Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

When did it end in the US?

 

And @rahl never will!

 

Given a majority of Justices who are utterly careless of the Constitution, yes.

 

Wouldn't it be automatically unconstitutional?

 

DOMA passed in 1996and remained in effect until 2013. I would say that it held up for quite a while.

 

So was it Constitutional?

 

Right now you are starting to get into weird grey areas. We can look at all sorts of things that, with 20/20 hindsight, we see they have been unconstitutional this whole time, but were still law for long periods of time. Slavery has been deemed unconstitutional, yet look how long it persisted in the US before it got declared as such. So how do you want to treat such laws? DOMA held up as constitutional for over a decade and a half.

 

A great many Americans would say yes; but the answer is no, as the metric for constitutionality is the Constitution, not any court holding.

 

Then there is no reason for the Supreme Court - all we have to do is ask you.

 

There was a time the question in the title really interested me. Now as an American who's life has spanned from the days of sodomy laws , general harassment and periodic gay bashings etc,to same sex marriage polling in the mid to upper 60 percentile, I am content to have these people just wither from old age and slowly die off. The ones who were able and willing to learn, already have.

I spent my years in the gay rights movement, fighting the fight against ignorance and bigotry. For the most part, now that I am 57 years old, I am done now. I will just relax and sun myself in the rays of equality, and acceptance.

 

As to the issue at hand, you'd sure as Hell do better to ask me than anyone in the Obergefell majority.

 

You're cute.

 

No, I mean was the act of Congress making ANY law on marriage unconstitutional given the 10th Amendment which says what Congress is allowed to legislate?

 

I'm better than cute. I'm right.

You're welcome.

 

Are you saying that the Constitution can only be interpreted in one way - that it is totally black and white?

 

Which is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Is this what you mean?

 

Yeah, but no man has ever been denied an abortion because no man has ever needed one!

 

Well the law never DID discriminate on the basis of physical sex, because marriage has always been available to both men and woman - and as you say, gay men married women all the time! So isn't the relevant characteristic sexual orientation just as is the case in state anti-discrimination/wedding services cases?

A law against consanguinous breeding is totally unenforceable isn't it? I don't think the 'bedroom police' is a real thing.

The only other possible purpose that I can think of is that, for some couples, being legally bound together is proof of commitment.

"Related" would be a case of consanguinous marriage, right?

Aren't they only allowed to marry someone who is also underage?

 

Well can you discriminate against religion based on this clause? Does the phrase "all persons born or naturalized" exclude religion?

 

Well no I suppose, but then why does the Civil Rights Act and countless state anti-discrimination laws single out only, race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, and national origin as the character traits which can't be used as the basis of discrimination? Well known racist Richard Spencer is born or naturalized in the United States, but he is allowed to be discriminated against by non-government entities on the basis of his politics.

 

Because discrimination still occurred. States were not obeying the 14th amendment.

Yeah people have that right.

 

Yeah, it still occurred on the basis of just RACE, right?

But I thought that people have equal protection under the law. Why should Spencer be discriminated against on the basis of his character trait of racism but another person can't be discriminated against on the basis of their character trait of homosexuality?

 

In some places yes

Who said they can't?

 

I would say no. Because the legal marriage can be classified as "for the general welfare" it's allowable. What isn't allowed is to base the legal version strictly on any religious version. Of course they will resemble each other. But the legal can't have the religious based restrictions. If a legitimate secular reason for a restriction can be determined, then it can be used even if it is the same as a religious restriction. For example, the prohibition against theft is pretty universal, not limited to religions. Thus the secular reason for laws against theft are constitutional even though they match religious reasons.

 

Is a non pregnant woman denied an abortion when it's illegal?

Whether or not one can or does use a right, to have that right denied is what is wrong. And rights need to be universal.