Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

I get that even for American citizens, not all are treated equally. I am a pilot. If you are not licensed as I am, it is totally illegal for you to fly any airplane.

So much for all are equal by law.

If you have a fishing license, since I never at any time purchase one, you can legally fish. In this, you are equal to those with licenses but do you want me to snivel that I can't legally fish? Probably not.

The act of marriage takes place post the obtaining of the marriage license. Until some states stated homosexuals can use the same license and the same term .... to wit: marriage, states simply never agreed to license homosexuals.

Rail at me all damned day if you are of a mind, but I happen to understand law and how it works.

 

Then why do you feel the need to control the lives of other gay people? Isn't it their business if they get married? I've been married to the same woman
for 24 years - it does not change in the slightest my marriage standing to let gay people marry - it has exactly ZERO impact on my life. But to the
couples who do marry it might mean better financial security, a more committed relationship, stability for their children.

Why would you want to deny them this? What possible difference does it make in your life?

 

The question of legal same sex marriage came up when a county clerk in Colorado issued 6 licenses to same sex couples. Prior to that, there was not a law prohibiting
such an action. It was only after that that laws were passed preventing same sex couples from legally attaining a marriage license. It was a privilege TAKEN AWAY -
not a privilege given.

That is what the Supreme Court decided when the struck down marriage bans. They did not create same sex marriage - they merely returned what
was previously taken away.

 

Seems from your story that Colorado had a rogue working as a county clerk.

 

Wait, are you telling me you are so good at knowing law that in your view, homosexuals were harmed by you and your woman's marriage? I know you said your marriage is not harmed, but try the argument I just told you.

I find that for the majority of Americans, we are literally swamped with laws. Laws we never have read nor likely to ever read.

Most of the American public is so ignorant of law, they can't even tell you the laws in their local town very well.

You seem hot to see homosexuals marry. I am kind of cool to the idea.

Warm enough that I voted for them to have civil unions.

But not so warm it meant they use the legal word called marriage.

Marriage has forever been defined as a man to a woman.

To make us all equal, i suppose we could also lobby for animal licenses since we are legally all animals. But animals, such as dogs and cats are defined.

Marriage is a man to a woman.

This is so easy to understand.

The fact is the 5 justices blundered as bad as did the Justices in the Dred Scott case.

Again, nothing against any posters, I simply side with the 4 dissenting justices and cite their arguments as excellent arguments.

The winning justices made things up.

 

The supreme court recognizing rights of people is taking it out on you? How

So what do you think they have done to you?

 

I'm not quite sure how you're linking the above statements to the current topic, but there's a few things I think I can say about it.

1. Given the proper training and tests, the licenses you speak of can generally be obtained by anybody (absent a physical limitation that makes it unsafe for them and others around them). Marriage licenses are categorically restricted, which begs the question of if the basis of that categorization is an acceptable use of government power.

2. A drivers license is not a "fundamental right", particularly not of the specific kinds you speak of that allow for very specific purposes and use on the road (or air). There is a different standard that applies when dealing with fundamental rights, as opposed to run-of-the-mill regulation.

The fact that potential for procreation cannot be used as a limiting factor in marriage was established decades ago, and the dissenting justices didn't disagree with this either. The only thing that I assert (which the dissenting justices disagree with) is that if the potential for procreation can't be used as a limiting factor, then it makes no sense to limit or define a fundamental right around what genitals people have. And this isn't just about the courts. State laws also ascribe purposes and protections for marriage even in spite of people being able to reproduce. Adoption, for example, has nothing to do with the potential for procreation, but state laws often give preference (if not direct limitations for) married couples over the unmarried. In some states, close relatives can marry, but only if they can prove that they CANNOT procreate. Marriages are celebrated among the old and infertile all the time, and I can't ever once recall anybody saying "you know what, marriage really isn't for them". The limitation based on procreation only seems to come up when same-sex couples are involved. One of the quarks I find most confusing in law is that even people whose children have been taken into custody of the state due to abuse and neglect can marry and remain married. None of this means that concerns for procreation are not an important part and consideration of marriage, but it clearly means that it's not a requirement, nor the only goal of it.

While you may have had the best of intentions and I appreciate that, I can understand why people may be upset with he distinction you just made. I don't hold animosity towards people just because I think they're wrong. For what it's worth, I apologize for the negativity that goes in the direction of people who act without malice and out of good faith and their best intentions, wrong as they may be. Frustrated, maybe. But not angry.

