Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by learis, Oct 13, 2015.
I'm sorry, what rights are being suspended from Richard Spencer?
I thought I had an argument but I don't.
WRT the issue at hand, it certainly is.
Then your response was erroneous, because his post that you pronounced correct was erroneous, as I've already shown.
You understand that additional powers of Congress are enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, right?
Not only did DOMA not run afoul of that, it strengthened states' rights.
With Regards To
Temporarily at best. It did get partly overturned in 2013 and then the rest went away with Obergefell, both as being unconstitutional
Alright, I can see what you mean with regards to a non-pregnant woman, but not a man.
Sure, but you couldn't call that discrimination against a sex could you?
So there's nothing stopping every non-married straight man in the country from marrying eachother for the legal benefits? I'm reminded of the hilarious movie, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry!
The decision on gay sex? What does that have to do with consanguineous breeding?
How would authorities find out that the parents of the resultant child are related, if the parents kept it hidden?
Well I didn't say that I think that it indicates commitment, I'm just suggesting that some couples see it that way.
Why would a child be legally emancipated?
Where is "for the general welfare" from?
Let's just restart simple. A woman has a right to an abortion, even if she is not pregnant in order to exercise that right, correct?
If I cannot marry a person because of what my and their physical sex is, how is that discrimination based upon our physical sex?
Exactly. And for that matter there is nothing stopping a gay man and a gay woman from doing the same thing. And it has happened.
The decision was not based upon gay sex per sé, but upon privacy. That same principle would prevent the law from looking in on consanguinous couples to see.if they were having sex.
There could be all kinds of ways it could happen, and likewise they could possibly get away with it. IIRC I ran across one story where siblings had married unknowingly (separated too too young to remember each other), even had a kid (with no defects), and they only found out because of blood testing for possible organ donation.
That is possible, and if you mean on a personal level, sure. I thought you meant as an means of proof to those outside the couple. As noted sometime before, couples today are making their commitments to each other without bothering to get the legal paperwork.
They applied to be. I think the youngest I've ever heard of was 16, although I suppose late 15 might be possible. They have to prove to a judge that they are mature enough to be considered a legal adult.
Yes, because pregnancy can apply to women because they have the ability to become pregnant.
But since the law cannot use physical sex as a criteria, a man has the right to an abortion in the same way that a non pregnant women does. Do you comprehend that?
The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to legislate about marriage. I have already supported this with the Constitution itself.
Yes, the Constitution has been amended numerous times.
The Federal Government has no power to legislate about marriage. That includes legislating a definition of it.
It did not "strengthen States' rights". The States already had those rights before DOMA.
You are confused about the roll of the Federal Government in allowing same sex marriage.
There was no legislation at the Federal level that allows same sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruling only struck down laws PREVENTING same sex marriage as such laws infringed on the 14th Amendment , there was no Federal legislation created to allow same sex marriage or redefining the meaning of the word.
No I'm not. Rather, you're confused about what I am arguing.
I never claimed that there was. My claim was that there was legislation (DOMA) that defined marriage, and that the federal government didn't have the power to do that.
No. It also re-defined marriage on a national level (unconstitutional) and it took away the States' right to define the term for themselves as they saw fit (also unconstitutional).
No they didn't. Gay people had every right to enter into a marriage as defined prior to that SCOTUS ruling. There were no laws stopping them from doing so. They simply chose not to do so. That is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS was wrong and ruled unconstitutionally.
Never said that there was.
No you haven't. You have only claimed it does with no supporting wording. Furthermore, you have yet to use said wording to explain how Congress has the authority to regulate transmissions yet doesn't have the authority to regulate legal marriage. On top of this, you still have offered no support on your claimed definition of the word "regulate".
Except I am demonstrably correct. Go to any church and get “married” without a marriage license. You aren’t married. You just had a religious ceremony.
I’ve repeatedly proven that.
you do if you want to claim I ever said it.
Same sex’s do marry. But that has exactly nothing to do with girls being boys. That is a claim you made up.
Nobody is playing anything. It’s just 2 men or 2 women who are married. It’s not justified in my mind. It’s a demonstrable legal fact.
It never started.
Other than all the times I did, lol
I would have a religious marriage and not a legal one. Likewise if I went before whatever state official with the proper paperwork, I would have a legal marriage and not a religious one.
All you are doing is claiming that a lack of legal paperwork means no marriage even though historically marriage has existed before the legal paperwork was even created. You are not proving how the creation of legal marriage eliminates religious marriage. You only highlight that the two are separate.
Separate names with a comma.