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

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 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.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

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.

Why does what not apply to children? Marriage laws? Oh geez, because they are not old enough to execute a contract. Marriage recognized by government is a legal contract and minors are not of age to consent or execute the contract just as they are not allowed to execute any contract, for the same reason they can't buy beer or cigarettes or vote, because they're minors and too young to make the decision.

As for dogs, because your dog isn't a PERSON protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

As for marrying 100 people at a time, marriage recognized by government is a contract recognized by government, it's only purpose is for legal and financial protections. Bigamy and polygamy violate the purpose of the marriage contract which is to commit to one person at a time. If you don't want to commit to one person at a time, then there is no purpose to a marriage contract and nothing for states or government to protect with marriage laws, i. e., if you've only got one vacuum to commit, you can't commit the same vacuum to 100 people and still honor the contract, so there is no contract to protect.

Originally Posted by Judy

Why does what not apply to children? Marriage laws? Oh geez, because they are not old enough to execute a contract. Marriage recognized by government is a legal contract and minors are not of age to consent or execute the contract just as they are not allowed to execute any contract, for the same reason they can't buy beer or cigarettes or vote, because they're minors and too young to make the decision.

As for dogs, because your dog isn't a PERSON protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

As for marrying 100 people at a time, marriage recognized by government is a contract recognized by government, it's only purpose is for legal and financial protections. Bigamy and polygamy violate the purpose of the marriage contract which is to commit to one person at a time. If you don't want to commit to one person at a time, then there is no purpose to a marriage contract and nothing for states or government to protect with marriage laws, i. e., if you've only got one vacuum to commit, you can't commit the same vacuum to 100 people and still honor the contract, so there is no contract to protect.

If you think of it your actually making my point to a degree. What in the Constitution states age matters? You can't be discriminated against because of age? Not allowing a 10 year old to enter into a contract sounds like discrimination to me then by that standard. Its a law like DOMA was which was found not Constitutionally sound just like children being able to marry isn't either by the same logic. And we aren't talking about the dogs right to marry but the person's right to choose their partner.... nothing says their partner must be of the same species and I don't think a loving pet would object....

As far as 100 people its the government again saying its between 2 people as before it said between 2 people of the opposite sex. Nothing in the Constitution limits how many people at the same time your *equality rights* apply to. Also marriage isn't only a government contract but also a religious contract so if someone's religion (Islam for instance) allows it then who is the government to interfere with someone else's contract and religious practice? The Constitution if take a new age view supports polygamy because it protects one's religious rights but doesn't say anything about letting the government limit the amount of said rights.

My entire point is it starts a slipperly slope and using that argument may make half sense in some ways but when step back and look at how that same argument just very slightly different changes so much more as well.... very slippery slope that we shouldn't have gone down. This is the kind of issues that taking a new age view on old documents has when taken out of their original intent. Such things should be left up to legislatures to fix with new laws and changing old things to fit the times with a new defined definition rather then allowing a very broad reading by courts that was never intended.