Thread: Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

I see Equal Rights as pertaining to race, age, religion, and sex. Sex is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identity. Equal Rights states that based on the 4 things I listed everyone should be able to do the same thing everyone else can. I saw that as the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex matter if they are male or female. Sexual orientation is about *feelings* not genetics/dna.

With your idea on *civil rights* one can keep expanding it through the courts and with the same argument marry many partners and even marry children. Its a slippery slope when one starts adding new civil rights through the court because it becomes 1000 times harder to argue against the next claim.

My point is just that such things should be handled through legislature creating laws, expanding civil rights, and so forth. Courts to me should only read the letter of the law and how it pertains to the letter of the Constitution. Courts shouldn't be on expanding the meaning of an already established idea or law to suit new interests that were never intended as written. To me that is the key to keeping the courts pure and why the court system is failing more and more every year.

No, it's not my idea of equal rights. It's equal rights in our language. The phrase "all people are created equal", is a pretty basic concept that all Americans should understand. And the specific Constitutional provision that protects that concept is very simple too:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

It doesn't matter what personal characteristics someone has, states can not discriminate against them. They have to be treated under the laws of the states on an equal basis, which means being treated the same as everyone else. This is what equal protection under the law means in our language. It doesn't mean states can pick what type of personal characteristics people have that they're going to apply laws, immunities and privileges to or for, it's all citizens and persons within their jurisdiction and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

What you're thinking of is the US Civil Rights Act, not the Constitution. The US Civil Rights Act currently protects employees from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin and creed. Federal employees have additional characteristics protected like family status as a parent, marital status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and so forth.

So courts are never actually expanding equal and civil rights, they're simply restoring rights that shouldn't have been denied to begin with.

ReformUSA2012 wrote:

My issue is that the SCOTUS is redefining the Constitution to include things it was never intended to. This is the real threat and the liberals used Gay Marriage which most Americans support to make a new precedent that its fine for the SCOTUS to just change a law as it see's fit to include new agenda's. However I am betting that if in 2008, 2009, 2010 if there was a bill to legalize same sex marriage it would have passed with strong bi-partisan support except from a few who hail from extreme religious states. But it was never attempted even before DOMA was thrown down because this was all about winning future elections and establishing a precedent that allows the SCOTUS to simply redefine the Constitution as it wants. I'm a believer the Constitution is a written dead document. Any living part is only through Amendments.

I agree that homosexual marriage is not a right under the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with civil rights, it's an issue of morality. Civil rights is not about protecting ones behavior.

Originally Posted by MW

ReformUSA2012 wrote:



I agree that homosexual marriage is not a right under the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with civil rights, it's an issue of morality. Civil rights is not about protecting ones behavior.

But it is a right under the US Constitution. Gay marriage isn't about "morality". It's about who these people are and whether they have the same rights under the law as you do even though they are different than you are. Under our Constitution, they have the same rights as anyone else. Civil rights is not about protecting ones own "behavior", it is about protecting people from the behavior of you and others who want to discriminate against them because they're different than you are.

Look at the groups protected by the civil rights movement and the US Civil Rights Act, slaves, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, women, disabled, seniors, gays, single parents, married people, single people, divorced people, transgender people, religious people, non-religious people, etc., etc., etc. And the US Civil Rights Act just protects their employment. The 14th Amendment protects all their legal rights, but it has to be enforced, and those rights are enforced by the courts when state legislatures fail to do so at such time as the abused person or groups of persons file civil rights suits to have their grievances resolved and their rights restored. Even then, depending on the attitudes of the Court, they may win, they may not, but if they do win the ruling, then often times the federal government still has to step in and enforce the court rulings when states fail to abide.

Racism, chauvinism, homophobia, and mistreating people because of their age, marital status, transgender identity, or any other personal characteristics, is unacceptable in our land of the free and home of the brave that is supposed to believe in liberty and justice for all.

None of the horrible discrimination that has harmed and cheated so many is about morality. It's about being a bully and wanting to pick on people who are different than you are. It's way past the date when all of this should have come to an end. And perhaps the events and actions racing through our country these past two weeks is a sign that one day it will.

Judy wrote:

But it is a right under the US Constitution. Gay marriage isn't about "morality". It's about who these people are and whether they have the same rights under the law as you do even though they are different than you are. Under our Constitution, they have the same rights as anyone else.

