I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Interesting selection of cases to choose from.

1. Maynard v. Hill: "Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation."

2. Meyer v. Nebraska: SCOTUS clearly wasn't referring to marriage as the system of benefits, but as a fundamentally private act, comparable to acquiring knowledge. "denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

I was planning on going on, but a quick review shows that all the cases are alike in this regard: they refer to free acts, not benefit systems. For example, Loving was a case because people were arrested for what was a private act. It was never about marital rights, which is what you're really talking about when you talk about gay marriage. If you don't think it is, then see what happens when anyone has a wedding. Are the SWAT going to drop down from the church ceiling during a gay marriage ceremony? Is the homosexual couple going to be arrested? Of course not. Don't try obfuscate the issue, the right of gays to marry, or to live their lives together, is not infringed upon. The "gay marriage" debate is really just a "marital benefits" debate.

 

You might have been doing well for your credibility if you left this part out. Do you not know that a church cannot perform an actual wedding ceremony where two people are declared man and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife without a marriage license? Sure some liberal congregations might perform a commitment ceremony but it won’t be a legal marriage and it won’t have the legal benefits of marriage. To say that the right of gays to marry, or to live their lives together, is not infringed upon is just ridiculous, legally and just in terms of common sense.

I am not trying to obfuscate anything but rather, my goal is always to elucidate matters. On the other hand, it is this kind of argument out of left field that seeks to obfuscate and to divert attention away from the real issue, equality in marriage between gay and straight couples. Surely you can do better than this.

 

Quoting Loving V. Virginia decision

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Basic right- it is there in black and white.

Nothing about benefits.

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Nothing about benefits

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Nothing about benefits

Marriage is an individual right all Americans have.

16 judges now have used those Supreme Court decisions in referencing why the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection applies to same gender couples that want to be married- just like my wife and i am.

 

Zablocki vs Redhill was a case where a man sued over a Wisconsin law that prevented a man from marrying if he had outstanding child support payments.

The Supreme Court overturned that law, because the law violated the man's right to marriage.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

 

Glad to- can't be repeated often enough- marriage is a fundamental right that all Americans have- and just as the Lovings could not be legally prevented from marrying, and just as Zablocki could not be legally prevented from marrying, neither can two individuals of the same gender who want to marry.

 

Yup. This much has been agreed to. The horse your beating is already dead.

 

You keep pretending you can separate the act of marriage with everything that comes with it. You can't. The benefits that come with marriage are the issue here, not the act of marrying itself.

 

I will take the absence of any further response to be a concession on your part/

As it has been pointed out to you, in no case where SCOTUS has declared that marriage is a right, did they entertain the theory that the benefits of marriage are a separate issue. That in itself is a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. You have not been able to point to a source of that theory. You simply made it up and have asked others to accept as fact, to accept your word on it.

But apart from that, and regardless of whether or not marital benefits, or marriage itself can be regarded as a right, your argument is fatally flawed. The reason is very simple and straight forward. We are talking about 2 groups. One group are opposite sex couples who are free to marry and without question, enjoy the benefits of marriage. The other group is identical in all respects, except that are same sex couples. In many places they cannot marry.

Now, if gays are afforded strict scrutiny by SCOTUS-and I have already laid out how there are two clear paths that SCOTUS may be compelled to follow-the states than ban same sex marriage will have to come up with a compelling government interest in defending those laws. And as we all know, there just isn’t any such compelling interest. Hell, they may even decide that the discriminatory laws can't even pass a rational basis review.

I’ve also laid out how I think each of the justices will vote and why…….so my friend.. GAME OVER

 

If someone had the balls to sue the federal government on the grounds that DOMA violates the 14th amendment and violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause by singling out gays and not given the states the authority to not recognize all marriages, it would be easy to get marriage names a right, and defined as a union of consenting adults, regardless of gender and even the number of people involved (i.e. polygamy).

 

Lets just focus on the issue of gays achieving equality with what opposite sex couples have. Then we can talk about group marriage, incest, people who want to marry their guns, their cars, their refrigerators or whatever other kind of bizarre horse(*)(*)(*)(*) they can come up with. The polygamy crap is just a red herring.

 

Again, it would be a simple matter of getting DOMA deemed unconstitutional.

It is on two separate grounds.

1; It violates the 14th amendment by singling out gays and denying, and allowing states to refuse to recognize legal gay marriages from other states. It does not allow states to do the same to hetrosexual marriages. Since it singles out gays and strips them of protects that other people still have, it fails to give them equal protection, and this violates the 14th amendment.

2; It violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This is a clause that requires all legal licenses, permits, and other universally used documents from one state, such as drivers' licenses, doctors' licenses, attorney's licenses', etc, must be accepted in all states. This is how a doctor licensed in Indiana is allowed to move to California and open a practice without paying to get a separate license in California.
Now, there is typically a public policy exception to this clause, meaning that is there is a legitimate reason why a state would need to deny a license from another state, this clause is void is that situation. For example, one state may have more requirements, such as testing or training, than another state to get a carry-conceal permit for a gun. So, the state with more requirements has a public policy excemption to this clause and can require someone to pay for a new permit. No states, however, have any extra requirements to get a marriage license. You simply buy one. So, marriage should not technically be given a exemption, and so technically, it violates Full Faith and Credit.

