Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Might I add ditto? Regardless of what dixon or others may say, it has been determined by the Supreme Court that same sex partners have a right to marry. No ifs...ands...or buts. End of discussion. That is of course should dixon like to continue on with his tiresome blathering and bloviating and with whomever cares to engage him.

 

Why because one is based upon the Constitutional requirements of equal protection. The other is not. Don't confuse your inability to comprehend for something it is not.

 

Says the fool who says

When the entire, linked to page doesn't even mention children.

 

Nope, Zablocki was about the Constitutional right to marriage.

 

Well, it hasn't happened yet and do you really think marriage laws were written to accommodate this yet to be performed medical procedure or do you think they were written to take into account the 100% of births that did not occur using that method? And not to mention that any two consenting adults could have a child using alternative methods. Does nothing for the arguments for gay marriage.

 

which was centered around a law about child support in arrears. which is in no way relevant or supportive of your argument.

 

My comment he was responding to had nothing to do with the supreme court decision and was instead about progressives linked to article. If either of you boys can locate your nads, be specific and actually contradict something I have stated.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for your usual contribution of irrelevancy.

 

pointing out your quoting out of context and lying isn't irrelevant, lol.

It directly refutes your argument.

 

Wow. You're just too stupid and dishonest to continue.

Welcome to Planet Ignore. Population: you.

 

He will continue. He is impervious to reason, logic or the truth.

 

The fact that you have to keep calling me and others "fool" and "stupid" tells us all that we need to know about your level of emotional and intellectual functioning. If you had bothered to read Kennedy's majority opinion, and if you had it in you to be honest about it, you would know that he had much to say about children and marriage.

The simple facts that you can't face up to are that gay people and couples have children. It does not matter how they have children and those children are as valuable and have the same rights as any other children. Furthermore, the same sex parents have the same responsibility and legal obligations to those children as their heterosexual counterparts. Lastly, children benefit from having married parents regardless of what is between the legs of those parents

Please spare us any further dishonest, distorted and bizarre bovine excrement on this.

 

it's called trolling

 

You didn't link to Kennedys majority opinion and instead linked to your silly article telling us to pay attention to what is not there.

 

@ JeffLV

That is the correct way to argue points.

I appreciate good arguments. I believe the constitution does give both principles and solid points.

For instance, what I call the top part of the constitution, that which tells Government, vs what explains rights of the public, is bifurcated.

There really should be little to dispute when it comes to what comes first, above the "bill of rights."

Seems to me that the "bill of rights" is pretty explicit as well.

A lot of the problem is not with the original part, but that which was tagged on many years later.

Such as the 14th amendment.

So, what was it's principal? We know what it says.

I believe the principle is that we all get equal treatment.

Homosexuals believe they did not get equal treatment. That I believe sums up their complaints.

But there are a lot of things where the public is not treated equally. Who can argue that a man earning a million dollars per year is treated equal to the man earning $50,000?

Yet a common theme, even with the Democrat homosexuals, is that kind of unequal is fine. So what happened to the principles?

The Arms agreement was post the upper part of the constitution and tagged on to make sure the public had weapons. The type then was as you say, muskets, cannon and mortars, etc.

I would tend to think as arms advanced, so would the arms of the public advance. That is my principle.

 

You really don't have anything of substance to contribute here but seem to have an infinite supply of things to say about me. String together a few words and make a relevant argument if you can.

- - - Updated - - -

It DIRECTLY contradicts yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Revealing what you boys consider logic and reason.

 

well, since it was completely irrelevant, was quoted dishonestly and out of context, and didn't support your argument, it by definition didn't contradict mine, lol.

 

No one is disputing that gays have the right to marry. You don't even know what is being debated here. But you people are fond of running from the actual debates as fast as you can.

 

lol, who is running? Every single point you've tried to make, including outright fabricating, has been thoroughly demolished. Nobody is running from anything, lol.

 

DIRECTLY

SOOOO inexorably linked that a prohibition against the plaintiff from marrying was considered a denial of his right to procreation.

 

again, the case is completely irrelevant to the point you try to argue. the case was about child support in arrears. you remain refuted.

 

We have some logs on the railroad tracks where they feel by attacking posters that do not agree with them amounts to a decent argument.

And though they scatter logs for you and for myself, I see the logs. The argument I offer really boils down to the writing of the 4 Justices that dissented.

I like this as well, an evaluation of the Roberts commentary on the ruling.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26...uotes-from-john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/

I have long argued that to the public, to the states legislatures and last to the DC legislature, marriage has a clear meaning.

It has been the sole meaning for the past umpteen zillion years, or since the founding of the USA.

It has been a man to a woman.

No particular purpose or reason was assigned to validate marriage. But a law is what a law is.

A red light law does not apply to breaking and entering. Must I explain that?

Homosexuals are not together due to children. While a few might adopt, and a few females who have children prior to them "coming out", the marriage law puts no particular burden on couples to have children, but when you look at things like tax law, one knows that children are deductions and one assumes the legislature by doing this showed deference to children of the couple.

A man marries a woman with 2 kids. Prior to marriage, he has no deductions for children. Post marriage, the tax law kicks in and the wording of the law covers it. If the former husband provides the support, the new guy can't claim the deduction. So we can see the deduction is not for marriage, it is for child support.

Let me try to sum up the dissent.

Marriage is a very old condition. Marriage never included homosexuals.

I think the homosexual crowd has this idea they are missing out on something though I am not clear what they think they missed out on.

A lot of them claim they want to be in charge when the "other" is ill in the hospital. This seems to me to be hospital rules or maybe state law. I don't believe the Feds care. So why not have legal permission to show to the hospital? Surely when the other person dies, the law says a will has to be in force, either their will or the will the state provides all of us.

I don't get it at all. I believe many homosexuals did not wish to call attention to this and simply wanted to be left alone to live their life. Long ago, homosexuals would be attacked for exposing what they do. Most of the public simply did not care. Some did. Some beat up homosexuals. This of course is against the law and those doing the fighting deserve lawful punishment.

I encourage the law to deal with thugs who beat up people.

But even when I and millions in CA voted, trying hard to help homosexuals, we got really slammed hard for our efforts.

We really did try to help them. My aim was to fix the problem so they did not need to beg the law for marriage.

I have heard men tell another man, go ahead and get married. You have no more right to happiness than I have.

 

Im not arguing a point and am instead refuting yours. And as the court stated, the case is about the right o marriage and procreation.

 

Legislatures AND courts

"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple".

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"

" i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society."


In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis...."

 

Actually, what homosexuals managed to do is get themselves included but those still excluded are those not married.

So, the male living with the female these past 20 years, with children yet no marriage are still excluded.

 

Don't confuse your bigoted opinion with the facts. Both Loving and Obergefell are based upon the Constitutional requirements of equal protection- the 14th Amendment. Neither is 'legislation'- both overturn equally unconstitutional state laws.

From Obergefell
Like Loving and Zablocki, these precedents show the Equal Protection Clause can help to identify and correct inequalities in the institution of marriage, vindicating precepts of liberty and equality under the Constitution.
The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.
A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same effect—and, like Bowers, would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment.

From Loving
whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.


Both cases found that the State laws violated both the Equal Protection and the Due Process clause of the Constitution.
Both cases the Supreme Court overturned state laws that restricted the freedom of specifically discriminated couples from marrying.

You call one 'legislating' and call the other....well whatever you want to call it.

A remarkable double standard.