You're dead wrong. Homosexual marriage is not a right under the U.S. Constitution! If you think otherwise, please provide your proof. Moreover, you're wrong again not to think homosexuality isn't about morality.

Originally Posted by Judy

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here is the thing. Equal protection or basically having access to the exact same thing as anyone else. This is what I see as the flaw in your way of thinking. The *Equal Protection* or Equal Treatment would mean they don't just have access to the same thing everyone else has but also in the same manner. I see it as everyone has the right to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. No one is denied the right to marry but its defined as being equal in how its used.

So *Marriage* itself is not the *Equal Protection* but *Marriage to a qualifying adult* which would be *equal treatment*.

To me however I don't see this as a marriage issue but an equality issue that just happened on marriage and as such my opinion on how it works doesn't change even though I support gay marriage. How I see it everyone should have the exact same standards for the protection for the chance of equal outcomes. Much of this to me comes from the biased treatment of women that I especially saw in the military. They claim they want equality when it suits them but rarely willing to do the same work as men and when things get hard cry that because they are women should have exemptions. I have seen in numerous jobs in my life women do less work then men yet want equal pay and benefits (of course some jobs women do better then men on average and usually rewarded better as well). In the military they have lower Physical standards then men, in sports their are women's divisions because in many cases they don't stand a chance on competiting against men (yet complain they aren't as highly paid). When deployed they complain on carrying the same load as men, having roving guard duty on foot, and play games to get light duties.

Hence I adopted years ago as mathematical system 1=1 and that is it. 1=2 can NEVER be right. Exact same rules for everybody. And in this case the rule was set as any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Its the new liberal definition that any person can marry any other person and while I support that it is a totally different rule than what has been in place and is equal per the law as written.

However this is just my opinion and how I see things. I'm a very logical and mathematical type person where I find my answers through simple equations.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



You're dead wrong. Homosexual marriage is not a right under the U.S. Constitution! If you think otherwise, please provide your proof. Moreover, you're wrong again not to think homosexuality isn't about morality.

Oh I definitely think otherwise. How could you be confused on that? The proof is in Amendment 9 of the US Constitution:

Amendment 9 U.S. Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Amendment 10, US Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

14th Amendment, US Constitution

Section 1.


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.

MW, I think you're one of the folks who believe your rights are handed out to you by government. In this country, rights are taken away by the government not handed out, because our freedom is based on our Declaration of Independence, not by the Constitution, and as free people, we are born with rights, inalienable rights, and it is this set of rights that government, especially certain states have had great difficulty understanding over and through the years. The Constitution is absolutely clear in the Bill off Rights, that certain rights are retained by the people and certain powers are reserved by the people. These are all the rights not enumerated and powers not delegated. This includes natural rights, inalienable rights, and everything else free people wish and want to do.

If you'll notice, there is no mention of marriage at all, of any type in the US Constitution. Marriage wasn't even a government issue when the US Constitution was adopted, but marriage is a right, a natural right, an inalienable right, to partner up and have a life together, something humans have been doing for millions of years without government I might add and something Americans have been doing without government since there was an America until 1829 when some states started issuing marriage licenses, so Americans had been hitching up for hundreds of years in our colonies and then our nation without any aid or involvement from government.

But a country that took some of its people so long to realize that black slaves were people, I guess it's not surprising to see why it took them so long to realize that gays are people, too.

Gays are not immoral, they're gay. Homosexuality isn't about morality, it's about biology. Just because they're wired different than straight people doesn't exclude them from the same pursuit of happiness everyone else wants and has a right to.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else, therefore they do. And they're entitled to the same rights because these are inalienable rights, rights that are retained by the people, guaranteed by the Constitution Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Because this issue is a state law issue, the Court correctly settled it with the 14th Amendment.

1, If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
2. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry one.
3. If you breed 'em, you feed 'em.
4. If you want it, you pay for it.
5. If you make it over there, you sell it over there.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Here is the thing. Equal protection or basically having access to the exact same thing as anyone else. This is what I see as the flaw in your way of thinking. The *Equal Protection* or Equal Treatment would mean they don't just have access to the same thing everyone else has but also in the same manner. I see it as everyone has the right to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. No one is denied the right to marry but its defined as being equal in how its used.

So *Marriage* itself is not the *Equal Protection* but *Marriage to a qualifying adult* which would be *equal treatment*.

