Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

Even if that was true...so what?

If the majority really wanted to stop it, they could. They are choosing not to. So either they are indifferent or they agree with it. It is only your speculation that the majority violently oppose gay marriage.

So lets see if it gets reversed.

Refusing to hear a gay marriage case from a lower court is the same thing as agreeing with the lower court. They had the option to overturn it and chose not to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/alaska-gay-marriage_n_6005064.html

Without the Supreme Court's help, there is no way to reverse it. They are setting precedent which makes it even less likely to be reversed in the future.

Which is possibly, but very unlikely. How many times has it happened in the past?

Be sure to hold your breath.

 

That is an appeal to tradition argument. It is not valid for gay marriage for the same reason it is not valid for continuing slavery. Just because things were done a certain way in the past is not necessarily evidence that they were correct, or that we should continue to do things that way.

Were women wrong to complain about not being allowed to vote? After all, that was the norm in the past, right?

If money is the issue, why not outlaw marriage for everyone? Wouldn't that save the government even more money? Far less bureaucracy. No more divorce courts. Why are you not agitating for that instead?

 

That is not an appeal to tradition. An appeal to tradition is saying, "we've done it for 200 years, so that must mean it's right!!!". I was pointing out the fact that we've been operating for 200 years successfully providing the benefit of procreation to society while still providing benefits to the couples who game the system. There's no need for us to put in an entire new bureaucracy to keep a minute portion of the population from being able to get those benefits and have it cost us an enormous amount of money.

We certainly don't need to do so simply because homosexuals want benefits because people who can procreate get them. Especially when they aren't capable of procreating and we know that without any invasive testing or increased costs. We just have to recognize the inherent flaw in their partnership which is the inability to procreate on their own.

I am for that. I'm absolutely for getting rid of any government regulation of marriage.

I'm also for getting rid of welfare. But just because I can't get rid of welfare completely doesn't mean I have to sit back and accept the idiot left putting MORE people on the welfare dole that don't deserve it.

 

Most Americans support ending gender discrimination in marriage law and believe that the races, religions, ethnicities and genders of the couple that wish to enter into such a contract are all irrelevant.

The courts are increasingly respecting the Constitutional rights of Americans under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Experience in advanced states and nations amply demonstrates that the homophobes have nothing to fear.

Their tantrums would be unnecessary if they just relocated to a nation under sharia law that reflected their prejudices in the matter.

It would help if they do not also get in such a tizzy over folks eating hummus.

 

The crying when the Supreme Court decides in favor of State rights is going to be absolutely epic.

 

Be sure to drop a postcard from Tehran when the 14th Amendment is overturned.

As of now, marriage contracts do not require any sexual activities, let alone prescribe the type of whoopee that must be practiced, nor demand that couples be fertile, or intend to reproduce.

In fact, such issues do not in any way enter into a marriage contract, and folks recreate and propagate without a marital contract in any way entering into the matter.


Why do you get so flustered about other folks' rights and behaviours?

 

This is such a dishonest argument. If this argument is accurate then we cannot deny people who have been to a mental institute the right to bear arms because we don't require everybody else who wants to get a gun to show that they have a clean bill of mental health from a psychiatrist.

I don't until their "rights" and behaviors impact my life. Like I said before... I don't care if you want to be gay and it's none of my business. UNTIL you start asking for my money that I earned and use to provide for my family to support your perverted behavior. Then it DOES become my business.

 

Married couples assume equal contractual rights and responsibilities, regardless of your prejudice against some of them.

Gender is no longer an excuse for discrimination in thirty-two states, the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions.

Despite your snit, progress is happening and folks have noticed that the sky is not falling.

Americans like equality, and I really don't think you're going to pull off the moral retrogression you fancy.

 

Then I would suggest you go back and read the DOMA decision where Kennedy voted in favor of State Rights.

Just like the Judge in Louisiana pointed out when he ruled in favor of the gay marriage ban.

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

"Although opinions about same-sex marriage will understandably vary among the states, and other states in free and open debate will and have chosen differently, that does not mandate that Louisiana has overstepped its sovereign authority," he wrote.

The conservative Louisiana Family Forum praised the ruling

"This ruling confirms that the people of Louisiana -- not the federal courts -- have the constitutional right to decide how marriage is defined in this state," Gene Mills, the group's president, said in a news release.

Feldman said the Supreme Court decision "correctly discredited" the Defense of Marriage Act's effect on New York law legalizing same-sex unions. But, he also noted language in the decision outlining the states' historic authority to recognize and define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court, nor the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, have defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

By the way... it's not just Louisiana now. A Federal District Judge in Puerto Rico just ruled against same-sex marriage as well.

A federal district judge late Tuesday rejected the reasoning used in at least 14 other decisions and said his hands were tied by a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Minnesota same-sex marriage ban "for want of a substantial federal question."

