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

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

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.

LOL!!

Reform, gay marriage is already legal and fully in effect in 37 states either by legislated law or state or other federal court rulings.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with marrying a child or a pet. Children in the United States are protected against adult activities by minors laws that protect them from sex abuse, child labor, marriage, cigarettes, beer, and so forth, and to some extent some aspects of criminal law. You already own your pet so you don't need marriage laws to hang on to them.

The US Constitution addresses age in numerous provisions, in fact, it's referenced in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment that established voting rights. It references age for the purposes of Presidential elections, and for members of Congress. The 26 Amendment amended the 14th Amendment to change the voting age from 21 to 18 for Presidential elections. The 19th Amendment established voting rights for women. Our Constitution has been amended several times to correct what turned out to be shortcomigs in the original Constitution.

Gay marriage like any marriage has nothing to do with religion. It like all marriage has only to do with state-recognized marriage contracts for legal protections and financial purposes. So anyone claiming they are being discriminated against because their religion allows bigamy and polygamy and state laws don't recognize them, doesn't understand contracts, equal rights, civil rights, state rights, state-recognized rights or religious rights. And I'm not aware of any American Muslim who has ever had or wanted multiple spouses.

I understand that some foreign countries still practice polygamy, but to my knowledge, it's only in countries that have no equal rights or civil rights, here we do, so the issue is moot in the United States with or without gay marriage, which has nothing to do with it to begin with.

There is no "slippery slope". This ruling was the right decision based on the 14th Amendment for all men and women of the United States, who have the inherent, natural, inalienable right to marry as part of their pursuit of happiness and have one marriage at a time recognized by the government so that each person involved n the marriage has equal protection under the laws for legal and financial purposes.

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with consent laws, child abuse, bestiality, polygamy, morality or religion. It has to do with equal rights for all persons and government equal protection under the laws of the United States for all persons. Using state laws to arbitrarily condemn some persons to either being alone or entering into relationships that sicken them is not equal protection under the law. This ruling complies with what is already the law or in effect through other court rulings in 37 of our 50 states, and now compels the other 13 states to abide the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

This ruling did not change federal constitutional law, it enforced it.

Why the 14th Amendment can't possibly require same-sex marriage

Thursday, March 19, 2015
| Frank Turek - Guest Columnist
http://crossexamined.org/

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.]Facebook147Twitter8EmailMore

[/COLOR]
Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

---

The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no.
What's the strongest argument that suggests the U.S. Supreme Court won't find a right to same-sex marriage? (Poll Closed)



Marriage laws entrusted to states, not the feds 54.75% (1,118 votes)


14th Amendment not written for homosexual conduct 28.8% (588 votes)


U.S. Constitution constrains judges from 'evolving' 13.12% (268 votes)


'Born that way' not a legal argument 3.33% (68 votes)


Total Votes: 2,042




The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

Some may say, "Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We've evolved since then."

That's addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don't have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have "evolved" on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently "evolve" – they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That's the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a Constitution at all? If it's "evolving" or "living," then it's not really a collective agreement of the people – it's a pretext that allows judges to invent rights and impose any moral (or immoral) position they want against the will of the people.

Imagine if the people were to pass an amendment guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Would you consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate if it imposed its own position and overturned the amendment? No – the people decide what the laws are, not the Court.

Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?

Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

Finally, the states make marriage law, not the feds. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

Legal reasons such as these are all the Court is constitutionally permitted to consider. Polls and policy considerations are for the people or their legislatures, not the courts. Ryan T. Anderson writes in his recent column titled "Memo to Supreme Court: Nothing in the Constitution Requires States to Redefine Marriage":
"The overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether an exclusively male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution."

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectiv...e-sex-marriage

This guy has got it right!

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

Originally Posted by Judy

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't resolved anything, what they've done is essentially write legislation! In other words, 9 people, not elected to represent the people, have decided on a matter they had no business deciding. Many of the individual states had legal bans on homosexual marriage. I don't know exactly how many, but many of those bans were probably voted on by the people of those states! The U.S. Constitution does not address homosexual marriage, which means it was a decision, under the Constitution, that was solely left to the people and the states they reside in. It's a courts job is to interpret law, not write it. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not directly address homosexual marriage. It is my contention that your interpretation is just as faulty as the U.S. Supreme Courts.