But frankly, the above statement is what I think a lot of the anger is about. Creating a family does not begin and end at the point of conception and birth, it continues on through childhood, adulthood, and until death. Same-sex couples can and do raise children, which was explicitly stated in the majority's opinion as one of the primary reasons for the opinion. Additionally, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples. You claim the decision undermined family, while I believe it strengthened it. It allowed second parents to adopt when they previously could not, strengthening the legal and social bonds between the parents and their adopted children. It creates a legal status for the adults and any children that have that is recognized across state borders (unlike civil unions) and under federal law (again, unlike civil unions). Virtually all the laws surrounding marriage are about strengthening the legal and social status around the given family unit, and I fail entirely to see how this was any more true before the ruling, or any less true after.

 

I want to get away from licenses, etc. I know what I meant but it seems to have flown sky high for others who just don't get it.

Before Obergefell, state laws were obeyed.

I believe the states that changed from marriage = one man to one woman made huge gross mistakes.

Maybe my complaint should be with those as opposed to the states who refused to redefine marriage.

I believe that marriage is completely redesigned. Which is why I say now that door got busted wide open, we will see the adult marriages where the couples are classified as incestual. We will see men having plural wives.

Marriage in my view is ruined for the man and his wife.

When I see some tv program where some man tells somebody on the news he has to go talk to his husband, If feel pity and feel ill to my stomach.

I feel as ill as with the mom and son wanting to "marry each other."

When my homosexual brother lived, he never at any point talked of him marrying some man. He did claim to have married a woman to have a child. But so far as I know, he may have lied to me.

 

I am still siding with 4 very important justices on the supreme court.

They took it out on me and told me what I did for them sucked. I voted for homosexuals to have the civil right form of togetherness. (in courts of laws and slamming me on forums)

Marriage never was for homosexuals.

 

Your positions seem to keep changing. Last post, you said the function of marriage was to support family. Now you seem to have changed that, and say that its function it to support man and wife. The only way that makes sense is if you believe only a man and wife and their offspring are acceptable as a family. If that's your opinion, fine, but I'd say it's a very biased one which shouldn't have any baring on the rights of others. Supporting "man and wife" for no other reason is not a justifiable state interest that can survive an equal protection challenge. Regardless of how you feel about it, the government should have a good reason for denying equal protection and regulating fundamental rights, and the fact that you feel ill is not a good enough reason. Equal protection and rights wouldn't mean anything if it only applied to cases people liked.

 

My views don't change.

I am just sick and tired of all this bickering.

Let me ask you something.

Why do you suppose that for many centuries, marriage, defined, is a man to woman? Even in the Arab countries, they don't call a man to a man marriage nor women to women. They execute homosexuals.

I figured I am ultra enlightened compared to a lot of the world.

 

What rights do they have that you don't.

 

Nobody forced you to be here

Somewhat irrelevant since american law is only concerned with its function today, but certainly a question worth considering.

Because for centuries, women have been subjected by men. I've made the argument before that if it were not for women gaining equal rights and the rejection of the doctrine of Coverture, the whole idea of same-sex marriage would never have come up. It would make no sense for two men, two equals, to enter into an institution designed for the ownership and subjugation of women, and designed for the production of male heirs and political and social alliances. The nature of what marriage is for heterosexuals had to change to what it is today before it made any sense for same-sex couples. Marriage today has shed its history of subjugation, and what is left is basically exactly what you said... an institution whose primary purpose is to support the family. Only in this context does it make sense for anyone else to even want to be involved, let alone for it to be right for them to do so.

Another significant factor has been the long (centuries long) condemnation of homosexuality, largely a result of the prevailing Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths for most of modern history. The lack of social acceptance and outright hostility towards homosexuality would have made it virtually impossible for the conditions that might even possibly resemble a modern-day relationship to exist, which would have only served to reinforce the idea that homosexuals were not capable of such things. Men and women had strong social roles and responsibilities, and much like happens even today, these social pressures lead to gays entering into often love-less marriages with the opposite sex in order to conform. The Chinese even have a word for it... "Tongqi", refers to the women who are wives to gay men. There was no social structure for gays to live in, and only pressure to conform to the heterosexual norm. These social values simply reinforced the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

 

OK.

AA

 

While homosexual's entire way of life has been on trial for decades (centuries?) in the courts, in the mental health profession, in this forum, and in society generally, I think you should consider yourself lucky that it's only your opinion on the subject, and not your way of life, that's been criticized as of late. I'm sorry or the negativity that may come with it, but a part of me also thinks it's only a very small taste of what the other side faced. I mean heck, for more than half my life homosexuality was an crime against humanity still illegal in several states. Pull yourself together, man

 

The bickering is so darned personal on the part of others. Most posters are not polite as you and I are.

The idea women were subjected only applies due to some particular culture.

Since I know quite a bit about law, including things like voting rights, my idea is formed by history.

Way back when our founders lived, the typical male and his wife lived on the same property. Voting was assumed to be a pair vote. If the husband voted for X, his wife was assumed to also want to vote for X.

That is how they thought then.

