Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

I will give you one last chance. Provide the law stating sex is required for marriage or retract the claim.

If you make it again I will report the post for trolling.

 

You had your chance to learn how to read, you blown it. Good Buy!

 

Reported for trolling

 

I will tell you right now. If you expect the religious right in particular, and Republicans in general, to walk away because of the Supreme Court ruling, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. Because right now, they are busily at work looking for different ways to legally discriminate while telling everyone how they're not. Until the next time if's found discriminatory. They will never go away, just as bigotry never dies.

If what you were saying was that it was the policies and laws of Republicans passed over many years that culminated in Mr. Bush's massive recession, then I agree with you. If you wish to close your eyes to the information available that points the finger of guilt where it belongs, that's your problem.

 

In Turner V Safely, the court ruled that ALL prisoners have the right to marry those who aren't imprisoned, including those who are incarcerated for life with no chance for parole. Since the majority of states don't allow conjugal visits, these marriages may go unconsummated, but are nevertheless valid, and indeed Constitutionally-protected.

So whatever point you were trying to establish is bull, in reality.

 

Not to mention that there are some couples physically incapable of consummation. The state doesn't go around annulling them. It only becomes somewhat relevant in 'sham marriage' cases, where the act of marriage is being used for another ends. That's the only reason it's there.

 

We can see where the bull resides. From Turner v Safley

These elements 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.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html

 

Nevertheless, the implication of the ruling is a Constitutional right for inmates who are on death row or serving life without the chance of parole to marry, and any attempts to infringe upon this based on a state law "requiring" a marriage to be consummated would be unconstitutional based on Turner.

And of course, you could argue that a homosexual union can be consummated by sexual activity.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 I cut out one sentence out of the entire two sentence quote, the SECOND time I quoted it. The first time I quoted it I included the entire two sentence post.

And the first sentence adds no relevant context.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

So to review, two platonic friends who never consummate the relationship, can marry, because marriage has nothing to do with sex. Two homosexuals of the same sex can marry because marriage has nothing to do with procreation. BUT all 50 states would prohibit the single mother and grandmother joined together for over a decade, providing and caring for their children/grandchildren together, from marrying, BECAUSE if it was the grandfather instead of the grandmother, and they had sex together, they might procreate and have a child with genetic defects. Equal protection my ass. UNEQUAL by design to help the gays feel better about their homosexuality.

 

They can try to do whatever they want. The fact is that they won't get away with it anymore. And of course they will never go away. They just can't hurt us legally anymore. They can try, but they will fail.

 

So long as Justice Roberts runs that court and there's a very hard right segment in place, ever eager to limit individual rights and reward powerful corporations, you can never be sure. What I'm saying is, do not ever become complacent because if a Republican gets into the White House with today's Congress, and one of the more reasonable justices retires (or dies), the tenuous balance that is there now will be swept away like last week's dirt. Take a couple of minutes and read today's NY Times editorial looking at the activism of the Roberts court. Scary.

 

Gay couples marrying and mother/grandmother 'marriages' aren't the same. Marriage is fundamentally about recognising two individuals as family, who would otherwise have no legal relation or connection to one another. Do you know of any mothers wanting to marry their grandma's? In order for your hypothetical to go to court, there would need to be people out there willing to argue they are PERSONALLY injured by not being able to marry their close family members, as you know. I'm not saying you couldn't, but I've yet to find this example anywhere but in Dixon's posts. You're into law aren't you... If you're so sure you've found a logical inconsistency, why not put your money where your mouth is? You think posting the same thing over and over again on an Internet message board is going to change anything?? LOL.

There are many ways in which a gay couple's situation differs from that of a single mother/grandmother "raising kids ", and you know it. For one, how many mothers and daughters are adopting children together? How many are bringing new life into the world as a positive decision together through IVF, seeking joint legal parenthood?

 

The next thing on the gay agenda is lowering the age of consent.

You heard it here first

 

No, what I'm saying is that the economic crisis was a result of democrat policies which caused the housing markets to collapse, which started the dominoes to fall, just as you post suggests.

 

Sooooooo then you need to justify giving two family members the 100s of benefits of marriage while withholding them from another two family members, because of their familial relationship.

 

No it was many things and yes republican had their hands all over it.

 

REALLY stupid characterization considering the Federal Courts have now nullified 30 state Constitutions that limited marriage to men and women. .

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

[video=youtube;IyqYY72PeRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM[/video]

 

Of course you would republicans never do anything wrong! Lmao you tube is a source now??? Grasp at straws much

 

Not every 'family' relationship is the same. A gay couple are identical to a infertile straight couple. Would you say the mother and grandmother are the same as the infertile straight couple? What sets it apart is the nature of relationship and the model it follows, and no, we're not just talking about romantic love. Gay couples often come together to adopt children jointly - not so with the "mother and grandmother". They also are increasingly using IVF and surrogacy to bring new life in the world, not so with the "mother and grandmother". There is also the distinct possibility that the mother may meet a partner, as most single people do.

As soon as you identify who these mothers and daughters asking for marriage are, I won't stand in the way of your efforts to legalise that type of marriage, but I think you know the chances of it succeeding are zero.

 

No. They don't have sex with each other. But, as many have pointed out two platonic friends can marry. Sex isn't required for marriage. Not all couples have the willingness or ability to have sex. Sex is irrelevant in this new institution of marriage. Its only relevance in traditional marriage is that between two people of the opposite sex, sex frequently leads to procreation. States in the past didn't make sex between men and women outside of marriage illegal, because they might have an orgasm, but instead because they might make a kid.

And while its impossible to determine with any accuracy, which couples have the potential of procreation, its easy to detect the presence of both a man and a woman, the only couples with such potential.

 

Sex has always been irrelevant for marriage.

No, you miss the point as usual. Marriage tends to add stability to a relationship, and children do best when their parents have a stable relationship. Same sex or not.

I suppose there have been states that did so, due more to certain concerns with morality. But today, half of all children are born outside of marriage in the US. Times have changed.

Here we go again, with you NOT saying procreation is required for marriage. Only that it was and should be illegal to procreate outside of marriage, and that the purpose of marriage was procreation, and that the potential for procreation is somehow involved (but NOT required, oh no, it's just that if the potential isn't there, well, let's pretend we don't mean what we're saying here, right?)

And round and round we go. Probably marriage DOES make relationships more stable. It also makes adoption easier. Marriage is to be encouraged.

 

They are videos of public statements made in Congress. A part of the Congressional record. We can see who it is grasping at straws.

 

Why wouldn't YouTube be a source? Why wouldn't the truth on video out of the mouths of the democrats be a good source (and indictment) of their culpability?