A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

WRONG

A marriage exists because the applicants applied for a marriage license.

"A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

https://thelawdictionary.org/license/

 

The word marriage has and always did have a specific meaning. That is not affected by the 14th Amendment. The issue is, you cannot change the meaning of words to suit your needs.

Can you get "married?" Yes. Do you need a license? NO. Will that entitle you to the privileges and immunities of heterosexual couples? NO. Why? Marriage is legally defined as a union between one man and one woman. If you seek the government's permission, you are bound by their laws.

You may have the power to force your will on others. You still lack the authority. I oppose what you're saying on legal principle. What you want is a prelude to bad precedents that end in tyranny and oppression.

 

No it isn’t.

And the gender of the couple is not something that can be used to limit it. Neither can race.

 

Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. That IS the legal limit.

 

Well, that is demonstrably incorrect, as 1 man and 1man, 1 woman and 1 woman have been marrying legally for some time now.

 

And how many times have you heard the radical right bitch when undocumented immigrants are given the privileges and benefits of citizenship by state and local governments?

 

I have no idea what this has to do with the fact you were wrong about the definition of marriage?

 

I'm quoting from Black's Law Dictionary so I don't know how in the Hell you figure I'm wrong. Dude, you really need to do some serious research. In my own home state, this is the state law:

OCGA 19-3-3.1 Marriages between persons of same sex prohibited; marriages not recognized

(a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage
.
https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/georgia/

"Marriage - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition)

There is not one word in the entire Constitution of the United States giving the United States Supreme Court the authority to change the meaning of words. Their sole authority rests in interpreting the law, not redefining the meaning of the English language.

I concede that the Courts have the power, but they don't have the authority. Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

George Washington warned:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." (Farewell Address)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

You were saying????

 

Nope RIGHT!

All legal marriages exist because of recognition by the government.

The license is a permit but denial of the permit (without just cause) is what is illegal in this case.

There was a time when my own marriage would have been considered illegal in certain states because my wife and I are of different races. Then the courts (who are a branch of government) weighed in and said that states didn't have the right to ban us from marriage. A small percentage of people still think we shouldn't have that right but SCOTUS has found in favor of us not them. It was the government that was acting in an illegal fashion by denying us access to a marriage license, as was our right.

Same with SSM. It was SCOTUS who declared that state governments denying marriage licenses to otherwise similarly or IDENTICALLY situated same sex couples were acting in contravention of the constitution. In other words they were acting illegally by not recognizing the RIGHT of same sex couples to marry.

The ability to procreate has been found (past tense because it's over now) irrelevant to any couples', gay or straight, right to have their marriages recognized in law.

In some counties, such as Ireland, you would be closer to the truth in saying that same-sex marriage came by permission of referendum but that's not the way the law works here.

 

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. If you apply for a license, you do NOT have the Right. Let me repeat the same thing I just told rahl AND also see my previous post:

I'm quoting from Black's Law Dictionary so I don't know how in the Hell you figure I'm wrong. Dude, you really need to do some serious research. In my own home state, this is the state law:

OCGA 19-3-3.1 Marriages between persons of same sex prohibited; marriages not recognized

(a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage
.
https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/georgia/

"Marriage - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition)

There is not one word in the entire Constitution of the United States giving the United States Supreme Court the authority to change the meaning of words. Their sole authority rests in interpreting the law, not redefining the meaning of the English language.

I concede that the Courts have the power, but they don't have the authority. Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

George Washington warned:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitutiondesignates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." (Farewell Address)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

You were saying????

 

We have legally changed the definition of marriage..why is that so hard for you to comprehend? And yes, gay marriages are bound by the same laws that heterosexuals are bound by

 

I don't care what you've challenged Renee. I've stipulated that you may have the power, but you certainly lack the authority. Let me draw you an analogy:

A man walks into a restaurant. He has a gun. He demands your money. You don't have a gun. So, you give him the money. He has the power to take your money, but he lacked the authority. Now, let's look at the principle of bad precedents:

America was founded as a homeland for whites. That infuriated the liberals of the day and then they illegally ratified the 14th Amendment. Then the Courts decided to ignore the intent (at least according to the anti - immigrant people) of that illegally ratified Amendment, giving citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents came here without papers. And, so, we are in a situation where it could end in an internal war. Why? Did you read my earlier post quoting Jefferson and Washington? What you're arguing is the same, exact legal principle!