To me however I don't see this as a marriage issue but an equality issue that just happened on marriage and as such my opinion on how it works doesn't change even though I support gay marriage. How I see it everyone should have the exact same standards for the protection for the chance of equal outcomes. Much of this to me comes from the biased treatment of women that I especially saw in the military. They claim they want equality when it suits them but rarely willing to do the same work as men and when things get hard cry that because they are women should have exemptions. I have seen in numerous jobs in my life women do less work then men yet want equal pay and benefits (of course some jobs women do better then men on average and usually rewarded better as well). In the military they have lower Physical standards then men, in sports their are women's divisions because in many cases they don't stand a chance on competiting against men (yet complain they aren't as highly paid). When deployed they complain on carrying the same load as men, having roving guard duty on foot, and play games to get light duties.

Hence I adopted years ago as mathematical system 1=1 and that is it. 1=2 can NEVER be right. Exact same rules for everybody. And in this case the rule was set as any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Its the new liberal definition that any person can marry any other person and while I support that it is a totally different rule than what has been in place and is equal per the law as written.

However this is just my opinion and how I see things. I'm a very logical and mathematical type person where I find my answers through simple equations.

Okay, back up to the Constitution. Where does it say that certain rights retained by the people and powers reserved by the people can be restricted to men and women of the opposite sex if a state says so? It doesn't. Unless you've got an exception to "any person" in the Equal Protection Clause, you're multiplying 1 x 0 which of course is not 1=1, it's 0.

Our Constitution is truly the most wonderful document ever written. The problem we have had in our country since it's inception has not been with the Constitution, it's been with people who either don't read it or they don't understand the simple meaning of the plain language of its words.

The whole purpose of our country was for people to be free. So in logic you start with that premise based on the Declaration of Independence. So at the beginning you are free to do whatever you want without restriction. Then comes governments to write the restrictions, usually with good purpose, but frequently not. Until 1829, there were no state marriage licenses issued in the United States, so do you move to an illogical step and assume the Constitution did not intend for people to be free to marry whoever they wanted or that states could restrict that inalienable right on an unequal discriminatory basis? No, because that would not be logical, it would be illogical. Yet States did just that. States barred inter-racial marriage, gay marriage and other types of marriages. And I don't know who was behind all this getting government involved in the private affair of marriage, but it was probably a bunch of Democrats, since the Republican Party didn't exist yet.

So the oppose sex laws in States were implanted by legislatures acknowledging the heritage of gay couples who obviously were marrying, otherwise there would be no need for the restrictive condition in State laws to forbid it. Thus these "one man and one women" laws are taking away protected rights that were already in play.


In any event, the marriage issues have now been settled.

In my opinion, you're wrong, Judy. Homosexual marriage and homosexuality are moral issues. As such, these issues are spoken to in the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment. As such, decisions on these issues are reserved for the people and states, not the Federal Government.

Judy wrote:

MW, I think you're one of the folks who believe your rights are handed out to you by government.

Actually, the way I see it, it's you that is thinking more along those lines.

Judy wrote:

If you'll notice, there is no mention of marriage at all, of any type in the US Constitution. Marriage wasn't even a government issue when the US Constitution was adopted, but marriage is a right, a natural right, an inalienable right, to partner up and have a life together, something humans have been doing for millions of years without government I might add and something Americans have been doing without government since there was an America until 1829 when some states started issuing marriage licenses, so Americans had been hitching up for hundreds of years in our colonies and then our nation without any aid or involvement from government.

Homosexuals have the right to marry ..... nobody is denying that. However, the U.S. Constitution does not give them the right to marry someone of the same gender. The U. S. Constitution does not cover issues of morality or personal behavior, that is why the issue falls under the 10 Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Text of the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is not the U.S. Supreme Courts job to legislate, which they've clearly done in this case. Homosexual marriage is an issue that should be left specifically to the individual states.

ReformUSA2012 wrote:

Here is the thing. Equal protection or basically having access to the exact same thing as anyone else. This is what I see as the flaw in your way of thinking. The *Equal Protection* or Equal Treatment would mean they don't just have access to the same thing everyone else has but also in the same manner. I see it as everyone has the right to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. No one is denied the right to marry but its defined as being equal in how its used.

So *Marriage* itself is not the *Equal Protection* but *Marriage to a qualifying adult* which would be *equal treatment*.

IMHO, you nailed it.

Originally Posted by MW

In my opinion, you're wrong, Judy. Homosexual marriage and homosexuality are moral issues. As such, these issues are spoken to in the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment. As such, decisions on these issues are reserved for the people and states, not the Federal Government.

