Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

Clearly the reason why government is interest has nothing to do with the ability to have children because it is not a requirement.

 

Lower STD rates, longer life expectancy, any of a thousand other benefits that directly correlate to marriage.

 

Operative and formal policy should match: One cannot say that they believe in freedom, then oppose gay marriage. However, the fake Christian right's idea of
freedom is the right to deny gays their constitutional right to be married. So freedom is in the eyes of the beholder many times.

 

Then you agree same sex marriage isn't about behavior.
.

You were the one that brought up behavior. And obviously you haven't debunked anything, seeing as same sex couples can and do marry. Lol

I don't get what your point is then?

Huh?

Ok, so then you agree marriage, or more specifically the person you choose to marry, is based on behavior.

Marriage is a right. Validation or what society thinks is irrelevant.

You pretend quite a lot rich.

 

you honestly think the States should have the right to BAN inter-racial relationships?????????????????????????

LOL!!! wow. that's nuts

 

The mental gymnastics these people go through to justify their hatred of gay people is absurd.
Why not just be honest, say "I dislike homosexuals and believe they do not deserve equal treatment" and be done with it? They aren't fooling anyone

 

I get it. This is a hot topic that's easy to get sucked into... but seriously to my liberal friends..... you're only response to threads like this should be "go F yourself the USSC says I can".

 

You assume the criteria are valid and unchallengeable.

On constitutional grounds, just like it strikes down those gun laws on constitutional grounds. But I'm sure you weren't complaining then.

 

I have no issues with homosexuality and I support gay marriage. I just worry when state's are denied their right to determine marriage (both straight and gay)

 

Maybe they shouldn't have that right, just as they shouldn't have the right to put blacks in separate schools.

 

There is no acceptance among the Fundamentalist Religious Right. The Fundamentalist Religious Right is still pushing for "Gay Conversion Therapy". The Religious Right has always been hung up on sexual issues and continues to be hung up on sexual issues.

I include you in the group of Fundamentalist Religious Right. I include you in the group of people hung up on sexual issues.

We were discussing things in this Country. I am well aware that Fundies of all Abrahamic religions are hung up on sexual issues.

To my knowledge, gays have never been executed by the Government in this Country. However, gays have been tortured and killed by Religious Fundamentalists in this Country.

 

And it is in the creation of that criteria that the discrimination was occurring. Now it has been corrected to be more in line with a country whose pledge states "with liberty and justice for all".

Also, holy matrimony is a religious rite. That's not what the state is involved in, because they are involved with partnerships between two people. That's what a legal marriage is.

 

(My emphases)

Where is race is actually mentioned in the 14th amendment?

 

Try to answer the question.

 

Equal rights is not special rights.

 

But the discrimination of rights based on race is so it doesn't matter what the subject is if its about race based discrimination its illegal under the 14th amendment.

 

How does that change the science? Most of these countries have had gay marriage as a right for decades and nothing has changed.

 

Where is gender mentioned in the 14th amendment? Where is it in the case for the 14th amendment? You are fabricating something that doesn't exist.

As your other liberal friend has done, if you want to expand the equal protection clause to cover gay marriage then you just covered pedophile marriage as well since all children are persons. Did you even stop to think about that? This is the very reason the Constitution gives us the ability to create NEW amendments.

 

I just detailed a study which outlined how things have changed. Did you miss it? It's in the post you quoted. You should catch up on your reading.

 

Children aren't "legal" persons, they are wards.

 

Gender is a protected class under Federal Law. The 14th Amendment demands that all laws apply Equally to all citizens. Federal and State laws include government licensed marriage the Federal government simply recognizing any lawful marriage for things such as taxes, benefits to Federal employees and the armed forces gives benefits to married couples with children or not these born to a couple or adopted or provided some other way such as surrogacy. So get this if you have marriage and its government recognized gender pairings cannot be an issue as long as its applied equally so blood relations too close can be illegal. So its a combination of the 14th Amendment, established laws and regulations and how marriage was customarily used to establish the decision which is now the law of the land so why are we still debating this?

 

Don't like this eliminate marriage as a government consideration in all States and Territories and then it would go away since every adult could do a marriage contract with another adult or adults in any pairings or more combinations and it would stay a civil matter only, but no State compact like that seems very likely. No government marriage license then the reason for the decision disappears.

 

This is about a court ruling, not the law.

 

Wrong. Sex is protected. Liberals like yourself have redefined gender to mean whatever someone is feeling.

Since you have ignorantly expanded the equal protection clause to include marriage let me educate you on what that would actually mean.

#1 There is no limit requirement or the word "pairings" in the equal protection clause so any number of people could get married to each other by your own interpretation.

#2 There is no age requirement in the equal protection clause because it only defines the recipient as a person which has no age requirement so you just legalized pedophile marriage as well by your own interpretation.

In fact you legalized any marriage between persons of any number or age. That's what ignorance gets you when you try to expand a phrase beyond its intent. You are the reason why the Constitution allows for new amendments because they realized some loony group of people would try and reinterpret existing amendments well beyond their intent to fit their personal political agenda if they didn't allow for new ones to be created to deal with new issues.

 

Marriage age is a State issue if a States says ,absurdly since it would be unlikely, an eight year old can marry with a parent or guardians permission it would be legal the Federal government might try to pressure a State not to but it wouldn't be their issue. In fact States now allow marriage in some cases to those under eighteen. And gender pairings well its pairing right now, polygamy is illegal, but means two marriageable age persons of any gender pairings or two people. I noted the fix if States stop and void all marriage licenses and won't recognize marriage leaving this legal contracts then it eliminates the issue entirely if all the States compact this and the territories then all States and Territories pass

No I point out Marriages Ages are under State Laws I did state that the normal laws for marriage other than gender applies those are still State Laws but dum dum at this point I will call you that since you don't get it you missed the other laws apply to such cases. As all those laws conferring protections to gender and race which also matter in decisions of the Supreme Court. States decide age and other factors and those laws still apply.

May I ask would you have been happier if they did the next lower and obvious step leave it to the States but require marriages from one State be recognized across State lines like many other laws are such as drivers licenses held etc? That was to me more likely my guess they saw what would happen and kept it simple and took it to its logical conclusion and made it a final matter its now a fundamental right to same gender marriage as a blanket right so long as the government recognizes marriage in one or more States, the sensible option eliminate States from marriage across the board, then defer it to those who can on their own sign legal contracts which would be eighteen or more to form civil marriages of any combination and numbers of people. States handling contract laws they could ban a parent or guardian from such contracts eliminating child marriages and dogs being married to a woman if you they were smart.

The only reason its an issue you do get this is marriage is governmental laws in the States with special implied benefits for those persons that being the case gender cannot be an issue no more than disability or race or religion can be. The gender protections are part of the puzzle that also applied in such a decision.