I'm not disputing what the Courts ruled. I'm only telling you they lacked the authority. As a result, this dispute ends in chaos and tyranny.

 

You just crossed the line when you said "legally defined". So, does the State grant you your rights or do you have your rights naturally?

 

You do have the right not withstanding some other mis-qualification such as being already married or not having reached the age of consent. Beyond that, if you qualify the government can't withhold access to the contract from you because that is your right.

No need, I'm reading all the posts so I can stay up to speed.

It's SCOTUS that says you're wrong in this instance re: Obergefell. I'm just relaying the information.

I've been researching this for the best part of 15 years and arguing it on here for over 10.

No it's not because State law is subject to Federal review and Georgia's law restricting access to the marriage contract from same-sex couples has been thusly overturned by the Obergefell decision.

Like I said, overturned by Obergefell.

Black's law dictionary is an opinion on the law and it's entries change as the law changes. Thus the current edition says this:

"Bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution
The foundation for the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was the Fourteenth Amendment process and equal protection provisions. Denying a marriage license to a couple solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parties was preventing same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights and benefits granted to other couples."

They didn't change the meaning. The rights, responsibilities and duties of a married couple are the same regardless of the gender of the participants.

The didn't change the meaning. The legal precedents of the marriage contract are the same regardless of the gender of the participants.

The authority is the Obergefell decision and the power to enforce its incidents lies with the justice system including but not limited to: power of attorney, custody rights, effects of divorce (alimony etc.); all the legal dealings that are the same regardless of the couple's gender.

That's where it ends as far as the law is concerned. If other groups such as churches and other religious (and non-religious) entities want to add further restrictions upon their members/congregations etc., they can. But what they can't do is restrict the legal rights of lawfully married couples.

It's interesting to read Jefferson and Washington's opinions but they're:

A) Ambiguous in the context of this discussion.

B) Not controlling in current US law.

 

IF I apply for a license, the state grants me permission. If I exercise an unalienable Right, I do so by a Right that exists above the government's jurisdiction.

If you have a Right to get married, do it. Don't ask permission. While this is a few years old, it explains the legal community's view:

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-kelsey-samesex-marriage.php

For this reason, if you ask permission (i.e. obtain a marriage license) you negate any argument that you had a Right. It's that simple. You don't ask permission to exercise a Right. Now, since government marriages are controlled by the states, they get to determine what is and what is not a marriage - ACCORDING to their viewpoint. If they don't issue a license, then you don't get the government benefits associated with that union. If you're getting married for the benefits, you're getting married for the wrong reasons.

You can go to some preachers - or maybe some social guru in a community that recognizes a Right to marry. An example:

http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/

The United States Supreme Court has become the land of political propaganda prostitution and you may think you're winning because they say marriage is a "right." It isn't. It is a private matter and most people I've known have used a minister or other non-government entity to officiate at their wedding. Bear this in mind: For everything you gain, there is something lost. If you agree to be a 14th Amendment subject, the government can tell you that necrophilia and animal sacrifice is a Liberty. It's only because they have some power. As you'll find out under Trump, many times those things you thought were rights (sic) will become very fluid.

 

Well a wedding cake is it cake with icing on it and icing makes it a wedding cake as well as the event it is consumed at. So I ask you what's the difference between a wedding cake for a heterogeneous couple and a wedding cake for a homogeneous couple?

Is it the cake itself that the person of jext to or is it the actions of the people who are purchasing it that he objects to?

What if I was a baker and I objected to interracial marriage? Could I deny service to someone because their spouse is Black or White Oriental? What if I disagreed with Interfaith relationships can I deny someone a cake because their spouse or they are Jewish or Hindu or Christian?

Jewish Hindu and Christian are lifestyle choice but they're also predicted by the Civil Rights Act. So no I couldn't discriminate against those things.

So are you fighting for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act or at least part of it? It does set precedence for anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuals. Even if you think it's a lifestyle choice. Religion most certainly is a lifestyle choice and I am forbidden by the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against people based on that.

 

I have responded to this moronic line of illogical nonsense over and over and over again.

I have stipulated that the Courts have the POWER to do what they did. I challenged the AUTHORITY. My views are not about what the current law is. Neither is it the subject of this thread - which you obviously cannot understand. The question IS (in the OP) 'A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL OPPOSED TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE."

