Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

I've read the words in your posts. You are grasping around for some lame excuse to deny full citizenship to some people, for no reason other than to make them suffer. Which is pretty obvious to everyone watching you struggle to find some excuse, ANY excuse, to justify bigotry. Sad, pathetic, and probably Christian of you.

 

While same-sex and inter-racial marriages aren't alike in every respect, they ARE alike in that those who oppose them have nothing to gain by doing so. It's petty, mean-spirited narrow-minded bigotry, and perhaps more important, it is not curable. Bigots have a LOT of identity tied up in their bigotry.

 

I'm just pointing out that these days that one of the roles of federal judiciary is determine whether state laws run afoul of the US Constitution. It may have been intended some 200+ years ago that it only was supposed to apply to federal laws, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

 

It did give them a blank check to define marriage however they damn well please, and the federal government must recognize the marriage.

 

In the case of Loving vs. Virginia though, the decision was clearly defined as it occurred after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it was the first real test of the Act. And nowhere in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is sexual orientation even mentioned nor hinted at. You are demanding that sexual orientation be included in the Civil Rights Act where absolutely no legal precedent exists.

Society has been mature enough to recognize traditional marriages between men and women for quite some time now. Granting marriages despite racial differences has been the norm in American law for over 40 years now. Orientation differences do not equate to racial differences as far as the civil rights laws are concerned since sexual orientation is nothing but a mere behavior, whim, or fancy.

- - - Updated - - -

Bigotry is a two-way street. Those who define as bigots others who do not share their personal beliefs, are bigots themselves.

 

In my family we don't care about what these judges say, we just don't recognize two men or two women getting married. We are so lucky that those kind of couples don't live near our house, and this is a great bless, surely it is.

And, in the event that such kind of couples move near in our neighborhood, we just will avoid even talking to them, because sexual perversion is contagious and the further from them the better. I used to be far away from these kind of people in my work place, while others used to make fun of them when they weren't present, and this is the crude reality for homosexuals and lesbians, they are not accepted by straight people but tolerated by law only... but no law can force me to accept them, and this is my real freedom, to reject them from my life.

I will not hire homosexuals neither lesbians, I just apply for religious background and no problems with any discrimination law.

So, the judges might sell themselves to the devil, that is their thing, let them be...

 

No, its because interracial couples procreate just like same race couples. The children of interracial couples benefit from a stable home with their mother and father just as much as children from same race couples. While couples of the same sex produce no children. Its biology, not bigotry.

 

Every gay couple that i know have children conceived after their marriage... You don't have to do the horizontal tango to conceive anymore. Ever heard of fertility clinics? A gay man can ask a gay or straight woman to carry and deliver his baby. Marriage is simply a social construct used by couples to get tax break and advantage in life. Infertile straight people can and do get married for the same reasons. Fertile people can and do have children without getting married. Marriage isn't in anyway linked to procreation.

 

Windsor did inherit the property, and was treated as any other person would be regarding estate taxes other than a spouse. This is relevant only to the IRS and the taxpayer.

The decision carefully did NOT say that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected, only that where it's legal it must be regarded as a genuine marriage for Federal purposes.

There was nothing in the Loving ruling that would have expanded the traditional definition of marriage, and in fact, it was this same court that ruled on Loving that rejected same sex marriage a few years later. Using Loving is a dead end for same sex marriage.

One of the most fundamental tests of a fundamental right is whether the right is “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” And same sex marriage is not rooted in our nation’s history, but a marriage between a man and a woman is.

Article IV, Section 1 would cover this.

I do not agree that same sex marriage meets heightened scrutiny, or any of the four tests that would warrant heightened scrutiny. I also do not agree with the misuse and abuse of the equal protection clause by creating a meaning it was never meant to have.

 

Fortunately, the courts are not agreeing with you.

 

No state requires nothing more than "citizenship" for eligibility of marriage. And denying an unmarried couple the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage isn't a denial of citizenship. MOST citizens are denied them because most citizens aren't married.

From 1776 through the 20th century, gay couples didn't marry and I see no evidence that they have "suffer"ed because of this. And whatever you want to label the disadvantage, it is no different for two gay guys excluded from marriage than it is for two closely related adults excluded from marriage. The gays desire to ape heterosexual couples in marriage, doesn't create a right to marriage.

