Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

They already have an existing familial relationship by virtue of being related to eachother. Certain inheritance rules automatically apply. Certain tax benefits are already available to them.

 

I know you going to play name games, but those unions were never equalized with union between man and woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Do they have an option to convert their relationship and receive 100% of benefits? Are not we talking about equality?

 

Nope. Or certainly not the same inheritance or tax rules. In a lot of states, the entire estate goes to the spouse without a will. No state would pass the entire estate to the grandmothers daughter. Windsor in the DOMA case got a refund of $300,000+ in estate taxes. whereas a grandmother passing on such an estate to her daughter would have to pay the tax.

And you seem to think the fact that they already have a familial relationship somehow addresses the issue. It does not. If you want to give 1000s of governmental benefits to some couples with a familial relationship, while denying it to other couples with a familial relationship, you still need SOME justification for the discriminatory treatment.

 

Nah, marriage has only been extended to the homosexuals because in the courts view it is only the homosexuals in need of more "respect and dignity".

 

Actually it is DIRECTLY relevant to the quoted post,

 

Have you noticed the posts of the homophobes in the past week have now become "alternative history" in nature?

IOW, they are now attempting to "re-fight the Civil War to see if the South could win"...or "re-fight World War-I so that it only lasts a year"...

or in this case, "re-fight Obergfell to try to make it come out in our favor"?


I predict this will go on for YEARS. Oh, Obergfell will stand....but a large number of the homophobes will not just "move on" and give up.

Partially it's their hatred and bigotry. But also it's their EGO...they can never admit that they lost.

 

And it was responded to and dealt with accordingly.

 

Nope, we still have no one to offer an answer to

MANY comments, but no answers yet.

 

Yep. I answered it. No discrimination occurs in the scenario you are discussing. A mother and daughter can claim head of household status and they already have next of kin status. If no legal discrimination occurs then there is no 14th Amendment argument because no discrimination occurs. The reason discrimination occurs in the case of non-related same-sex couples is because they do not get the legal benefits of being able to combine incomes and next of kin rights. If the law doesn't provide any special benefit to people whether married or not, in your scenario, then there is no discrimination. No discrimination no equal protection claim.

 

What you're forgetting is that the Gospels are nothing like a complete record of His every utterance, even during His 3 year ministry. Furthermore, he told the pharisees that if they believed Moses they would also believe Him, which He would hardly have said were there anything wrong with Mosaic law.

 

The Gospels are flawed in errors of omission and NOT a complete accounting of everything Jesus said???

So it is POSSIBLE that Jesus said "Yeah, I'm cool with gay couples getting married".....right?

 

No it isn't, since he isn't advocating for denying mother and grandmothers.

But you knew that.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage wasn't extended to homosexuals. Bans on same sex marriage were removed. And they were removed bcause they served no legitimate state interest and violated the 14th amendment.

No other question was before the court so they could address any other issue besides same sad couples.

But you knew all that too.

 

Relevant to his post in the context of the real world where all 50 states prohibit closely related couples from marrying.

 

No relevance in any way.

 

Of course it was. From Kennedy's decision-

Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and con(*)tinuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbi(*)ans....

Gays and lesbians were prohibited from mostgovernment employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate....

Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.....

For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity....

Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argu(*)ment that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social con(*)ventions....

For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness.

As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society....

This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.....

This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians....

In Lawrence the Court acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians.....

Were the Court to stay its hand to allow slower, case-by-case determination of the required availability of specific public benefits to same-sex couples, it still would deny gays and lesbians many rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage....

 

When Jesus stopped the people from stoning the adulterer to death he said, "then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more". So I doubt he would encourage homosexuals to continue to sin.

 

So now you are going to start inserting unexpressed homophobic thoughts into the head of Christ? That is absurd. Speak for yourself. Do no presume to speak for Christ

 

Sure he would.

Matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.…

Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

 

I think I asked this of you before. Man can sodomize woman if married? Man and woman can go 69 of each other in public if married? There is nothing between a married man and woman that isn't perverted?
Go and sin no more, but we all know, no one can sin no more. Even you.

You coming off like a self righteous hypocrite in telling others about their sins is a huge perversion. Hypocrites are not seen favorable with God or Jesus, yet we see it daily.
You are doing more than disagreeing, you want to tell them they can't be themselves. Even if they aren't christian. You know, only 33% of the world claim christian, yet you want 100% of the world to follow what you believe. Perverted. That is degrading to society and in the end hurts us all. We don't want your perverted thinking being the law of the land.

 

Obviously not, though I certainly acknowledge the convenience it affords you to pretend I did.

That's pretty funny, considering you've just presumed to do to me what you falsely accuse me of doing to Him.

 

Nope. Two,straight men can now marry.

 

Two homosexuals of the opposite sex could marry in traditional marriage

 

Still can. Aren't rights great?

 

That sounds like a fallacy. marriage was declared a right when marriage was union of one man and one woman.

 

Yawn...marriage has had many different definitions throughout history. Again there is ample support to show that the SCOTUS has considered marriage a right in the US since 1888. Since it is right you can only discriminate against people who want to engage in it if you can show a compelling state interest.

Again I ask you...as I have seemingly a hundred times in this thread...

What is your compelling state interest that you believe exists in order to discriminate against same-sex couples?