Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

I haven't suggested otherwise sooooo how is it flawed?

 

I don't think you understand that you don't have a valid argument.

 

If you can, locate your nads, string together a few words, and make an argument.

 

Your reluctance to admit their argument is flawed says a lot about you.

 

Of course they have, quite a few times: http://afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

However, in each case the issues were very specific. The courts never said that the states did not have the primary responsibility in regulating marriage. Again, whatever other forms of marriage you have in mind are under the purview of state law and will remain that way until successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.

It's ironic that those who have been opposed to same sex marriage bloviate about how the states have the exclusive right to regulate marriage but then point to the SCOTUS having said that marriage is a right to say that other "groups" who ever they are- should have the right to marry. Do you see the hypocrisy?

In addition, if you follow the link above, you will see that SCOTUS said that marriage was a right long before Obergefell but that did not stop the anti equality people from fighting marriage as a right for gay people. However, now they are sizing on it in order to derail and honest conversation about same sex marriage and perhaps to make their "slippery slope" predictions a self fulfilling prophecy . More hypocrisy.

 

When you locate yours try making a valid argument.

 

What do you mean by "their" argument? I responded to a post from you about a post made by Dixon. You can't even get that right and it only happened 30 minutes ago. You then said I couldn't back up my point even though I already had, and I don't believe you didn't see the post.

 

What a silly argument. Saying that not having the potential to procreate cannot be a limiting factor for marriage is not the same as saying risks associated with procreation can or cannot be. But your shameless attempt to conflate the issues is noted (again).

 

States either own the definition of marriage or they don't. Do they? Do you think they do?

 

Interracial couples. See Loving vs Virginia. The right of a class to assert itself in a due process case, does not exist in a vacuum because no right is absolute. If a state shows a compelling interest in treating a class differently, it may do so. If it cannot, it may not. The problem showed up when those states kept trying to show a balancing state interest, and all those 'reasons' were laughed out of appellate courts as specious. Makes a court think the fundamental reason was class animus surrounded by moralistic wrapping paper. In these other cases, the states may either persuade courts that was not in fact treating the two classes differently, or that the disparate treatment was not animus based, or that there are compelling reasons that justify the decision.

To put this in other terms, you are confusing the property on which a math problem bases its answer, with the equation itself and then insisting the answer will be the same. Just because 3 + 4 = 7, does not mean that 3 + any number = 7. You have to know what X stands for. In this case X = the reasons states offer to justify denying equal access to a marriage license. All we know now is that if X = 'potential to procreate', or if X = 'traditional values' its not going to cut it.

 

The Loving case eh? Did SCOTUS specify what races could be married?

 

His point is perfectly valid and I say that as a long term supporter of same-sex marriage.

If you allow the legal system to make it some vague "more" than that then, the next thing you know, the Pastafarians will insist it can only be legitimate if preceded by a sacred meat-ball ceremony overseen by the all powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever?

I'm a long term married straight Atheist. I don't want the government seeing my marriage as anything other than a business contract. As far as is they're concerned, that's all it is.

Their only business should be to respect it while it's in place and divvy up the spoils if it all goes wrong

If you start allowing the government to dictate that it should be more than that, you're allowing them carte blanche to start telling you what it isn't or shouldn't be and that IMO is the problem gay people were having all along.

All hail the mystic durum wheat

 

Nope, it did not feel the need to there. When a court writes a decision, it addresses the problem in the brief. Sometimes it writes broad, sometimes it write narrow. It will make more sense if you reread my post as re-edited. you are looking a one side of this equation.

 

If the problem in the brief was gay marriage then how come SCOTUS said marriage is a right, not gay marriage?

 

Actually, if the distinction used is rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest, it is generally upheld. It was because the courts characterized marriages limitation to men and women, because only men and women procreate, as instead an intent to exclude homosexuals based upon animus towards homosexuals, that a compelling interest was required.

 

The very foundation of the gay marriage case.

 

The problem was with the state using gender, race or orientation to deny equal access to civil marriage or control the nature of the two parties who seek it. The states could not justify their reason to care whether two races or two genders got the license.

 

Except that 'potential to procreate' excuse did not pass the laugh test. Too many people got married in every state over decades and decades, who were never even asked if they could procreate, or even where it was manifestly obvious that they could not. When 84 year old women walked up to the counter, wrote down their age , they got a license. There was no reason not to allow Steve and Allen access to the same institution. It seemed pretty likely that the history of discrimination against homosexuals that was reflected in every state code, was still controlling this marriage business.

 

That's because the concern isn't a married couple NOT procreating and is instead an unmarried couple doing so. And the argument wasn't subjected to the test. The court claimed that the limitation wasn't intended to include all those with the potential of procreation and was instead intended to exclude homosexuals. The court assigned a nefarious intent to the drafters of the legislation that simply didn't exist.