The vote the women got was never denied them due to federal law. States would decide on those matters. And since men were the presumed income providers, it was hard to change the law.

Some states had women voting.

Anyway, the point is why a man needs to marry a man.

Frankly, I see no reason why.

As I keep saying, I side with the 4 justices that dissented.

 

You see no need for them to marry, but you did see fit for them to be able to have civil unions... to me, the reason why one would get a civil union and one would marry is the same... the only difference is that "marriage" does a better job supporting family and togetherness than civil unions did.

I'm a pragmatist in the sense that I don't care if it's called marriage or a civil union. But also as a pragmatist, i recognize that despite the best efforts of laws regarding civil unions, it would be decades at minimum (if ever) before the family-supporting elements of marriage became pervasive through civil union laws, and became available in all states, and have federal and international recognition. Absent that, I wouldn't care what it's called.

Given the strong personal and religious elements tied to the word "marriage", I question whether government should be involved in regulating that word in the first place. It seems highly intrusive.

 

Marriage in one form or another has existed for several millions years.

Ancient Man had a number of created religions and people were being married way long before any monotheistic religion existed.

It is a verifiable fact that thousands of species including humans have same gender sex.

Now as I have said even being as Alpha of a Male as it is humanly possible I see absolutely no reason why Gay Marriage is an issue.

And for the vast majority of American people it is not.

AA

 

When I read claims that homosexual men are so angry, so upset, I think back to my brother that lived to 1984 (43 yrs old) and try to recall him ever telling me he craved to marry a man. He entertained women and my first wife that knew him really liked him. But he had a mean streak when it came to our mother. He called CA from NY City to inform a close friend to my mother that mom was dead. And the poor woman took his word and was very upset. He never came to Mom's funeral.

Mom treated all of us very well in my view. I can't figure out why he would be like he was.

He claims he had a child by marrying a woman who put up with him being a homosexual. I recall my own first wife was exceptionally tolerant he was a homosexual. I personally was so used to it that i put it out of my mind. The entire family never held it against him since we did not see a way to blame him.

The last time I was with him, prior to him dying in NY City, I picked him up at the airport, and together we drove my car to Dad's residence. It was about a 6 hr drive. When he showed up at my home, he walked in with an 18 pack of beer I believe.

Maybe he got there in a cab. I just think I picked him at the airport, but maybe I did not.

By the time we got to Dad's place, he clearly was toasted. And he smoked. In my car, people do not smoke.

Anyway, the next day I drove him to moms grave. He died in December of 1984 and the doctor told me it was due to the beer.

- - - Updated - - -

I still do not see how to tie marriage to religion.

I studied Roman law and it did not mention religion as reasons to marry.

Romans at that time were pagans.

 

Robert, why so cagey?

My question isn't a disrespectful one, it seems simple.

What rights do they have that you don't?

 

Oh my god. I sure wish people were in front of me, really actually talking to me so they stopped jumping to conclusions.

I voted for them to have civil unions trying to be totally fair.

But I would never have done it for them had I had any clue what their next move was going to be,

I truly regret agreeing with the state ballot handing them civil unions.

 

This is EXACTLY my point.

Although some people have argued that Marriage is a religion based bond between a man and woman only....and such people often incorrectly site Christianity as the religious origin of marriage....if FACT...marriage was a part of a multitude of religions going back to ancient ceremonies conducted upon their base mentality several millions years ago.

An example to relate to this is Gorillas and Chips which are Great Apes which include as well Humans, Bonobos and Orangutans...all have a detectable ceremony of marriage even if it is only in body language.

Marriage has also exited between people of the same sex for thousands of years.

AA

 

While I appreciate the sharing, I assume the reason you shared it was to express why you felt marriage wasn't such a big deal for homosexuals, having not been something brought up by him? It sounds like he had other issues going on for sure. I'm happy his family was there for him, even if he may not have always deserved it...

For me, I spent most of my childhood hiding, praying to god to take the feelings away, secluding myself for fear that I would be discovered by my religious family and peers, and learning that crying oneself to sleep wasn't just something that infants and over-tired toddlers did. I think it gave me a good sense of empathy and and open mind to different mindsets, perhaps why I pride myself on being polite and understanding of others... but also a firm resolve to fix what I saw as an injustice in the world.

 

Will you please show me my quote where you claim I made that statement?

But let's suppose I married a woman. I then decided to next marry one more. Then another. Then for the hell of it, married a super hot family member who as an adult consented.

Can I do those things?

 

I knew one homosexual who fathered 4 girls. My sister had married him.

I was really upset when he tried to make a sexual move on me.

Through my brother, I have met some homosexuals.

We were visiting one time at New Orleans and he told me and one other brother to meet him in a homosexual bar.

There, my youngest brother was hit on by homosexuals.

He laughed it off but it sure made me sick to my stomach.