I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Frankly I don't care if the very apt and comparison of the ban on interracial marriage offends you.

Discrimination is discrimination. You apparently only think that is relevant when the issue is race. I think it is relevant even when it isn't race.

 

If it's apt, then it's apt. But you don't get to have it both ways. Separate but not equal then would also apply, and you are now a segregationist.

 

^_- I hope you're not getting your SCOTUS info from common newspapers. Nothing wrong with that, but I can guarantee you that the 'big picture' given by papers is laughed at by the legal community. Roberts' vote isn't affected by popular opinion, even if a surface look at his controversial cases seems to suggest as much.

 

It's actually not "very apt," nor is discrimination all the same. You're talking about a gay couple being denied tax benefits, just as siblings with close relations, and polygamous families are. You then compared the denial of such tax benefits to people being arrested and dragged into prison for having a wedding, which is what happened in the Loving case. The two cases aren't comparable, the comparison is not apt.

 

your wrong, the issue concerning marriage rights is exactly the same, just one is gender based discrimination and the other is race based

 

you would be wrong, many legal same gender marriages in this country already....

 

You seem extremely confused.

It was wrong when the state banned marriages between two people solely because they were of two different races- it was unconstitutional and it was discrimination.
It is wrong when the state bans marriages between two people solely because they are of the same gender- it is unconstitutional(in my opinion- and in the opinion of over 10 federal judges s far) and it is discrimination.

 

I am getting my info from common newspapers, and from reading SCOTUS decisions- I have no claim to inside information. As I said- I have no great faith that the court will rule in favor of same sex marriage, but I think that it is entirely possible that they will.

 

No, I am talking about a gay couple being denied all of the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that my wife and I enjoy. Tax benefits is merely one theoretical possibility(my wife and I enjoy no tax benefits from being married- we may actually pay more).

Virginia had a law prohibited marriage between two people of different races.
Many states now have laws that prohibit marriages between two people of the same gender.

In the first case there were criminal penalties for being part of a mixed race marriage- but as in same gender marriage, marriage itself was illegal.

And why was it illegal?

The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:

“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Not too different from the religious arguments as to why two people of the same gender should not be married.

 

No one would make that argument because it's be wrong. Regardless of what you believe marriage to be, it is a contract validated by the State and therefore part of the law, no people can be denied access to this contract without due process. The exact moment the state got involved is the exact moment they lost the ability to deny access to citizens.

Who are you or anyone to define what is and isn't marriage? As I stated above, what you believe marriage to be, nor what social and cultural norms may exist regarding marriage trump the fact that it's a contract codified by the states and consenting adults are being barred from participation based on arbitrary criteria without due process.

 

I certainly would be, were marriage a human construct, modifiable according to the whim of the effective majority. Things being what they are, it's pretty clear you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

No doubt there are, if by the underlined you mean living arrangements deemed marriages by deluded participants and disgracefully credulous onlookers, and sanctioned by corrupt government officials.

 

That is some delusion you have going there.

 

1. No, even if common parlance refers to it that way, Texas doesn't ban gay marriage. Texas just doesn't recognize those marriages. They do not prohibit marriage, they don't recognize it (this is largely different, though, with polygamous communities that are sometimes raided, admittedly mostly for other reasons).
2. Someone could just as easily invoke almighty God to allow the freedom of any two adults to marry - should we then not do that?
3. It's really this simple - "what is the state's interest?" That's a question that you should be able to answer about any public policy you feel strongly about. If you support gay marriage, what is the state's interest in it, and what reason is there for the state to give preferential treatment to two gay men over two single men (this speaks not just to gay marriage, of course)? There is a weak justification for state involvement in supporting traditional marriages, for the encouragement of procreation (and support of child rearing). That weak justification is the only good reason for the state's involvement in traditional marriage, and that is not one which applies to gay couples. That isn't prejudiced, that's just simple logic. There is a reason why the government has marital benefits, and those reason(s) don't apply to gay couples. Just like child tax credits don't apply to people w/o kids. That's not discriminatory against those who choose not to make families in any egregious way. [that being said, the whole issue over inheritance rights and estates is just bs]

 

"Seems extremely clear if we look at the text of the EPC of the 14th ammendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If it weren't a state sanctioned arrangement then persons can be excluded, but since it is there's no way the highest court can side with gender based discrimination."

that's exactly what I was talking about, again, from the beginning, the idea that the EPC guarantees the right to gay marriage. That's what you are holding, in you last two statements, that it (however indirectly) does guarantee the right to gay marriage. And you couldn't be more wrong, but you don't wish to engage in a formal debate, so whatever. That's what this thread was for - an open challenge for anyone to defend the position that you hold, and no one will in a formal debate.

 

No, "your" wrong. Perhaps you could tell me which gender is being discriminated against? (Hint:gay is not a gender)

 

A word without a definition is meaningless, and this particular word has meant a man/woman union for millennia. A more apt question would be, who are you or anyone to REdefine what is and isn't marriage?