 

but that interest is not served by restricted marriage at all. A requirement to marry, if you have procreated but no state does that., If the state is not concerned that married people have the potential to procreate and never has been concerned that married people have the potential to procreate and allows all other non-procreators to marry on a routine basis it may not discriminate between a couple of non-procreators and non-hetero procreators based on the collective gender of those couples There is no rational basis for the restriction, let alone a compelling reason except nefarious ones. So the disparate and discriminatory treatment needed to go.

Face it. your arguments were seen as ridiculous by too many state appellate and federal courts before SCOTUS heard it . So now you go for more ludicrous ones that also don't pass the laugh out loud test. Your side failed to persuade.

 

No red herrings nor ad hominum on my part.

I can sum this up very neatly.

9 justices all went to law school. All should be equally conversant in law.

Mistakes get made. Dred Scott is a famous decision that comes to mind. There are others.

My argument is simply this. I agree with the four dissenting Justices. I believe their understanding of the constitution is the accurate understanding.

 

Chief Justice Roberts says

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...senting_opinion_by_chief_justice_roberts.aspx

 

Oh common now! I just finished discussing that and now you are just dumbing it down to an all or nothing, back and white issue which it is not. That demonstrates a ridged , concrete, anti-intellectual thought process.

I'll try just once more. Marriage laws are the purview of the states TO A POINT. When those laws run afoul of the constitution, as the laws restricting marriage to a man and a women- it is the right and obligation for the federal courts to step in. Another well known example of when they did so- when they said that the state does not have an ABSOLUTE right to say who can marry who- is Loving v. Virginia. Do you think that was a case of the courts overstepping their bounds? I have asked that question countless times and all that I ever got was some convoluted and disingenuous nonsense about how Loving was different but no real answer.

At this point, I've lost track of exactly what your argument is. Are you saying that the courts have not business telling the states what they can or cannot do with respect to marriage? Or, are you still clinging to Dixon's coat tails and ruminating about how all these other "groups" should have marriage equality because of Obergefell?

 

It isn't. The ruling applies to limitations in the law based on the sex of the parties marrying each other. A same-sex couple does not necessarily have to be a couple composed of two individuals who are gay.

As for why the ruling doesn't apply to other people denied marriage recognition, the Court only ruled on the specific challenge made, by the people who had standing to make it. That is what courts do. It isn't the fault of gay people that you don't understand this.

Arguing the absurd is a sign of desperation.

It seems you're relying on equivocation to make your argument, asking people to join you in the assumption that "equal" can only have one meaning or application, no matter the context. In the context of the equal protection clause, it does not say or mean that a law must apply in a way that is blind to differences that are relevant to what the law seeks to accomplish. It doesn't say that the purpose of the law is to make people equals to each other, no matter what. In point of fact, it is the nature of law to discriminate between people to whom a particular set of facts apply, versus those they do not.

What we have in the Obergefell case is a somewhat different question, though, as it involves something the Court has consistently said is a right - that of marriage. So the question brought before the court was whether the portion of the law that excludes same-sex couples unduly burdened their right to marriage. This is why the Court disregarded the question of whether "gay marriage" is a right; the couples bringing suit were positing as true that if marriage is a right, is a right of all individuals, regardless of their sex, or the comparison of the sex of the first party in a marriage to that of its second party. They weren't seeking a new right or a separate status for "gay marriage".

For the law's sex-based restriction to survive, the government needed to show that there was due cause to burden the right of the individuals adversely affected by the law in question, using the fact of the parties' sexes as the least restrictive means to accomplish some goal. The government could not do so.

States don't "own the definition of marriage". What they have is a power to regulate marriage. That power is not absolute and unlimited; its exercise must be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. The sex-based restriction of marriage failed to meet this requirement, so it could not stand.

See what I said above.

 

The case was about the gender requirement being imposed by the states, not about sexual orientation. It was well understood that the gender requirement was aimed gay people, but legally speaking, only gender had to be addressed. There was no need to say "gay marriage " is a right.

In addition, by saying that marriage is a right, they are not saying that anybody can marry anybody such as a sibling or a parent. It is not saying that you can marry three other people. All rights have limitations and this is no different. Again, states still have the right to regulate marriage, but they must do so within the parameters of constitutional law. If that group of three or four people want to marry, and the state says know, as I'm sure they will, they can sue. They can claim that it is a right on constitutional ground and who knows what the outcome would be. My guess is that it would be possible for the states to articulate a rational basis or even a compelling state interest in banning group marriage, whereas they were unable to do so with SAME SEX marriage. I don't know what the outcome would be and I'm not taking a position on it. The fact is that bans on group marriage are valid laws that were not disturbed by Obergefell and they will remain valid laws until and if they are overturned.

I find it interesting and telling that you have made no attempt to deal with the earlier points that I made, particularly #630. You not really debating. You are just insisting that you're right- about what I don't know, and repeatedly asking question that have been answered in many different ways.