Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I'm correctly pointing out marriage is and always has been a legal institution in the US.

 

the states can define it, as long as they don't violate the US constitution. Same sex bans violated the 14th amendment, which is why same sex marriages now take place in all 50 states.

This exact same argument also failed in the Loving v Virginia case.

 

You have yet to prove that. The government doesn't recognize religious marriage for the purpose of providing legal benefits, this is true. You have yet to prove why this negates the existence of marriage recognized by religious orders of any size or ilk. By what basis does the existence of legal marriage cause religious marriage to no longer exist?

 

I've consistently and repeatedly proven than. You quoted an example in your post.

 

ARF. RAAA.

That dissenting opinion was logically and constitutionally correct.

but, but SCOTUS ruled... blah blah blah.

No, SCOTUS is not an oligarchy. They are not above the Constitution. They ruled unconstitutionally in that case.

 

This is incoherent gibberish. My statement stands. the states can define it, as long as they don't violate the US constitution. Same sex bans violated the 14th amendment, which is why same sex marriages now take place in all 50 states.

Dissenting opinions in rulings are as meaningless as yours are. Same sex couples can not be banned by any state as it violates the 14th amendment.

You understand the SCOTUS can’t rule unconstitutionally right? There is no legal remedy for a SCOTUS ruling on constitutionality other than an amendment to the constitution.

 

But do you each believe that your God recognises your marriage?

 

I've not seen any post in this thread which proves that religious marriage doesn't exist, from you or anyone else.

 

So from the day of founding?

 

When and how? Cite it specifically. Show me how the existence of legal marriage eliminates the existence of religious marriage.

 

Our respective deities? Yes.

 

Licensing didn't truly beginning the US until the mid 19th century, with few scattered instances prior to that. It has however always been and continues to be a religious institution, currently existing alongside legal marriage.

 

Which is yours?

 

The Christian God, although there are many who would say otherwise.

 

A4S1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.​

A state's licensure/certification of a marriage can surely be considered both an act and a record of that state, wherefore the effect thereof is subject to the will of Congress.

Which might be interesting had I said that - which, as you know perfectly well, I did not.

 

So you can't refer to anything in the Bible in support of your marriage can you?

 

@Maquiscat, has it ALWAYS been a legal institution as well as a religious one in the US?

 

Sure, but not all of them would believe that their God recognises their marriage.

 

I don't see it. Marriage has always been available to both men and women.

No, but the entire argument for same sex marriage was love. NOT discrimination on the basis of sex.

Why would a company want to find out that two people had married purely for benefits and what could they do about it?

What, any such investigation would be illegal?

 

The Bible shows numerous examples of polygamy, specifically polygyny, but I've nothing in my research that says general polygamy is wrong. Others interpret differently.

 

14th Amendment Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

At issue is if a single state allows same sex marriage all other states must also recognize that marriage.

See also the due process clause as well as the equal protection clause.
Even if the SCOTUS reversed their decision nationwide many states would still have ssm — and other states plus the federal government would be forced to recognize those marriages. You would basically create marriage tourism only diverting money from the poorest states into the richest states but nothing else would change.

 

No. Licensing and legal defining of marriage didn't start as a wide spread thing until the mid 19th century. However, there were some early precursors, such as in Mass. as early as the late 1600's. I would not count that as a country wide thing.

 

Since we can't get all of any grouping to believe anything, I'm not sure your point.

 

The entire argument was based upon equality. And since OSM was already not based upon live, sex or children, so too was to be SSM. As noted before, the 14th as well as several laws, prevent the use of physical sex as criteria in the laws. Thus if I am denied the ability to marry a man because I am also a man, physical sex has been used as a criteria.

Some consider it to be a form of fraud. Their are using the social concept that a marriage is based upon love and/or sex, whereas legally that is not true. Such an investigation would be illegal because it violates privacy rights.

 

As in wrong in the eyes of God?