children of marriage the most protection. So much so said protection survives a divorce of the parents. And said protection lasts until the age the children are deemed to be adults.

This is not normally a concern of homosexuals. Sure, some will adopt. Some of the women will do what? Mate as heterosexuals mate? Science at a great expense can also produce a child for the female but the shortcut is to have a male get her pregnant.

If you know more about this than I know, why don't you understand how in the USA the law provides cover for the children that lasts past the divorce?

Take alimony for instance. I am familiar with CA law and it provides that for 50 percent of the term of marriage. But for the kids, till they are 18.

Example: Couple are married and have two kids. Marriage ends at 3 years. Alimony lasts 18 month but support for the kids lasts up to 15 more years or so.

Based on your argument, clearly when there are adults who are quite pleased to have incestual marriages, your argument allows for that. So why don't you argue in favor of such couples? MacKenzie Phillips was famous for having sex with her father for 10 years. That is more than some married couples have then divorce.

What the elderly do who marry, since the law was one man to a woman, why would I wish to break them up? But if they bore kids, those kids were still entitled to full protection per the law.

 

Talk to Rahl who thinks it was a district court decision that Obergefell didn't need to overturn

 

Exact same thing you mean by a "civil union" of course.

 

Only heterosexual couples have the potential to perpetuate the human species through procreation. Government cant make homosexuals equal to heterosexual couples

 

Not sure of the relevance of your point to my quoted post.

 

I agree with you is how to take it.

 

Who is allowed to marry has never been about procreative ability.

And, that of course includes that Windsor wasn't about procreative ability.

So, I don't know how you got so confused, but let's try to get back on topic.

 

Is that supposed to be a response to the points that I made? A pretty pathetic avoidance to be sure. Baker is irrelevant and so are you and your ilk.

 

Alimony and child support are two separate issues.

Alimony is dependent on marriage laws- and childless spouses can still be required to pay alimony.
Child support is dependent on laws regarding legal parentage and child custody, and unmarried parents still owe child support.

Really doesn't support your position at all.

If marriage was all about protecting children, then divorces would only be granted if it were based upon the best interest of the children- but over half of the states have no fault divorce- the courts do not look at the best interest of the children when it comes to granting the divorce.

Marriage law doesn't care whether or not the couple can have children- except to specify that in some states some couples cannot be allowed to marry if they can have children.

Parenting laws don't care whether the couple are married or not- the obligation comes with being determined to be the legal parent.

The only cross over are the laws which assume parentage by marriage- which interestingly enough ignore biological parentage to create the legal fiction of parentage.

- - - Updated - - -

Government can make homosexual couple equal to every heterosexual couple that does not have the potential to procreate the species.

And guess what- now they are legally equal.

 

Do you really believe that crap Robert? Either your are knowingly making it up, you are woefully uninformed, or there is a daemon on your shoulder whispering nonsense into your ear. Which is it?

The fact is that Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion specifically stated that the ruling means that same sex couples have the same rights that opposite sex couples have under the laws of their states with respect to marriage. To say that

Is completely nonsensical. Anyone who wants further changes to marriage laws must bring a case to the courts or attempt to have legislation passed. Each of the other variations on marriage have their own legal and social implications and must be defended and opposed on their own merits. If you want to marry your mother go for it. My guess is that the state will be able to convince a court that their is a compelling government interest in opposing it- unlike their failure to do so in the case of same sex marriage. Get real dude!

 

What is odd about your statement is if marriage was about procreation- then why would you oppose incestuous marriage? There is nothing about Perriquine's statement which supports incestual marriage- but your claim that marriage is for the protection of kids would logically include protecting the kids of couplings by marriage.

The state doesn't care whether a couple has any potential for procreation when it comes to allowing them to marry. The state doesn't care whether the couple has children when it comes to allowing their divorce.

But suddenly when it comes to homosexuals- then you want the State to suddenly declare marriage is about procreation.

 

When people marry, I lose any interest in what they do. This includes homosexuals getting married.

I believe marriage is a legal term, until lately, that is specifically there due to children of the man to the woman.

Such children of heterosexual children have no automatic rights. Except from the mother. She gets tagged.

So, your idea I don't care about the children is rebutted.

 

There is no difference related to children. Same sex couples can have children through a number of means that are used by heterosexual couples as well - inheritance, adoption, previous relationships, surrogacy, IVF, etc.

Please remember that state marriage includes a support commitment which is of significant value to the state.

 

Coitus for the two women is not an option then. Two men can't conceive.

But keep in mind, that until extremely recently in the USA a man could not legally marry a man nor a woman marry her own sex.

But also keep in mind that most of the reason for the law being involved with people who have kids is the kids. Kids lack natural protection.

Here are 76 countries that simply ban homosexual marriages.

So if you got married in the USA believing those 79 countries would accept you, think twice. They may put you into jail.

 

This is just more of your same old same old, with nothing to back it up.

I already pointed out how many ways ANY married couple can acquire children. In fact, even single individuals have ALL those methods available!!

Here is where you went wrong: You thought marriage was restricted to those who were capable of procreation without outside help.

And, that's just plain never been the case - either with state marriage or with religious marriage.

 

Actually, I did not say restricted so you made that up.

I talked of purpose. And how the laws were structured.

I am not clear what religious marriage means given that in the USA only permits to marry were used to marry.

 

Seriously...why does anyone care whether gay's can get married or not??

I certainly don't care.

AA

 

You're getting more lost in each post.

Remember when I posted this to you: "Please remember that state marriage includes a support commitment which is of significant value to the state. "

And now, you don't even understand the difference between state and religious marriage!

You need to do some reading and regroup.