Judy wrote:



Actually, the way I see it, it's you that is thinking more along those lines.

Judy wrote:



Homosexuals have the right to marry ..... nobody is denying that. However, the U.S. Constitution does not give them the right to marry someone of the same gender. The U. S. Constitution does not cover issues of morality or personal behavior, that is why the issue falls under the 10 Amendment to the Bill of Rights.



It is not the U.S. Supreme Courts job to legislate, which they've clearly done in this case. Homosexual marriage is an issue that should be left specifically to the individual states.



IMHO, you nailed it.

So what are you saying, MW, that you think it's moral to force gay people who want to marry to marry someone they don't want to have sex with? Are you serious?! You want to push gay people into being alone or marrying someone that turns their stomach in the bedroom? Really?!! How is that by any definition the "the right to marry"? That's a life of torture, depression, abject unhappiness. And what about the spouse who doesn't know they married someone who is gay? How is that fair to them?! What PERSON in the United States who is not gay would want to marry a gay person?! No one would want to do that, yet you think this is what the Constitutional right to marry, the inalienable right of marriage, the reserved RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to pursue their own happiness, means?!

States Rights do not include forcing people who want to marry to marry someone who turns their stomachs in the bedroom. The right to marry the person whom you want to marry is a RESERVED RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE under the Declaration of Independence, Amendment 9, Amendment 10 and the 14th Amendment. How many times do the people of the United States have to draw you a picture? Well, it's been drawn 4 times, and under our system of government created in accordance with our Constitution, you've finally been shut down by the United States Supreme Court, and rightly so.

What if States decided for whatever reason, diversity, income redistribution or otherwise, that you could ONLY marry a "qualifying adult" of a different race? Under yours and Reform's theories, States have every legal right to do just that. Would you then be crying "waaa, waaa, waaa" all the way home?!

People with this bonehead idea of "freedom for me, but not for thee", have lost their cause in the United States, and rightly so. This Supreme Court Ruling affects more than just gay people, it affects everyone for the better because it restores liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the cornerstones of our private lives as free people in a free nation outlined in our Declaration of Independence and protected by the US Constitution.

Do you not have any clue as to the enormous harm, cost and damage to our country that this bonehead notion has caused in the name of your phony "morality"? I think about the couples who have been trapped by trying to do what society wanted and the law allowed them, the lives of absolute misery of the gay spouse getting nauseated with the thought of going to bed, the absolute torturous life of the straight spouse spending a lifetime wondering what is wrong with them, children raised in this artificial phony environment of pretend one-sided "love", young gay people so disturbed by how they feel and are treated if they tell anyone to the point of believing their lives are not worth living and commit suicide.

Morality? Oh no, this is not about morality, it's about abusing people who are different than you are, it's about intolerance of people who are different than you are, it's about discrimination against people who are different than you are, and that my friend is a violation of the 14th Amendment that requires any person within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to have equal protection under the law, which means in simple terms, no STATE has the right or power to do that to the people of the United States.

Judy, by your *anyone* argument why does it not apply to children? The same argument I could use so I could marry a 10 year old kid, or marry my dog while my dogs rights aren't in the Constitution mine is and as *anyone* I should have that right, correct? Also by *anyone* argument nothing says I shouldn't be able to marry 100 different people at the same time right? After all its our right as *anyone* isn't it?

See where this leads if you take an empty approach to it? The Constitution doesn't define who *anyone* is or even define what a *citizen* is. One could apply all these terms as tight or loosely as they want to fit any agenda.

Now instead the proper thing to do is think of the framers of the Constitution and its Amendments. Do you think the Founding Fathers supported the idea of Gay Marriage? Do you think the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for it to carry to the issue of Gay Marriage? Or those who wrote Equal Rights, think they intended it one day for Gay Marriage? If anyone actually really thinks that then they have no clue on real history. Its today's society that has adapted and changed our perceptions to think things like Gay Marriage is alright, after all consenting adults should be free to live how they choose as long as they don't harm others. However it is NOT and NEVER will be a Constitutional issue as how the US Constitution currently stands.

If you have other proof that the Foundering Fathers, the framers of the 14th Amendment, or even the politicians of the 14th Amendment ever had the slightest intention of Gay Marriage being part of it, please provide it and I'll gladly change my opinion. But until that then its time to stop putting agenda's and words in the mouths of those long dead for a new age idea.