Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

All the more reason to get more of em off the market so they're not married to wives they're not interested in and single and looking.

 

Well, this is basically a point in case for why rights shouldn't be up to popular vote, since the interest of fairness isn't necessarily the impetus of a referendum's outcome. Thank you for your fairness regardless.

 

Here.

No, but homosexuals can't marry multiple people at once, nor can they marry certain family members.

You can marry a person of the same sex, a homosexual can marry somebody of the opposite sex and vise versa that's what it's called equal.

 

Already demonstrated no state banned them prior to 1971.

As irrelevant as the first time you posted it.

 

We argue with the intelligent homosexuals on this forum, but i wonder if most of them are simply living life and don't post to forums?

Society at large, globally even, has long branded the term to be used when a male marries a female as marriage.

Marriage as it turns out must be a good word based on the homosexuals bum rush to try to also own the same word.

I see no magic wand for the male that wants to live with the male or the female that wants to live with the female.

At time homosexuals come up with the argument that males in the animal species also are engaging in homosexual acts.

Homosexual acts do not result in the birth of children.

I believe that as the human evolved socially, the idea hit them that the children could be disclaimed by the male as not their children. Even when the male was of similar appearance to the child, the male could claim the child is not his.

Women bear children. They would not disclaim their own child due to birth of that child. So marriage is a process to hold the husband to account for the children. The history shows that even when the women vote was not very important, the males still wanted protection for their children in the main. A good number of men are so uncaring that fretting over a child is not in their bucket list.

- - - Updated - - -

You are only one poster. For you to allege the argument is irrelevant only means you do not understand, not that Dixon is wrong.

 

But your question is based on a statement I never made. To wit you claim I said homosexuals have more rights than I have.

Based on my discussion over licenses.

While you do admit homosexuals do not have free reign to marry at will, based on your list of exclusions, how do you defend any exclusion?

 

Marriage is a contract. A covenant. It is a right due to the fact that many people have the right to contract with others.

However in my view, a right truly is a right when all humans can exercise that right.

Children per the laws, never have the marriage contract option. Even way back when, the parents had to give permission first.

Today at age 18, suddenly the child gets the right. I prefer to see that as a permission under law, rather than a right.

I do not believe by voting for a civil union it had to do with rights. I don't believe that for adults, rights need permits.

When you agree to pay for a license to marry, how can you call that a right?

A lot on the left call the drivers license not a right.

 

All exclusions apply equally.

 

I suppose that here is where we differ. I think requesting permission from a government is the absents of rights. The state should be asking fire permission for these things to be legal. That is how I think it should work in a republic anyway.

I don't think the government should be in the business of issuing permission to seek life liberty and happiness. I actually believe the supreme law of this land forbids the government aka the voters from doing that. This country is a constitutional republic, not a democratic dictatorship.

It is a privilege. And the 14th amendment indicated that privileges cannot be denied to citizens based on accidents if their person.

From my perspective you are left of me.

 

Strange since my argument is that when it is a right, government has absolutely no say so at all.

When you seek permission from government, it can't be called a right. Not even a restricted right. That is an oxymoron.

Bear in mind what the 14th was really about.

http://www.legalmatch.com/understanding-14th-amendment.html

 

So, the exclusion of 10 year old children from marriage applies for all of us?

 

I don't agree with the state being in charge of such privileges stone are appropriate others are not. Who I contract my life with should not be something one must seek permission from the state for.

Agreed. There are reasons the state must issue permits. I don't believe marriage is one of them.

I bear in mind what it says.

- - - Updated - - -

It should.

 

Totally fair? Really?

As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

A year after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:

And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employmen passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage.

 

Poster alert.

This person crafted a super long post at #763, I advise his fans check that post to make sure they get a good dose of what he is talking about.

YES, when I voted for the civil union in CA, the way our law was worded, I honestly did believe I was part of the solution for homosexuals.

(why say homosexual? The homosexual crowd talks of a very long term, they call it gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, so I keep it direct on point)

I can't comment on the law of New Jersey. It was never in my wheelhouse to read all the laws of the various states concerning homosexuals.

What I did notice in reading all the states laws was the myriad of restrictions.

Somebody sure must have hated marriage to force people into so many complex restrictions merely because they wanted to marry.

Homosexuals never cried us a river over the fact that the mom I have cited living in England is not supposed to marry her adult son. They allege the sex is awesome.

It is not my call to ban them from marriage but the homosexual crowd demands they be included in the same word. At least in their case, the union would contain both the male and female.

What about the bunch that got put into prison when the men and women wanted to marry by the bunches?

This guy Warren Jeffs was put into prison over marriage.

I notice the homosexual crowd prays only for relief for themselves. They shun including others in the term marriage.

Makes you wonder how a group can be so utterly dishonest, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

 

OMG! Seriously? You are out of control and over the edge dude!

 

I'm sorry, now your blathering. Why was it incumbent for homosexuals to fight for incest? That's crazy talk, dude.
Your problem is you are conflating same sex marriage with marrying a pet rock or your sister when it is a completely separate issue.

If you want to marry your sister's niece, I again suggest you remove yourself from thy arse and fight for it like gay people had to do.
Now I realize you had some unresolved issues with your brother - but seriously - this is ridiculous.

 

Once in a blue moon, you do try to use reason. But the process used is flat out flawed.

 

Marriage is a right!

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.
As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that too can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law of a serious crime, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can revoke that right. The government cannot step in and revoke your marriage (assuming that you are not already married to someone, an under aged person or a close relative) Marriage is clearly a right.

 

The only undresolved issue reference my dead brother was he lied all the time. He told a dear woman mom died. Mom was then well and not one bit dead.

But as to his homosexuality, nope. That was his business.

I recall when I owned the short lived racing shop. I needed a person who could take car engines apart or remove them from the vehicle. He never had shown me he could do that work, but wanted me to hire him.

I figured, why not give him a shot.

He did a very good job. I really appreciated how fast he caught on. The day he took off for New York City, I paid him his week pay and drove him to the bus stop.

And I visited him in New York city when I was there. Later I visited him at New Orleans.

Nope, there was no anger between me and my brother.

 

That is a well reasoned argument.

Does it mean it wins?

I want to shout out, heck no.

But due to the decent nature of it, I plan to at least consider it.

 

Thank you!

 

Of course marriage is a right for any consenting man and woman, but it's not a right homosexuals are the least bit interested in. Surely you can understand that.

 

Actually that is rather incoherent bubba

 

I know

- - - Updated - - -

I know a crack Army lawyer and sent him the text you posted.

He commented the post was correct but that it would be overturned in a court.

I asked him how he came to that conclusion.

 

[MENTION=63949]ProgressivePatriot[/MENTION]
I know very well what I asked him and what he said back. When I asked him why it would be overturned, he corrected himself and said it will not be corrected. Then he brought up the bathroom issue.