 

Neither can two 80 year old heterosexuals. Or a woman who had a hysterectomy. Which is why procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry. As I said, no such distinction was made by the court.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

Which she was entitled to.

 

And this isms strawman. The issue is gender, not orientation.

 

And that is a problem. Not that they do not agree with me specifically, but the principle.

 

Overturned court cases don't help you. It is still hilarious when you cite them though.

 

Strawman. The issue is gender, not orientation

All marriages are a marriage of preference. Interracial marriage is a preference.

- - - Updated - - -

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

 

It is not a problem for anyone but you. Much more is known about us now than was back during Loving v Virginia. Given that new information, judges are ruling accordingly. "Tradition" and "roots" are terrible reasons for denying people equal treatment under the law. I can't believe you don't understand that.

 

this sure is NOT about equal treatment Under The Law

this is about altering one of the oldest known laws to gain ACCEPTANCE....and access....

two percent of the population ..at most...are NOW wielding power based on our FEARS

Just Say NO to utter Rubbish

 

Doesn't matter if it was one person. Rights are rights and you have no say on the matter.

 

I understand the principles and the lack of. Nothing is new is known regarding the Constitution that would have any effect on the intent of the Constitution. Equal treatment under the law has no legitimate application to same sex marriage.

I understand that losing any of your rights is just as applicable. If the Constitution is at the mercy of the whatever the ideological flavor of the day is, you will lose your rights at some point.

 

Yea, it's about equal treatment under the law

 

In what way does equal protection not apply to same sex marriage? Gender discrimination is specifically precluded by the 14th amendment. Same sex marriage bans violate the equal protection clause by discriminating based on the gender of the couple.

 

Except for the thousands of laws, regulation, and precedents which are SUPPOSED to apply to all citizens. Even those you are so determined will remain second-class citizens.

I can't help but be reminded of Orwell when I see somone saying, with a straight face, that treating everyone the same under the law has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law. I guess if the law grants privileges to some that it denies others for no known compelling reason, that's equal enough for you. Provided, of course, that you just happen to be one of the lucky majority.

You mean, by states having referenda and voting your rights away? That sounds kind of familiar.

 

Do you REALLY not see how
redefining marriage for the benefit of same sex couples can spur polygamists to get in on the action?
Or is it just easier for you to deny the obvious nexus here? Not everyone is so incredulous. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rriages-give-polygamy-a-legal-boost/?page=all

Mainly because it is virtually the only state that need do so.

That sums it up pretty nicely and once the element of multiple marriages is considered (once a court addresses the same exact arguments used to legalize same sex marriage) there will be no legal ground left to deny marriage rights to polygamists.

Are you finally ready to discuss how polygamous marriages will harm same sex marriage? Or would you rather continue to duck the issue?

It's a specific first blow against the support structure used to outlaw polygamous marriage.
When and if the Supreme Court decides that the traditional definition of marriage is invalid the green light will be given for polygamists to get their
day in court as well.

Every issue raised, save for the blanket objection to a marriage you fear will too patriarchal, can be eliminated by clearly delineating
before entering into marriage a division of property and inheritance issues.

If five women all agree to marry one man then your view of what's too "patriarchal" really becomes irrelevant.

I'm just pointing out a natural and inevitable progression where marriage is concerned. Why shoot the messenger?
I've never said the fear of polygamy should derail same sex marriage and, indeed, I've already commented on how small and isolated polygamous sects are. Having said that, I do still think that using anti miscegenation laws to justify the redefinition of marriage is specious.
The pigmentation of some married couples has nothing to do with the nature of marriage itself.

I'm not trying to convince you of the inevitability of polygamy. All it will take is one single court to take up the issue and then the same arguments that carry same sex marriage will do likewise for polygamy. IF there is a right to marry then the state will be able to find no compelling reason to deny the right to others.
Objections will be raised, as they have been with gay marriage. But ultimately, there really is no reason for the state to ban multiple marriages.

Because opening the definition of what comprises a marriage will lead to something that cannot be controlled or
anticipated.

 

I ask you to define the meaning of the equal protection clause. Not what a 20th century activist court defined it, but it's origin, and it's intent by the author of the first section of the 14th Amendment. And by the same Congess that passed it, who approved seperate but equal, and state sanctioned marriage discrimination. If you admit that the courts have changed the meaning of the equal protection clause, and are OK with that, I can respect the honesty of that.