Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

The two issues intersect. They are different until they are not. States are granted broad latitude in defining marriage in terms of age of consent, closeness in relationship, inheritance taxes, divorce, property rights and distribution etc. It used to be that they were also given that same freedom when it came to interracial marriage and same sex marriage but you know what happened with that. There was also a time when states were able to prevent people from marrying who owed child support or who were incarcerated. They were also raised as rights issues and states no longer have that discretion either. If, for instance, first cousins who wanted to marry raised the issue to the level of a civil right, the state would have to listen and if it chose to oppose that as a right, would have to articulate, at minimum, a rational basis for doing so. Nothing is as simple as it seems you would like it to be.

 

That has been beaten to death all over this board. The answer is "of course they do" Lets not reinvent the wheel here.

 

OP, all this is an opinion and not a right. the opinion depends on the SCOTUS. Another SCVOTUS, another opinion.

 

My arguments are to what marriage was- and is.

As the courts found in the cases ultimately upheld by the courts

"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."

That from 1965- and perfectly describes what marriage was- and is.

 

Oh boy! What is this? A new arrival I see. Care to elaborate on your position? Marriage is not a right?

 

Procreation is not a requirement for entering into marriage

 

I have. Down the street from me is a single mother and grandmother joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren. They are prohibited from "gay marriage" or any marriage in 50 states with no rational basis for doing so.
Marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage would be constitutional. "Gay marriage" is discriminatory by design for the benefit of gays.

 

Why am I not shocked that you ignore the actual words of Mildred Loving to promote your agenda- which is exactly the opposite of what Mildred Loving said- and believed? After all- how can any of us expect you to respect the words of a woman the rest of us would agree was discriminated against?

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

She knew discrimination- and she was right.
You wish to discriminate- and you are wrong.

 

Wow- the Lovings were not homosexuals?

What clued you into that? But I am sure you know more about the Loving's than Mildred Loving did, and understand marriage better than she did.

What we do know is that Mildred Loving- whose fought marriage discrimination against mixed race couples- was opposed to marriage discrimination against same gender couples.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

 

No one has claimed it was. My ex wife took birth control pills for years, only to find out with her 2nd husband that she never had the ability to procreate. Doesn't magically change the fact that drs prescribe women birth control pills because of the potential of procreation. The concern of marriage was never that marriage couples procreate or not and it was always the concern that unmarried couples would.

 

I read them and did not ignore them. You wanted us to ignore the first sentence by editing it out.

 

If the federal government has no authority in this area because it wasn't specifically given to them in the Constitution, that would be an argument against recognition of ANY marriage by the federal government. It wouldn't be an argument against applying the 14th Amendment to the states, who were always its specific target. It wouldn't preclude SCOTUS from hearing and ruling on the case either.

 

In the 1950's .... time to update your paper calendar thingy ...

 

You don't seem to understand that the statement is exclusively referring to heterosexual marriage.

 

SCOTUS opinions establish rights.

 

The ruling made no such distinction.

 

How do you come to that conclusion ????

Is Gender or Race specifically mentioned anywhere ? or is it merely an opinion or conclusion, based on or insinuated by legal opinion, but absent from the actual text.....

 

I was referring to the past. Year ago and for all its history in my state.

 

Because that is the only type of marriage that existed in the 60s. Gays and there advocates like to presume that all the benefits of marriage in the past will exist within gay marriages in the future, without a shred of evidence to indicate this is so. They invented a new word for monogamy in a gay marriage. Monogamish which essentially means not monogamous.

 

Because that is the only type of marriage that existed in the 60s, there is no reason to make the distinction.

 

No state prohibited same sex marriage in the 60's

 

http://www.dallasvoice.com/mildred-loving-becomes-our-ally-in-gay-marriage-fight-1022796.html

What did I edit out- please point that out? The link above is the what I copied and pasted from.

I do enjoy reposting Mildred Loving's statement because it shows how Mildred Loving wanted everyone to be able to marry- regardless of race or sexual orientation.

Mildred Loving said that most of her generation accepted the idea that God wanted the races kept apart, and government should act as the moat. She’s pleased, now that she’s a grandmother, to see younger people believe differently. Each day she thinks about what it meant to her to be free “to marry the person precious to me,” even when plenty of people reacted as though she had married a garter snake.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”



- - - Updated - - -

The statement referred exclusively to marriage.

Note- not one word about procreation- potential of procreation.

 

Why do you claim there is no rational basis for excluding them from marriage?

Are you finally agreeing that there never was any rational basis for excluding same gender couples from marriage?

 

Oh, so slightly pregnant is valid terminology too ? lol.... weak.....
Either someone is pregnant or not, monogamous or not, the risk factor with mulitiple partners increases exponentially for passing on STDs.....

 

The bar for them, if any, would be their blood relationship