The question is not about what the law is. It is about why some of us are opposed to same sex marriage. We already know what the law is. Most people also know (whether they admit it or not) that we are living under a de facto / illegal system of government that treats the Constitution like a piece of toilet paper. As soon as they flush it down the toilet, the arguments will come up again - and you won't be able to hide behind a document that has been disrespected, dishonored, and made into a sick joke.

Unless you have something related to the OP, you and I are done. Repeating the same posts over and over is childish. Only nazis keep repeating the same thing over and over again to try and make it come true. Our laws are very fluid. The truth is NOT. Any time you apply for a license, you forfeit the Right (presuming you had one.) That is the law and no amount of political jockeying will ever change that fact.

 

Your post is mostly non-responsive. Giving women the privilege of voting did NOT change the meaning of the word women.

Second point: IF we lived in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders, the parents could decide who is and who is not qualified to teach their children.

The OP did not ask what the law is or is not. The OP asked why some were still opposed to the law. Now, if you were a rape victim and all your jurors were men and they didn't think rape was such a big deal, you'd be complaining. They don't know what it's like.

Parents have a Right to have input as to who teaches their children. It is a parental issue and then a community issue. NOBODY has a Right to impose themselves in the families of others OR communities of those who want to have their own standards. Not me, not you, not gays.

 

And you're still wrong.

I understand just fine thank you.

I understand just fine thank you.

Fine with me, I'll accept the status quo.

I'm not repeating, I'm directly extrapolating on the content of your posts. That is, the posts that aren't red ink in-beds that are much harder to quote and respond to.

Well that's exactly what the anti-SSM forces did at every level of legal loss: District, Appeal and ultimately SCOTUS so what does that tell you?

(Moreso the fact that they're still doing it, even now)...

There's some truth to that.

Then why did you omit to post the section of Black's Law that directly contradicted the point you were trying to use it to make and ignore it when I brought that up?

The right is for the individual not to be rejected access to a contract available freely to other citizens for arbitrary reasons which can't even stand up to the most basic legal scrutiny.

Get rid of all marriage laws and you'll end the unconstitutional discrimination.

 

Which was done. However, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

Would it be right to give all white males a specific tax break but no one else? No. 1138 specific rights and benefits? No.

I'm against special rights and privileges for special people. We should all be treated the same.

 

If you believe in private property rights, as well as all of the Bill of Rights, then you have to allow people the freedom to discriminate.

The govt cannot discriminate, individuals can - and individuals always have and always will.

If a person builds a private business and wants to deny service to blacks, or adulterers, or Christians, or people who are carrying a firearm, or someone who wrote a bad review on the business, then that's their right.

Your flaw is that you think that if people are allowed to use their property (which includes their time and money and skills and labor) unhindered, then all businesses will not serve some class of people. That's clearly ridiculous. Even today when a Christian baker refuses to make a cake for a same sex wedding, a dozen other bakeries step up to offer to make the cake. And before you bring up Jim Crow, Jim Crow was govt sponsored discrimination, and even in that case individuals fought against it.

Leave people alone. People don't need busy bodies telling them how to live and act.

 

The issue of any kind of a legal marriage is not really about whether or not we have the right to have the government recognize one, but more of if a law is made then it needs to apply regardless of sex/gender, age (ability to consent is as close as you could get to that), religion, race, etc. In other words, while the government is not required to provide a legal marriage system, if they decide to do so, it must be equally accessible to all who consent to enter into it. This is the basis by which it will probably rather easy (relativity speaking) to get incest marriage recognized (especially among those who are not blood related) but not polygamy, because limiting it to two individuals does not violate the ability of any individual from accessing the legal institution.

 

When someone gets a certification to open a business, there are laws. Don’t forget these businesses get government assistance like tax breaks and other write offs.
Sounds to me like you are yearning for Jim Crow laws.Damn I thought those days were behind us.

 

What special rights for special people are you against? There is a difference between being treated the same and being treated equally.

 

I understand that the poster is banned. Not sure if he was on my last response to one of his posts. I was a little divided attention then. However, some points just need to be addressed, just because.

No one has any right to be accepted into any community automatically. Acceptance is never required. Tolerance and allowance (as in you must allow one at a place) might be, but never acceptance. Your view on the use of the word acceptance may vary.

A parent does indeed have a limited right to choose who they will allow to teach their children, insofar as it is their right to choose which school they attend and/or method of schooling their child(ren) receive. It is not the right of the parent to tell the school who they will or will not hire.