Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Do you understand how this 'reply' thingie works?

No one forces you to post anything.

You have an opinion about gay couples marrying- I have an opinion about gay couples marrying.

I think gay couples should be treated exactly equally with my wife and I. You disagree.

You said the Supreme Court 'created law from thin air' which is patently false. Long before the Supreme Court determined that Americans- regardless of the gender of their partner- have a right to marry- most same gender couples in America had that right.

Over 10 years ago the Massachusett's Supreme Court found that such discrimination violated the Massachusett's Constitution. Since then numerous other state and federal courts have come to the exact same conclusion regarding both state Constitution's and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court didn't create anything- they agreed with the decisions by the majority of the Appeals Courts, and the majority of the Federal courts that had issued decisions.

I have never tried to make the issue about color- I have pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell was based upon the same Constitutional reasoning as the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. I have pointed out that I am in favor of both of those rulings- and you are not.

Finally- since you keep trying to do this
And you refuse to deal with the others the law bans. That is where bigotry shows up, given your support for a particular class.

By your own definition-'marriage' is nothing more than "A contract that has long legal standing as one for a man to a woman."

I- like the courts like the courts reviewing same gender marriage- AND the court reviewing mixed race marriage- am not arguing either way about whether a brother and sister should have the right to marry.

By your definition- a man and a woman- they would have a right to marry- regardless of Obergefell or Loving.

Neither Loving or Obergefell have anything to do with sibling marriage- and whether or not it should be legal.

So now to go back to your words
And you refuse to deal with the others the law bans.

As do you- take your stand.

Tell us your position on the others the law bans.

Meanwhile my position is consistent- I believe that mixed race couples, and same gender couples, should be treated legally exactly equally as my wife and I are treated. Your position is that same gender couples should not be treated equally with my wife and I.

I disagree with that.

If you want to stop your obsession- stop replying.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and if you disable the email function- you wont' get bothered by emails about my posts.

I disabled mine years ago.

 

If you were NOT some bigot, you would be in favor of true and full equality, not the sham equality that was civil unions. Separate but equal is never really equal, and in this case, just the name itself is unequal, and there is much more. Civil Unions never worked like marriage so stop congratulating yourself on having voted for it.

And, neither you or anyone else gets to decide that marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter how many times you repeat that, it will never be anything more than a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance.

Your bleating over the courts ruling on marriage clearly indicates your ignorance of constitutional law and how our system of a constitutional republic, and the rule of law works.

 

Bleating ! like a sheep, the ones in the movie Babe, lol.....
Perhaps he went to: Bah Ram U ! roflmao !!

 

Look, at first I planned to let your taunts and insults slide by. I figured not to reply is the best weapon.

But you insult and taunt more than just me. You taunted and insulted 4 justices of the Supreme Court. And along with them, the supreme court of CA.

And you are not for equality either nor is SF Jeff. You want what you managed to grab and ended it right there and then.

 

Did you just watch "The wrath of Khan" ... ???


"Khan: To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."


lol....

 

111 pages of posts. Its settled law now, guys. With polling numbers continuing to move in the direction of support of same sex marriage, and the age related disparity between over 35 years old and under 35 years old reflected therein, there will not be some groundswell of opposition leading to an amendment. This is a done deal for good. There is nothing more to discuss except the cake and the flowers.

 

You should readjust your age disparity numbers, because the number of people opposed to Gay marriage and homosexuality has decreased as folks born before 1930 have died off, and people born in the 1960s just do not have the same Victorian views on sexuality.

 

My-my we are whiney Robert! Poor boy. I simply pointed out that you have no business congratulating yourself for supporting civil unions and you take that as "taunting" and insulting? You do have a very thin skin indeed. This is a serious subject and I tell it like it is. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

And once again, this business about us not wanting equality because why? We don't support "equality for all" ? Who is that again? Fathers who want to marry their daughters? That is just nonsense! It is a red herring used to avoid an honest discussion of the topic-something you seem to be unable to engage in.

It is also another kind of logical fallacy since, you're basically calling us hypocrites. It is a:

Learn that word Robert!

 

Well, clearly you misunderstood one more time.

To abuse me over my comments is tantamount to abusing the 4 dissenting justices.

 

The problem is that you seem not to have read the opinions of those four judges. They said very little
about the traditions of marriage as being just between a man and a woman. Their dissent seems
to be purely on Constitutional grounds. Roberts congratulated the gay couples and Scalia didn't seem
to care one way or the other about tradition.

So for you to claim that they shared your views on marriage, is not a truthful statement on your part.

 

What EXACTLY did I "misunderstand"?

 

That the names I have been called apply equally to the 4 justices opinion that I agree with.

Whom among you wishes to call out the justices who dissented by calling them bigots?

And yes they did speak of marriage being a man to a woman. And yes I did read the dissents. Before you act butt hurt again, I also read the winning opinions.

 

No, you are wrong. I did read the writings, both the pro and the con.

It does not take a lot of writing to state as all of the did, even the side that won, that marriage is a man to a woman.

The winning side simply said it no longer matters.

You are mischaracterizing what Roberts and Scalia said.

Perhaps you will quote Roberts congratulating them and do so in context of why he dissented.

 

Oh, I thought that you meant that I misunderstood that you think that same sex marriage should wait until fathers could marry there daughters.

I guess I got that right about you then.

 

I have to admit you spin a good yarn.

I never at any point said that to anybody.

I believe I have posted stories by Mothers and sons that by this time could be married though.

Is that marriage to you since by law it is banned?

 

Well let us review the actual quote- shall we?

(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court. Pp. 3–10.

(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences. Pp. 3–6.

(2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12.

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

Nope- can't find your quote in the decision.

 

I am just as much for equality as Mildred Loving.

And you are not.

 

I am guessing that you do not believe a man gets married to a woman and you are claiming the justice who wrote that opinion you presented from the winning side does not believe a man is married to a woman as well?

 

OK.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quotes-from-the-obergefell-v-hodges-opinions

 

Race is very much on your mind. Me, nah.

 

I recognize that some men get married to women- and some men get married to men.

Still never found that quote from the majority that agrees with what you said.

It does not take a lot of writing to state as all of the did, even the side that won, that marriage is a man to a woman.

The winning side simply said it no longer matters.

 

Where did I mention race?

As I said

I am just as much for equality as was Mildred Loving.

And you are not.

 

Loving a race based case

- - - Updated - - -

Men marrying men is disgusting

I was not raised as you were. My family are almost all Democrats.

 

Loving was a marriage case. I frankly love what Mildred Loving said about what her and husband believed

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.”


So to recap:
- I didn't bring up race- you did.
- I agree with Mildred Loving that Americans, regardless of their race, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their gender- should have the same freedom to marry- you do not.

- - - Updated - - -

Well that really is what all this comes down to, isn't it?
You find the idea of a man marrying another man disgusting. Just as many Americans found the idea of a white man such as Richard Loving marrying black woman like Mildred, disgusting.

I don't find either disgusting.

 

I was raised by loving parents who taught us all decent values.