I have no problem with gays entering into some sort of a living contract (civil union). But it won't and cannot be marriage. If you are truly just concerned about "a contract codified by the states", and not with promoting the degradation of society, then that should be enough for you.

 

Individuals are presumed to have a right to marriage- and the state must justify any regulation that prevents an individual from exercising that right:




Zablocki v Redhail is a 'right to marriage' case regarding a law that forbade fathers from marrying if they were not paying child support that they owed.

Notes there the right to marry is of a fundamental importance. Notes that the States intent (providing support for current children).

Quoting from Zablocki:
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Not one word in Griswold there about procreation- or potentional procreation- but there is a complete description of what marriage is-- and what the anti-gays want to deny homosexuals

While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships and child rearing and education- again this appears to be a clear affirmation that individuals can make decisions about marriage without 'unjustified' government interference.

the court is not talking about special preferences here- the court is saying that any restriction to the individuals right to marriage must be justified- and that is just the opposite of what Dixon is saying.

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, childrearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it 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. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 768-770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 406 U. S. 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place. [Footnote 11]


And addressing Loving- I love this quote from Loving:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Seriously unintended, but that first line- 'freedom to marry....essential to the happiness...free men"- doesn't say anything about freedom of men to marry women....lol

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process

Once again- no mention of procreation- but marry, establish a home- and bring up children. All of which is what same gender couples want equal rights to.

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families,

Now lets get to the crux of Zablocki- that is directly applicable to the argument that Dixon keeps attempting to make:

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests

Appellant asserts that two interests are served by the challenged statute: the "permission to marry" proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel the applicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations; and the welfare of the "out of custody" children is protected. We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained.

At argument, appellant's counsel suggested that, since permission to marry cannot be granted unless the applicant shows that he has satisfied his court-determined support obligations to the prior children and that those children will not become public charges, the statute provides incentive for the applicant to make support payments to his children. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-20. This "collection device" rationale cannot justify the statute's broad infringement on the right to marry


The more I read these rulings, the more apparent is that these cases were really setting the stage for finding same gender marriage legal. These cases repeatedly express that individuals have a right to marry- and that the State must have a compelling cause to overcome that right.

I have yet to see a cogent argument that has been made on why Gays should not be married- hell the courts said that the State of Wisconsin can't prevent a man who doesn't pay his child support from getting married, and the State had at least some argument there- but I haven't seen any cogent argument here.

Marriage is not a special deal for heterosexuals- the courts have said that it is a right that individuals have.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../374/case.html

- - - Updated - - -

It is and it will be.

14 states and counting, and numerous countries around the world.

I have no problem with you not accepting that, but I applaud it.

 

Good Lord, People. As someone who may have accidently started the derail, I hereby proclaim "Crap or Get off the pot!" This area is supposed to be for people debating, not one of the 15K other meandering threads about gay dolphin molesting global warmist being denied the equal protection of George Bush did it. somebody take the man up on his challenge why dontcha, scardie cats

 

Calling it marriage does not make it so. 14 states are merely participating in mockery.

 

I also agree with you the court will not "establish" gay marriage as a Cosntitutional right....there is no such thing as a "Consitutional right". The Constitution does not "establish" any right. A right is held by the people whether the Supreme Court affrims a right exists or the Consitution enumerates that right.

The right to marriage existed before the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court. The Supreme court will not "establish" the right to marry, it will deem any law restricting marriage as Unconstitutional by the reasoning of rights affirmed in the constitution. Privacy, Equal Protection under the law, and Due Process.

 

Here's the thing - when you talk about marriage, like the actual wedding and act of life commitment (and the actual commitment obviously), then you're right. But that isn't, in any respect, what's at stake here. That's part of the ridiculous issue that occurred in the Loving case, people were arrested for getting married - that isn't happening here. What's happening here is people are being denied certain benefits - which you hold were is an inherent right?

 

You saying it isn't doesn't make it not.

14 States are respecting the rights of same gender couples.

You don't think that they should. I do.

 

You might have a point if none of those benefits were associated with every legal marriage. Since they are, they are one in the same. You can't desperate them out and say that a marriage ceremony is a right, but not everything that goes with it. Being arrested is irrelevant. It's the baseless denial of a basic civil right that is the issue. Texmexchef is correct. The SCOTUS will not rule it a constitutional right. Just that banning it is unconstitutional as it violates the 14th amendment.

 

which, again, a gay marriage "ban" isn't a ban at all, it's a prohibition of the state government from recognizing such marriages for the sake of marital benefits. And, as said, establishing it indirectly is what was being talked about all along here.

And yeah, you can separate out benefits - because there is every difference between free association and a right to government benefits.

 

Which is a ban

.

But the benefits are the entire point of the marriage.