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

We do not know that for a fact it was just an opinion. I think the decent proof would be if we find the law that equalized homosexual and heterosexual couples.

 

It's easy to find, since it's written into the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Believe it or not, constitutionally guaranteed rights are NOT subject to legislation creating or removing them. They ARE subject to legislation regulating them within limits.

 

That is another B.S.
Once you find historical evidence that marriage was equalized with homosexual union let me know.
Government support of relationship between man and woman is not a discrimination against gays.

 

That is exactly why union of one man and one woman is 100% constitutional. Because it was written in Constitution. it was written as union of one man and one woman. Neither slavery nor anti-miscegenation or racial segregation laws were in constitution, but marriage as union of one man and one woman was.
You guys trying to fool around honorable people presenting fallacies that go beyond human imagination.

 

And many did for appearances sake. Total sham marriage. Or one spouse was gay and the other was just providing cover, political or otherwise, for the other. Children were produced as needed to appear normal, but for the most part the marriage would be devoid of sex with eachother. Sometimes they actually acknowledged the fact that one or both was gay, and they would have sex outside of the marriage with the appropriate partner. And sometimes they just stayed firmly in the closet not letting the other spouse realize they weren't sexually attracted to them and you ended up with some pretty sexless and loveless marriages as a result.

Only in the last 30 or 40 years have people realized they don't have to live in the closet. That they don't have to marry someone they're not sexually attracted to. That they don't have to produce children to keep up appearances. That they don't have to live a lie.

 

Could you point to the part of the Constitution that says marriage is the union of one man and one woman? I can't seem to find it in my copy. Slavery, on the other hand, is mentioned at least once (3/5ths person and all that).

 

Yes, such a union is fully constitutional. So what?

No, the constitution doesn't say a single word aboutr marriage. It only says that all citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

Not so. Slavery was indeed in the constitution. Have you actually read it? The constitution was amended (the 14th Amendment, remember?) to override the previous slavery provisions.

Why don't you quote the part of the constitution you say is there?

Why don't you read the constitution. There you will find provisions allowing for slavery, later overruled. You will not find a single mention of marriage. Not one. Go look and see for yourself. Then apologize.

 

This was always the definition...denying it does not change that. The Constitution did not have to do what dictionaries and natural law all ready did.


http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/marriage

This is another straw man argument.

 

The compelling interest is upholding a sound foundational society that does not promote and support perversions because it degrades us all, despite the denials by fools.

 

I cannot control how you choose to interpret and hurl insults...that is all on you. Nothing you say is going to convince me to abandon God's principles and support something that is a perversion.

In public? There are existing laws covering that type of behavior, for a good reason, it just amazes me what the left will say in an argument.

I am not telling anyone to do anything, I am simply stating I do not support or condone it. Christianity is inclusive, not exclusive. God wants all of His children to come to Him. He also gives us all the right to choose to do so, the right to deny Him. That is love, if He just opened up the sky and revealed Himself to all, no one would worship Him out of love, all would bow and cower out of fear.

Why is it that you arguers always return to that perfection expectation...as if a parent should not correct a child because the parent was/is not perfect...this is a silly and unreasonable argument.

 

In 1888 this was the definition of marriage :

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/marriage

So that was what that court was deciding on...in no way were they sanctioning two men or two women perverting what was a clear definition.

What you are calling gender discrimination is not gender discrimination...that would mean either a man or a woman (defined by gender) this is about a sexual preference. a perverted sexual preference.

 

Even more did because starting a family was more important than achieving orgasm.

 

It in numerous Supreme Court decisions marriage was referred as union of man and woman.

 

Constitution does not mention slavery explicitly.
There is no word marriage in the constitution.
Marriage however has been reaffirmed as important part of the society, while it was union of one man and one woman.
Slavery has never been reaffirmed by any court.

whole gay-marriage idiocy was created out of thin air by corrupt elitists rules.

 

. Nor can anyone you. Look in the mirror or step back a read what you post. You hurl insults at a group of humans all day long. What insult are you referring to by me? Your attitude or at least the words you use here is a perversion. So remove that plank 1st.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=415170&p=1065173537#post1065173537
See above about hurling insults.

There are locals in the world, even the US where it isn't against the law or at least no enforced. But my reason for asking is you said sex between married heteros is blessed by God. Sex between anyone else is not. My question is legit, is there any sex between hetero married couple that is not blessed? If so, what type.

When you hurl insults like perversion, that is not inclusive language. If you are true to you words you'd use inclusive words instead of insults. Words spoken or written about a subject say more about one really thinks that what they claim to think. And if you insist and make laws then you are telling folks what to do or not do. BTW - free will and an omniscient God don't go together. But that is another subject.

What are you talking about, where have I implied a parent can't correct a child if said parent did something similar. You're just making stuff up.


So by your lack of refusal to respond, you must think there are no perverted sex acts between in a hetero marriage.

 

What does that have to do with the constitution? And you post a christian definition? We know what christian doctrine says. Christians are wrong on this.

 

Yes, it does.

That's not what you said before.

The overwhelming majority of marriages are STILL one man and one woman, and ALL marriages are important to society.

Dred Scott.

Forgot your meds again?

 

Please quote where in the Constitution it defines marriage as union of one man and one woman.

 

I think you're now the third person to ask this, and so now he's saying marriage is not mentioned!

 

The problem with that is what is considered a perversion by one person is not the same as another person. We live in a free country with many beliefs. Some people believe that mixing dairy and meat is perversion. Would you be OK with laws that ban cheeseburgers? What about homosexual behavior undermines the foundation society?

 

It was defined in the numerous decisions of Supreme Court.
On the other hand gay marriage has not been defined as marriage.

 

If you had bothered to read the post I said that marriage was defined as RIGHT since 1888. This comes from Maynard v. Hill. It has been upheld through a series of 13 other cases that marriage is indeed a RIGHT. As a right together with the fact that it is sanctioned by the state and imparts legal benefits, according to the 14th Amendment you cannot discriminate against its practice by people unless you can prove a compelling state interest for doing so.

Preventing same-sex couples from marrying is gender discrimination. Through marriage the state is sponsoring a program that imparts legal benefits to two otherwise unrelated individuals. The state was then adding that those two individuals must be of opposite gender. Therefore if you prevent 2 people of the same gender from being married you are discriminating against them because they are not the correct gender. Ergo discrimination exists and a 14th Amendment claim can and has been made and upheld.

You are welcome to have your opinions on the validity of such marriages. You are also welcome to have your own opinions on whether homosexual behavior is perverted or not. What you are not allowed to do in a free country is force other people to abide by your beliefs.

 

It is still not explicit, those are just technicalities about previously accepted standards in all societies, where slavery was a norm.
Marriage on the other hand has been reaffirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions ,when marriage was a union of one man and one woman.
And again, if marriage is something similar to slavery then Supreme Court would just stop that and abolish marriage. But instead S.C. just added another selective group to definition.
The same way if 14th amendment would stop slavery for just one race only, but not for all other races.

 

You can't get away from the fact that marriage was defined as a right when it was union of man and woman. There is gotta be some kind of logical explanation, when exactly marriage become anything that people could think of.

 

Incorrect again. In Lawrence v. Texas the court clearly states that homosexuals have the right to autonomy in their decisions to run their lives as they see fit in decisions of marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education and the that the Constitution demands the autonomy of persons making these decisions.