 

Out of state recognition of same sex marriage was not at issue in the recent DOMA case. The full faith and credit clause has not been tested with regards to gay marriage but it will be.

 

FF&C is a losing argument to make. There is a well established public policy exception. The way to continue winning is arguing on 14th amendment grounds.

 

The public policy exemption is only valid if there is an actually different in the policies from state to state. For example, gun permits have one because some states have stricter requirements to get one (such as training, and testing), and allowing a person from another state to override those requirements simply because they already have a permit from their old state is unfair.

However, marriage licenses do not have any additional requirements. They simply need to be purchased. Therefore, a public policy exemption does not apply. There actually has to be a policy difference from state to state.

 

I've already gone over this with you. The public policy exception is some states legalized same sex marriage and some states ban it.

It's a losing argument which is why no lawyer has or will touch it. The winning argument is on 14th amendment grounds

 

Basically, you want a person living in one state to have different basic rights and privileges in another state. This means that as a person drives around the United States, their experiences, rights and benefits expand or contract based not upon a national consensus but upon the ideas and thoughts of each different location. What you are suggesting is a nation based upon the Articles not the Constitution. If you want your opinions to control the debate, win the debate. What is really happening here is that the national debate is actually being fought not by the majority but by a small fraction of the nation. None of us would even bother with the right wing if we had true representation in the House. What we have instead is a government where the people themselves are marginalized by political chicanery such as gerrymandering. The Senate gives the minority it's power, the constitution gives the minority it's protection. The House is intended to represent the will of the people. As long as this version of the right wing controls state houses, we will never have a government that supports the will of the people.

 

I have a serious question for all of those who oppose gay marriage and gay rights in general. The question is; What motivates you? What is your fear? This is not a trick question or an attempt to be facetious. I really want to understand. I get that people are opposed on moral grounds. I get that you're repulsed by the idea of same sex couples. But what I want to know is how you will be personally effected by extending rights to gays. What will be different in your life, what will change in your community on the day after same sex marriage is legal? I'm not looking for rationalizations or philosophical reasons. I want to hear concrete pragmatic concerns. I would appreciate honest and straight forward answers.

 

I am gay and I oppose special legislation for gays, so your premise is false that these are the reasons "people" oppose these things. Regardless, is anyone ever actually going to have a formal debate about something in this forum or is this going to continue to me a meandering thread of discussion that should be taking place elsewhere?

I would like to see a formal debate of something here--pick an issue and pick a side and rumble.

 

Well this is certainly interesting and surprising since, as I recall, you have had few if any kind words for gays in the past . Then I saw the thread that you started about being out of the closet and apparently you are the real deal. I had heard stories of people like you but was never sure if they actually existed until now. A gay person who opposes gay rights and seems to have a good deal of animosity towards us liberal who support gay rights.

I'm not sure what "premise" of mine you're referring to as "false" In this post I'm just asking a question. Of course there are reasons for peoples opposition to gay rights and your being gay does not change that. They may be half baked idiotic and irrational reasons, but they are still reasons.

You oppose "special legislation" for gays? So do I . I oppose all of those state constitutional amendments that define marriage as being a man and a woman. Can't get much more special than that. I oppose those Jim Crow type laws that a number of states have proposed that single out gays by allowing discrimination against them. I was opposed to the provision of DOMA that singled out gays by denying them federal benefits even when lawfully married and I continue to oppose the part of DOMA that allows other states to not recognize those marriages. Are you with me on this?

So what "special legislation" are you opposed to? Here in NJ, sexual orientation is included in the Law Against Discrimination along with race, religion, national origin, the disabled etc. When others have said that they oppose "special treatment" for gays they mean that they really oppose equality. What exactly do you mean?

Formal debate? My purpose is always to have a meaningful exchange of ideas and to avoid the tit for tat horse(*)(*)(*)(*) that goes on here. However that goal is elusive

 

All of it. What exactly I mean is I oppose all of it. I don't need special protections or privilege and I don't think anybody should have it. Instead of a married couple getting a special $255 death benefit, then everybody should get $127.50 death benefit from SS. Married people shouldn't get grant/contract preferences in government programs over single people. Gays shouldn't get to sue for discrimination when soulless redheads cannot-Gingerphobia is ramped. The list goes on and on. Equality is Orwellian Social Engineering at its finest. The only equality before the law is that nobody--not a single one--is treated any differently in any way, shape, or form under the law regardless of what their status is.

 

Of course you do, because you know your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, wherefore you can only be persuasive by appeals to selfishness.

Please, if you wanted that, you wouldn't ask such crooked questions.

 

Thank you for being honest and admitting that you don't have an answer.Thank you for admitting that it is all just bigotry for the sake of bigotry

 

People often misrepresent Supreme Court decisions.

It will not established "gay marriage" as a Constitutional Right but it will establish that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause.

The Supreme Court strikes down unconstitutional law and establishes Constitutional precedent but does not create Constitutional law.

 

which, in the vernacular, indirectly establishes it as a Constitutional right. I never said that SCOTUS "creates" Constitutional precedent. Note that in the portion you quoted I did say "establish."

- - - Updated - - -

To All,

It's been a while in the process, but the challenge has been accepted and a formal debate will be opened soon in a second thread. Please do not post in the thread unless you are myself or ProgressivePatriot, until the debate is over and the judges have reached their conclusion(s).