Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

This has actually happened. I heard an interview on the radio with two women who did this.

 

What the hell is this that is being attributed to me!?? I didn't write that! I don't even know what it is supposed to mean!!!%^&$#@

 

Say what??!! A "crack Army lawyer" ? A lawyer who specializes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice "evaluated my writing on rights vs. privileges which was not even based on a legal theory but more of a linguistic analysis of the words? And this "crack lawyer " ( or is it a lawyer on crack?) said that it is "correct" but would be overturned? That does not even make sense. Overturned on constitutional grounds? How would that be after the SCOTUS said that marriage is a right about 15 times in various cases? Those are binding precedents that can only be overturned by SCOTUS. I would really like to see what you sent to this lawyer on crack and what he/she actually said.

 

You made that up because any real argument you have is lacking.

 

Yep. From BC Roman law

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Its biology, not religion.

 

I'm not alleging anything. The ability to procreation has never been a condition in order to get married, so every time you or he brings up procreation it's an entirely irrelevant argument. Which is why you lost in court.

 

No one ever claimed it was.

 

14 of those 15 times was referring to exclusively heterosexual relationships

"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 institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis... "

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"

"i]t 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. . . .

t 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."

 

out of context and unsourced equine excrement that does not mean what you claim it means as you have been told countless time bubba

 

Then why would you give that argument a moment's consideration?

 

They are all quotes from past US Supreme Court precedents. And I didn't claim what they mean. I quoted them. I think you meant they don't mean what they say. String together a few words and make your argument if you can.

 

I corrected his comments when made available to me.

So, you see this man as being on crack. I am not shocked.

 

While the issue is children, who else could it be about?

The issue lost in court because 5 justices simply made things up.

 

I sent him this.

- - - Updated - - -

He told me this.


Peter
7:08 PM (13 hours ago)


Unfortunately I don't think that it will be overturned. It is going to get worse. The bathroom games are up now.

 

So you are for sane sex marriage because it is for children. Same sex couples have children.

What did they make up?

 

How can a man have sex with a man and have children?

The 5 justices dreamed up a brand new law.

 

Thanks. "Unfortunately " ?? Fortunately, is does not take a "crack army lawyer to know that there is little if any chance of Obergefell being overturned any time soon if ever. Not with the current court .

If you're talking about the court suddenly deciding that marriage is not a right, that is even more far fetched.

Obama will either get his appointment confirmed, or, on 1//21/17. President Hillary Clinton will appoint ........OBAMA to the court and the confirmation will sail through the Democratic controlled Senate .

And yes, thanks to the Jim Crow style laws that these clowns are passing in retaliation to Obergefell, thing indeed will get worse, but they will be defeated.

 

Common Robert! Give it a rest! That is completely irrelevant to the legal argument about same sex marriage. When opposite sex couple who cannot or just do not have children "in the in the usual way are prohibited from marrying you can try that again.

 

This is merely a discussion.

I have neatly summed up my view in the past. Read what 4 dissenting justices told us all and that is my view as well.

True they lost, but Dred Scott and other rulings were later changed as well.

Actually in this matter, it could well be that the redefining of marriage done on the public won't be overturned at any point.

That is how messed up those 5 justices are.

- - - Updated - - -

I was reading you rebut your own argument.

I told you I sent to him your argument. If you feel like refuting it, have fun.

Are you upset he said unfortunately?

Not too long ago your hero Obama stated that marriage is a man to a woman.

I guess he lied when he said it though.

 

Mary Cheney, Dick and Lynne's daughter, and her wife....have had children.


Rush Limbaugh and his FOUR wives have had zero children.


Which marriage is "false"?

 

Are you claiming that the Cheney daughter is really a man?

I hoped sex ed taught people that a baby is produced by a man mating to a woman.

It probably .... repeat ... probably ... is more likely two homosexual women will want children than a pair of men who also have no reproductive organs to incubate the child.

 

They were charged and convicted for getting married out of state

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:

- - - Updated - - -

He changed his opinion.

People do that, much to the chagrin of right wing nut jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

The same way that Bob Hope could have sex with his wife and have 4 children.

Adoption.

 

And in 14 of 15 cases, the court used language that described this right as an individual right to each person.

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"

Zablocki
The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.
The Turner court specifically cited many purposes of marriage, including:
expressions of emotional support and public commitment .... 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).

- - - Updated - - -

The issue lost in court because the majority of justices decided in favor of marriage equality.

 

You cant even comprehend your own material and still don't have a clue.

"If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Do you comprehend the meaning of AND?

 

Hmmm really want to look to Rome for guidance?

Fathers of legitimate children alone had patria potestas over their children. Patria potestas was often a lifelong subjugation of a child to his or her father's will and, to the horror of the Greeks and other outside observers of the time,[citation needed] applied to sons as much as daughters.

A man or woman who was subject to patria potestas required his or her father's consent for marriage. No paternal consent was required for illegitimate children or those whose fathers had died

If a father discovered that his married daughter was committing adultery in either his own house or the house of his son-in-law, he was entitled to kill both the woman and her lover; if he killed only one of the adulterers, he could be charged with murder. While advertising the father's power, the extremity of the sentence seems to have led to its judicious implementation, since cases in which this sentence was carried out are infrequently recorded — most notoriously, by Augustus himself against his own daughter