Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Of course it is. What do you think it evidences?

Not sure of the relevance of your point. Nothing in the quoted statute indicates and such "care" on the part of the government and nothing Ive stated asserted any such thing. But it will always be one of the favorite strawmen your side runs to.

 

And in New York- the child born to married parents is legally the child of both parents- regardless of the gender of the parents.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2014/2014-ny-slip-op-24122.html

Instead, New York focuses legitimacy of children on public policy grounds, and the firmly rooted belief that a child, born in a marriage, has two parents.

The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints. Section 2 of the MEA mandates that not only statutes, but the common law as well, are gender neutral with respect to all the legal benefits, obligations, etc. arising from marriage.

 

And the court did not legislate when it came to Obergefell.

Just as it did not legislate when it came to Loving v. Virginia.

In both cases the court did the exact same thing- overturned an unconstitutional state marriage law, and setting a precedent that made all similar marriage laws clearly unconstitutional.

 

Constituional arguments are worthless in a court that doesn't feel constrained by that constitution.

 

Some here really don't seem to get this, and there seems to be no way to beat it into their heads ... the SC did not create law, they struck down
a law that was deemed unconstitutional. I fear you are wasting your time trying to convince them of that simple truth.

 

Color of ones skin is irrelevant in the process of procreation and therefore marriage.
Sexes of the couple is fundamental. The court didn't legislate in the case of Loving, they did in Obergefell.

 

Oh far from that.
If the couple are unmarried, the two biological parents have the obligation- unless the father was a sperm donor and was able to legally absolve himself from his legal responsibility(and that is not certain)
Interestingly- and appallingly- a rapist in most states can obtain legal rights with the child he conceived through violence.

Now if the couple are married- it depends on the state they live in- and what the parentage laws are. In New York, married parents are both presumed to be legally the parents of the child and both are legally obligated to provide for the child- regardless of the gender of the parents.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2014/2014-ny-slip-op-24122.html

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

 

Again I refer to Loving v. Virginia and point out that everything you say about Obergefell applied to Loving 50 years ago.

The vast majority of Americans opposed mix race marriage- and were not given an opportunity to vote on the issue. Given enough time- approximately 30 years- all of the states would agree that mixed race marriages were legal.

When it came to Loving v. Virginia the Court was ahead of public opinion, when it came to Obergefell, the Court was behind public opinion- as the majority of Americans support marriage equality when they ruled.

I happen to think that the Supreme Court was correct- and that both Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages and Georgia's ban on same gender marriages were unconstitutional- and that the job of the Supreme Court is to overturn unconstitutional laws.

If it is not the Supreme Courts job then any state could ban private gun ownership tomorrow and gun owners in that state would have no recourse for their rights.

 

I do try to apply consistency to my positions.

I think Citizen's United was a bad ruling- I disagree with it- but I don't pretend that the Court does not have the authority to make the ruling.

I recognize I will disagree with some Supreme Court rulings- heck they can't even agree themselves which is why they have 5/4 splits- but they are all legitimate Supreme Court rulings- and stay in effect until overturned by Constitutional amendment or by a later Court ruling.

I would support a Constutional Amendment to address the Citizens United ruling- except frankly I have no expectations that a good amendment can be written.

 

The Supreme Court never legislates. Calling a decision you don't agree with 'legislation' doesn't make it so.

Obergefell is not legislation. Citizen's United is not legislation. Loving v. Virginia is not legislation. District of Columbia v. Heller is not legislation.

All of them overturned legislation as being unconstitutional.

 

not sure how posting irrelevant cases, most of which are not even about marriage and procreation, in any way supports your incorrect and thoroughly defeated argument?

 

lol, the constitution precludes bans on same sex marriage, as explained in specific detail in the actual ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

well, procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage and is not in any way a valid argument for banning a couple from marriage. that's why you lost.

actually the court did the exact same thing in obergefell. they struck down an unconstitutional state ban.

 

Well, you are not the sole wrong person.

 

Evidently you cant comprehend that there is no contradiction between my statement and yours so any discussion of what it is you think is "far from that" is futile.

 

They beautifully support my argument of what "was its primary purpose in the law". "WAS" that's past tense.

 

actually as the cases you love to reference aren't in any way relevant or about marriage and procreation, they do no such thing. which is why you lost in court.

 

Not one of those links works for me.

So I have to dig- and guess what- those cases are all cases that ultimately the Supreme Court struck down.
Anderson v. King County

So I will present excerpts from cases that the Supreme Court when deciding Obergefell affirmed:

http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/opinions/pdfs/14-C-64-C-07-06-15.PDF

"I am not persuaded by amici's argument that marriage's link to procreation is the sole reason that the Supreme Court has concluded that marriage is protected by the Constitution....

"Second, although the Supreme Court has identified procreation as a reason for marriage, it has never described procreation as a requirement.....

"Turner makes it clear that the Court views marriage as serving a variety of important purposes for the couple involved, which may or may not include procreation....."

"In any event, the Court did not suggest that an intent to consummate is a prerequisite to marriage"

"There is a second problem with the procreation rationale. As other courts have noted, an argument relying on procreation raises an obvious question: if the reason same-sex couples cannot marry is that they cannot procreate, then are opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate allowed to marry?"

"In fact Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not produce children and is applying a double standard to same sex couples"

 

No, they're quite irrelevant to that.

It's clear you've never read the law.

Why do you feel compelled to talk about it?

 

Evidently you are unable to address my entire post.

In New York- a married couple are both obligated for any children born during their marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please explain how one is 'legislation' and one is not.

Since in both cases what the court did was identical- it struck down state laws as being unconstitutional.

 

Except for the fact that not one of those quotes says that procreation was marriage primary purpose in the law'.

There is not a single Supreme Court decision which says that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage.

Loving v Virginia
"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."
Zablocki v. Rehail
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

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 Clause,
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."
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"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,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"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"

Not one of those say or imply that marriage is primarily for procreation.

Turner v Safley
First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements [482 U.S. 78, 96] are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

 

You'll be arguing Obergefell for years, decades.....oh, it'll still stand....but you won't care that it'll never be overturned.


This is an obsession with you now.....for reasons clearly psychological and unhealthy.

 

The self-delusional dishonesty displayed here in that regard is truly a thing to behold.

 

Right.... the statement from the Supreme Court of the US stating
" Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
has nothing to do with marriage or procreation. Whatever it takes you to get through your day.

 

I'm telling you....years....DECADES....with Obergefell still in place and 100s of 1000s of gay marriages legally performed and still in effect.....


there will be that 10-15% of the virulently homophobic Right STILL obsessed over it, and trying to debate and argue against it.....into the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s*

*(not much beyond that...as most homophobes are old...and will eventually die off.)

 

Which had nothing to do with either Loving or Obergefell.

Game. Set. Match.