Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Since the case is irrelevant to the topic and in no way supports your argument, you by definition can't refute mine.

which is a demonstrated lie you keep telling.

- - - Updated - - -

all cases misquoted and not saying what you keep claiming they do.

 

They are not excluded from marriage.

Before Obergefell same gender couples in many states were excluded from the same right to marry that my wife and I had in every state. Now they have the same right to marry as my wife and I have always had.

Same gender couples and opposite gender couples who choose not to marry have the exact same rights to marry- or choose not to marry.

 

by choice. they can get married.

 

The opinion of one court- a court on the losing side of history. And that court's opinion is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision- and note they include 'procreation, childbirth, abortion and child rearing'- the reality is that most of Supreme Court marriage decisions don't refer to procreation at all.

You can continue to quote a court whose decision was effectively reversed by the Supreme Court- I will quote the actual Supreme Court decisions:

Loving v Virginia- a decision that Obergefell cited often- and the most important marriage decision prior to Obergefell- and perhaps ever- doesn't mention procreation- or children- or abortion- or child birth. Nor does it mention anything about linking procreation to marriage.

"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."
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Zablocki does mention procreation- note 'the same level of importance'- not that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage.
"it is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships."

Note also- that gay couples are raising children. Also note this sentence from the end of Zablocki
Since the support obligation is the same whether the child is born in or out of wedlock, the net result of preventing the marriage is simply more illegitimate children.

Preventing gay couples who intend to have children results in the same- 'illegitimate children'- i.e. children without married parents.

Skinner is not actually a decision on marriage- it is about forced sterilization- therefore about procreation- and only mentions marriage once.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize,

The court says that procreation is a basic civil right of marriage- it doesn't say or imply that Marriage is only about procreation- and there is a reason in Obergefell this statement is taken as another statement by the court that Marriage is one of our civil rights- along with procreation.

 

That isn't a summary that is your opinion.

What my fellow Americans who happen to be gay want is to be treated legally equally before the law and to quote the court- and legally enjoy the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy- as noted by the Supreme Court here:

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."

 

Just as mixed race couples- specifically the Lovings believed that they did not get equal treatment. To say that sums up the complaints of the Mildred and Richard Loving would be rather disingenuous.

Mildred understood what gay couples wanted- what they were being denied- why can't you?

Mildred Loving:
I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

 

Another poster that is oblivious to the topic of debate. My arguments are to what marriage was. Not what it is now.

 

And marriage was once between a man and multiple women. Marriage was once limited to the race of the partners.
Marriage was once just a contract between the father of the bride and the groom for goods and services.

It's like saying that if god had meant men to fly, they would have been born with wings. The world changes.

 

Revealing that you took the time to edit out the first sentence

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry."

Gay couplings produce no children.

- - - Updated - - -

Multiple marriages, each and everyone of them between a man and a woman.

 

and you were incorrect about what it was as well, lol

 

Well, that is true only of places where such laws happened to be part of the local law.

A man marrying more than one woman at the same time is violating law. But I never read you sticking up for the right of a man to more than one wife.

I see nothing from you as to parents rights concerning marriage of their child.

If the child is under 18, have the parents lost their rights over their children?

Men do not fly. Machines fly. Machines with wings that have some special design features. Even when men fall off the mountain with that "flying suit" all it does is guide the fall and slow it some.

 

The lovings were not homosexuals.

Where the Lovings could not marry, by moving to other states, they could marry. Each state has to not punish out of state citizens who did things in other states.

For instance, the stand your ground law applies in Florida and Texas I believe. It does not apply to California where I live.

Shall I go to court and cite the 14th amendment?

 

My-my you are sharp today. Yes! I made a mistake and linked to the wrong passage. Happy now. Stop whining! It does not change the reality of what I am saying and you know damned well what Kennedy said about the children. So get over it, Sparky

 

From the Obergefell majority opinion

 

Imo, this thread starts from a false premise questioning the constitutionality of gay marriage
Even those who oppose obergefell start with the idea that marriage is the domain of the states
And by this logic any state is empowered to recognize gay marriage

As far as I am aware, opponents have never made any credible case that gay marriage is inherently unconstitutional

 

'Nuff Said!!!

 

The thread was started by a young person who was confused about the issue and how things work. He was the only one- friend or foe- who I ever came across that approached it that way. The issue of course on both sides has been, are state laws prohibiting same sex marriage constitutional. Questions of Constitutionality are about what government does, not what individuals or groups do , so yes, this got off to a bad and strange start.

In addition, few ever questioned the ability of states to allow same sex marriage if they so chose. An exception was Mike Huckabee who went bonkers on Cruz who - as crazed as he is- was willing to leave the question to the states. Huckabee wanted it banned at the federal level

Anyway, it appears that this young person was showing signs of being able to learn and to evolve on the issue. More than I can say for some others around here, Unfortunately, he did not stick around long.

 

Not the same thing at all.

 

I find it is silly that anyone would have an issue with same sex marriage.

After all why would anyone really care?

AA

 

What? You agree with me?

 

Not at all. Not one bit.

 

Then kindly explain what that meant. Please don't waist my time with cryptic one liners. Spell it out.

 

There's nothing cryptic about it, we talked about this a few pages ago. There is a difference between a state defining marriage and a state discriminating against a specific minority group. Don't play dumb, it doesn't suit you.

 

Suppose we were to try to identify the true issue

Seems to me it is a dispute about whether the federal gov has any authority in an area not specifically given to them in the constitution... Vs application of the 14th amendment and equal standing before the law

 

Seems to me there is no distinction if the state definition of marriage results in minority discrimination