It appears the Surpreme Court will uphold gay marriage bans

I agree. The state can never apply a "love" test. Those who use that argument are not approaching the argument from a legal standpoint. They are simply telling those they work with or otherwise encounter that the state is preventing them from marrying the one they love - an argument that has significant power to sway opinion. Many rational individuals find it hard to look their friends in the face and NOT see that the state's discrimination against their friend is a travesty.


The legal argument is that state doesn't have a legitimate justification for denying marriage on the basis of the sex of the two individuals.

Or, at least nobody has so far stated such a justification.

Without that justification, the 14th amendment requirement for equal treatment will stand.

 

It's astounding, isn't it?

The cons who tout this don't even realize what they are saying is:
Please live a lie your whole life.
Marry a pretense.

We don't care.

That's the "traditional" way/

 

Nor can your side now.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, Very sad statistics today.

However if we tear down all the criteria, and allow it to be any number of anyones...is this really going to help that or make it worse?

 

Every Man can get Married under the same ruleset. Noone asks if you are Gay or Straight. The 14th has nothing to say here, as Marriage was never listed in the Constitution, and the same freedoms are equally applied.
The idea that they are not equal, because some people wish a Marriage was 2 Men or Women doesnt make it an imbalance of protections.

Whats the justification for wanting to blow away the criteria?

 

And the implications of the ongoing talks about it, and the USSC taking a look at this issue says it's not a done deal as of yet. Any "bans" that are being created are the will of the people who may feel like robed lawmakers usurped their will at the ballot box.

 

We'll see what happens. As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned everything is already equal. Equality doesnt have to make everyone happy to be Equality.

 

"Love does not have to be proven....only that gay people are being deprived of the same choice as straight people. The choice of love and attraction. This is from Wisconsin, which I posted before:

Walker v. Wolf - Freedom to Marry in Wisconsin ...

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin and the law firm of Mayer Brown filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of eight same-sex couples who wish to marry in Wisconsin or are seeking recognition for their legal out-of-state marriages.

. https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/wol...acher-v-walker



a. Purposes of marriage


.....In addition, the Supreme Court has stated that the liberty protected in the due
process clause includes the right to choose your own family. Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 506 (1977) (“A host of cases . . . have consistently
acknowledged a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. . . . [W]hen the
government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must
examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to
which they are served by the challenged regulation.”). With respect to marriage in
particular, the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that it is a matter of individual choice.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990) pg.30


It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
4. pg 87

 

At this point who cares? If christians, can't clean their own house, don't expect to clean others.

 

Thats the fundamental argument at it's core. Some care...some do not.

 

Are you able to marry every other person on this forum?

 

This line of reasoning didn't work for interracial bans either

- - - Updated - - -

Civil rights are not subject to popular vote.

 

It's the depths of moral depravity to actually suggest a marriage between a homosexual and a person of the opposite sex.

Until you figure that out, you have nothing to say here.

 

Exactly my point. The state can apply no test of love. The whole issue to the state is that you choose to marry a particular individual.

We have to trust the choice of individuals here in our society when it comes to marriage. Do two people applying for marriage really love each other? Having the state ask that question is ridiculous.

We know that there are same sex couples, drawn by their deep love for each other, and preventing them from marriage is blatant discrimination. They answer all the pertinent questions when they apply for a marriage license.

 

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are in effect dehumanizing gay people and reducing the institution of marriage to a emotionless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. Choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

Windsor is the other case referred to above

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

There is much more to this lengthy opinion which seems to address and decimate just about argument against same sex marriage, but you get the idea

Thank you for motivating me to take a closer look at this ridiculous assertion. Good day

 

If their will is unconstitutional, then they are being rightly usurped by the US Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS.

We'll know for sure in about 4 weeks. And I guarantee you that at least one side is going to be really really really unhappy about it...

 

Well then you're barking up the wrong tree. Fix the hypocrites before you try to fix something that 2/3 of the world doesn't agree with. If you can't get your own house in order, don't expect to try to clean someone elses. Hypocrites have no leg to stand on.

 

Nope, nor should I be able to...thats not what Marriage is.

 

Why would it? Race is not a behavior, thus anything that may or may not apply for an unchangable characteristic like race...does not apply to behgaviors of choice.

Everything is up to the will of a society as to what that society wishes for itself.

Just look at minors and age for instance. We have decided as a society that until a certain age, people cannot make decisions for themselves. is this because humans cant make decisions at a lower age? Of course not, all around the world people do things differently, however in our culture we as a society have decided that until 18 (for the most part) humans will not be considered as adults and able to make many decisions for themselves.

Is that a rights violation? Of course not. Society decides what it wishes for itself. If the people do not wish to elevate deviant sexual behaviors to be the norm, it has every right to say so.

 

It's the depths of moral depravity to be talking about Homosexuality as if it is, or deserves to be considered the same as normal Heterosexual Relations.

Noting a lack of anything else, I take it you begrudgingly accept there is no rights imbalance...as there isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

2/3rds of the world doesnt agree with? You lost me on this one, sorry.

 

Then it is not being applied equally. The question is does government have a compelling interest in limiting marriage, not whether there is a compelling interest in providing it.

 

Gender isn't a behavior.

Nope. Only through an amendment. Popular vote via referendum can't remove the rights of the minority.

Age isn't a protected class. Gender is.

they can say anything they wish. Just can't restrict their rights. Sorry.

 

Of course it is being applied equually.

When and where did you make up the idea that everyone, regardless of gender, should be able to disregard what a Marriage is and marry....anyone??

 

Choosing to have sex with something outside of the norm is.

No "rights" are being removed, as exampled by the lack of answers showing exactly which different rulesets exist for Straight men versus Gay men.

Irrelevant to the point made. If people all have inaliable rights...then someones rights are being held back until society deems them able to make use of them. Society decides what "rights" exist for itself.

If not true then every nation would have the exact same number of rights in their bills and constitutions...yet they don't.

And again, unless you can show me a comparative list of rights between Gay and Straight....this is no more legitimate than bigfoot. There is absolutely no Right that a straight man has that a Gay man does not.
No rights are being restricted.

 

Did you miss this post? http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407341&page=79&p=1065064753#post1065064753

 

No, I didn't miss it. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't answer the question I posed, it's just a general phrase that could be for everyone.


Which "rights" exactly can you show me that Straights have...that Gays do not?

Just list them out cleanly, no need for vague walls of fluff that try and smokescreen aorund the question.

Just list them out. For all the cries of rights being denied, you must have a bullet list on hand right?