Utah Legalises Same-Sex Marriage One Day After NM.

After, of course. The Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, etc.

 

DUH. . .I wasn't REALLY ASKING that as a question!

 

Yep, the Court indeed declared marriage is a right in Loving v Virginia. Did you miss it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Also, even your own argument defeats you. If all the court did in Loving was say that jurisdictions could not set up limitations to marriage, well then they sure as heel did their job in this case.

 

Yep. . . to the chagrin of the bigots who vainly tried to pass "DOMA!" and make it part of the Constitution.

In the other hand, the Federal courts have based some decisions on the legality of marriage on "the civil right to marry" (i.e., interracial marriage).

So, it is not exactly as if the Federal courts hasn't USED the Constitution to determine the legality of marriage who, at the time, looked "illegal" to some bigots!

 

Great, now that we both know the Constitution does not give anyone the right to own a slave, why don't you us where the Constitution requires society to approve of same sex marriage?

 

If marriage is a right then why can't a mother marry her son? I'm still waiting for one of the idiot liberals to answer this question.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd also like for them to point out where sexual orientation is protected in the constitution. I must have missed that part.

 

Look at history!

The same argument that today's bigots tried to use against gay marriage (including the strategy to attempt an amendment to the constitution like DOMA) has been used before and FAILED with interracial marriage.

And. . .today, the law of the land IS that Racial marriage are just as legal and MUST be recognize at the same level as ANY other marriage.

Do you REALLY believe that gay marriage will not succeed in the same way, no matter how hard dinosaurs try to prevent it?

 

Only an "idiot bigot" would ask such a dumb question in utter desperation!

When did you ever come across a mother wanting to marry her son?

 

http://jadeafrican.com/40-years-old-mother-set-to-marry-own-son-in-zimbabwe/

That was just the first link that popped up when I put in mother marrying son into google. I'm sure there are plenty more. Would you like them?

http://bluemapleleaf.blogspot.com/2005/08/divorced-father-wants-right-to-marry.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...l-love-brother-sister-grew-apart-met-20s.html

 

The government can deny fundamental rights as long as they have a compelling reason to do so. In the case of incest that would protecting offspring due to genetics. When it comes to same-sex marriage, they have no compelling reason, courts have held that don't even have a rational reason to do so.

That and the Equal Protection Clause doesn't just kick it when it's a fundamental right, it's for any law that discriminates against one group. But if it is a fundamental right in question, then the level of scrutiny the courts give is different. It states, "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

And the question is the right to be gay and not be discriminated because of it. There just is no compelling reason for the government to do so.

 

And please tell us how marriage was defined in Loving v Virginia? It didn't, it referenced Skinner v Oklahoma. Guess how marriage was defined in that case, and how did they justify government control of it? You might want to avoid the traditional definition of marriage if you support gay marriage.

 

Read please:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

All the court has done is rule that the gender restriction, just like the racial restriction, it unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

 

Oh. . . yes! I can see that this new trend is a real tsunami and that it will be on the forefront of everyone's mind as soon as Christmas is over!

 

Are you too scared to answer the question?

If marriage is a RIGHT then why is a mother not allowed to marry her son or her daughter?

You keep claiming marriage is a right but you don't seem to be able to explain that. I wonder why that is.

 

What question?

I don't play "fairy tales" and "who can get the silliest!"

If you want to advocate for mothers to marry their sons. . .start a movement! Go for it!

No skin off my back!

 

And here's the first couple to get married in Utah!

 

Can't answer the question can you?

Why are incestuous couples not allowed to marry if marriage is a right.

Either it is a RIGHT or it is not. Which is it?

 

Go start a movement. Take it to court. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. We had to do it, so do you. If you want to marry your mom, go for it!

 

I have answered that question. . .several times.

And, in summary, my answer was this: IF there is no chance of procreating (i.e., vasectomy or tying the tubes of one of the party involved) I don't give a damn if siblings want to marry.

Same goes with polygamy (again, I answered that already in this thread and several other threads).

So. . .don't look at me to give you blank ammunition!

There are NO DEFENSE to continue to deny marriage to two consenting adults of the same sex.

 

LoL If you can't answer the question, then just say you can't.

You claim marriage is a right... but if marriage is a right then incestuous couples should be allowed to marry. But they're not are they?

If they are not allowed to marry, then BY DEFINITION marriage is not a right.

I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't ask you your opinion on whether they should be allowed to marry or not.

I'm asking you how can marriage be a RIGHT if those people are denied marriage?

If they're being denied marriage then BY DEFINITION it cannot be considered a right.

 

Read the LAW, maybe that will help you to have a clue!

 

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

 

There are restrictions on just about every right we have in this country. Freedom of speech is not absolute. You don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater for example. If you kill someone, you lose your right to freedom. I could go on and on. You don't seem to understand or grasp that concept.

If you want to marry your mom, go show why you should be able to. I wish you all the luck in the world.

 

Once again. . .make a petition and get the number of signature you need to bring this "BIG ISSUE" to your local court.

But be careful what you ask for! As I said, I don't have a problem with that. . .if there is no risk of inbreeding. But you seem to have a problem with every form of marriage except the "White male with White female" type. . .So, be careful what you ask for, or you might actually have to explain to your mother why, in spite of the fact that it is not against the law, you don't want to marry her!

 

Ohhhh I see. So then it's not a right? It's only a right for certain people? The RIGHT to free speech is not denied to some people while given to others. You're denying them equal protection under the law. Therefore it is NOT a right.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not surprised that both of you are missing the point. More like you're being deceitful and dishonest because you KNOW that marriage is NOT a right... and you can't justify your position that it IS a right. Therefore you make dumbass jokes because you're incapable of defending your position.

But hey at least it's not as bad as the gay hockey player above you that was trying to act all Billy Badass the other day threatening to kick my ass till I gave him the name and address of my MMA gym and told him I'd pay for his gas to come down here.