Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Who is being targeted? This argument that marriages limitation to men and women, as old as the institution itself, is all a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" gays is a judicial fiction created to reach the decision they wanted. Would be like claiming all the state laws that limit marriage to just one per person, is all a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" Mormons. ABSURD

 

If the 14th Amendment is what mattered here then how come this ruling didn't come down much earlier?

I've already said that I know there are people who disagree with me. I think reciprocity allows married gay couples to continue to have recognition and doesn't force a federal definition of marriage on the states. Why is that so wrong?

A state isn't , or wasn't, overstepping it's powers by issuing marriage licenses to only straight couples. Spare me your talk about opponent's rhetorical, contrary spin. I'm already on record in this thread supporting gay marriage and you quoted me, not "them". My problem is with how the Court behaved, not with gay marriage.

Striking down the bans gets rid of something that is clearly un-Constitutional and resets the law to where it was before the illegal bans were in place.

 

When a ban is enacted whoever is mentioned in the ban is being targeted. There's a difference between a ban and an affirmation.

 

they didn't dictate to the states how they must define marriage. They just reminded the states they can't violate the constitution in their definitions.

 

how do you imagine that is in any way relevant?

but marriage BANS are. which is why you lost.

- - - Updated - - -

because the only issue the court could rule on was same sex couples. They couldn't rule on any other issue. and they didn't extend marriage to gay couples. they removed the gender restriction. 2 straight men or women can also marry.

but you knew that.

 

From your post, yes it appears you have never read the ruling.

 

The same reason that Loving v. Virginia didn't happen earlier.

Rulings happen when the cases get to the court. States had a potential rational prior to Lawrence v. Texas, because States could have laws which prohibited sex between two people of the same gender- but after Lawrence v. Texas, States could not use that as a reason to prevent same gender marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

The Supreme Court strikes down unconstitutional laws. They don't make any laws.

 

They didn't extend marriage to 'gay couples'- the Supreme Court ruled that State bans on same gender couple marriages were unconstitutional.

The Court rules on the cases before it- not whatever cases Dixon thinks the Court should also include.

But you knew that.

 

Its all about the SCOTUS's political agenda.

 

I'm not buying it. The 14th Amendment is a reconstruction era amendment, there was plenty of time, if it was really applicable.

We're not talking about a right anyway, if it were a right no licenses would be needed.

 

Most of the bans were put in place within the last 20 years. For example:
Alabama's Amendment 774- 2006
California's Prop 8- 2008
Michigan statute- 1996
Kentucky- 1998
Tennessee- 1996

You are right- they didn't pop up- they were passed specifically to prevent gay couples from marrying.

 

Well I don't see that any argument will change your mind.

Loving v. Virginia didn't overturn mixed race marriage bans until 1967.

Yes- we are talking about a right- we have a right to marriage- just as we do have a right to own a gun- but can be required to get a license.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed we have that right.

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Zablocki v. Rehail
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

Yeah I get you really like Loving to prove your point and I also get that you've accused me of not reading the decision which means it is you who won't listen to anyone else.

 

Surely you will admit that listening to the SC on the constitution as it applies to marriage is the first bit of listening one would do to understand the legal issue here.

 

Surely you would admit that when a member accuses another member of ignorance that member isn't taking the other member seriously and is trying to argue from a position of undeserved authority? Surely you can see that? Or maybe not?

 

Aaaand these bans on "same gender couple marriages" were deemed unconstitutional because and only because they excluded gay couples.

 

Nonsense. The limitation to men and women were always in place. EVERY single state that put the limitation into their Constitutions, had the same bans in statutes, as long as they've had marriage statutes.

 

Don't be shy. If you are going to respond to the question, might as well answer the question. NO state had any law that even mentions the sexual orientation of the parties. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant to the state. Soooooo who is being targeted?

 

Il wait here while you dash off about semantics. States defined marriage as between a man and a woman and the Fed mandated that it be defined as between two people.

 

quote any ruling stating so.

- - - Updated - - -

nope. no ban existed prior to 1971

 

It contradicts the post quoted.

 

Soooo then show us even one example of a state law that did not ban same sex marriage before 1971. I cant duplicate them all to show the absence of such a ban in any of them

 

uh, correcting you isn't semantics.

Nope. the court said that definition was unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok. every single state.

.

huh? you just agreed no ban existed prior, lol

 

The SC is the authority. Ignorance of the decisions of that authority would would need to be addressed early in any rational discussion of the topic.

 

OK then. That's why the lawsuits didn't happen until after the bans.

- - - Updated - - -

Gays, once bans against gays were implemented. You think I'm being shy? OK, whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what you asked me and that's not the question I answered.