"This court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court that are directly on point," District Court Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez ruled. "Only the Supreme Court may exercise the prerogative of overruling its own decisions."

Pérez-Giménez said in his ruling that none of the Supreme Court's decisions since 1972 -- including those striking down bans on interracial marriage and sodomy, as well as last year's rulings -- rendered the court's decision in Baker v. Nelson obsolete.

"Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the 14th Amendment, remains good law," he said. "Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy."

While constraining his ruling along such technical lines, however, the judge made clear his own views.

"Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order," he said. "And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage. Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries."


Get ready. It's going to the Supreme Court. And when it does, they're going to rule in favor of the State's right to define marriage EXACTLY like they did in the DOMA decision.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution applies.

 

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.

Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include:

"protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State."

 

Nope. That's why you keep,losing in court after court. Procreation is not a condition of marriage.

Then why do I keep winning?

 

Because a lot of other idiots keep taking the same position you had. That Kennedy was somehow supporting gay marriage in his DOMA decision and not State Rights. However, as Louisiana is going to uphold and the 6th Circuit in Ohio is going to uphold, Kennedy was supporting State Rights.

And when Kennedy comes out and agrees with the other 4 Conservatives in favor of State Rights it's going to be epically hilarious to watch. Because the ONLY argument you've had this entire time is "THE COURTS HAVE SAID SOO1!!11!!!1!!". So when the Supreme Court disagrees with you, I'm going to fall on the floor laughing at you attempt to come up with reasons why they were wrong.

 

The Supreme Court has already decided for same sex marriage.

That's why they upheld every appellate ruling that's overturned the ban.

 

No they didn't. If you'd actually read the opinion Kennedy's OVERRIDING point over and over again is that the State of New York and the 11 others have the right to define marriage as being between a man and a man if they want. In other words, he was ruling in favor of State Rights over Federal.

And when Kennedy and the Conservative Supreme court rules that way again, it's going to be HILARIOUS.

 

False analogy. The ability to procreate is not a condition of marriage.

same sex marriage has exactly zero effect on you.

 

And not having a mental illness is not a condition of being able to bear arms.

Try again.

This is just outright ignorance.

Who pays for the tri-care of a spouse of a military member who died 25 years ago?

 

The Supreme Court has already ruled. They have upheld every appellate court which overturned the bans.

You lost

- - - Updated - - -

This is incoherent and irrelevant.



This is just outright ignorance.

Show me where in your tax return that you have been effected by same sex marriage.

 

No they haven't. And don't worry, I'm going to favorite this page. So that when they do come out and have to take it up because of Louisiana and Ohio... I'm going to make sure you remember this conversation.

You are asserting that the reason we can't deny homosexuals the right to marry on the grounds that they don't procreate is because we don't test the fertility of all the other people who are engaging in marriage.

I'm asserting that if your logic is correct then we can't deny people who have been to a mental institute the right to carry on the grounds that they have a mental illness because we don't test the mental stability of all the other people who are engaging in the right to carry.

In case you didn't notice I'm in NC we haven't even begun allowing SSM yet. Not like I'd give you my tax information anyway. But regardless:

"According to CBO, the federal government would pay $350 million a year by 2014 for Social Security benefits for same-sex couples based on spousal income. Covering same-sex spouses in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program would cost about $80 million a year before the Affordable Care Act. With the ACA, the figure should increase."

And that was from 2004 and was only counting 9 states with gay marriage.

 

Did you not notice that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are gender neutral, from Inception?

 

But the reason we support, promote and encourage it through marriage.

 

They have. Refusing to hear the case upholds the appellate courts ruling you lost.

Nope. We can't deny homosexuals the right to marry on the grounds of procreation, because procreation is not a requirement of marriage.

Which is a false analogy.

Now show me where you are affected.

 

Hey, if gender equality in marriage contracts gets you so bummed out, so be it.

 

It isn't. Can't ban one couple because they can't procreate but allow another who also can't procreate. This violates due process and equal protection.

Rights aren't granted because of,their benefit to society. They can only be denied based on a beneficial governmental interest. No such interest exists by banning same swx couples, which is why the bans have this far been unanimously ruled unconstitutional in every federal appeals court and their ruling upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

None of this is an argument. Once you start doing this you're not worth talking to about the topic. You might as well just type gibberish... it'll be just as much of an effective argument.

Who the hell do you think is paying for that extra $430M PER YEAR? The gay marriage fairy?

- - - Updated - - -

But you can ban one person who has a mental illness from having a gun but you allow others who also have mental illness to have a gun.

Your hypocrisy is amazing. And your refusal to acknowledge the commonality in those two arguments without providing any reason why just shows everybody how ludicrous your argument is.