Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now they can, citing these rulings as precedent.
There was never a "right to marry". It had always been a privilege granted by the state.
Except that now marriage is a "fundamental right" so it cannot be denied to polygamists or incestuous adult relationships. They can make the same equal protection arguments and cite this and other pro-gay marriage rulings as precedent.
Oh Bradley. I'll give you an A for effort but an F for factual content. Marriage has been a right long before the 4th's ruling yesterday. Here's a quote from Chief Justice Warren's opinion in Loving v. Virginia (1967):
Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Now, you'll note the quotes around "basic civil rights of man." There's a reason for that. The Warren Court wasn't the first to recognize marriage as a civil right. In 1942, the Court under Chief Justice Stone found in Skinner v. Oklahoma that marriage was one of the basic civil rights of man in finding Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act unconstitutional. That's not the first time either. Since 1888's Maynard v. Hill, the Court has found no less than 14 times that marriage is a right.
You miss the point as well. Marriage IS A RIGHT now. It does not matter that a gay couple had it ruled in their favor, the court found that marriage is a right that cannot be denied. Just like voting is a right that cannot be denied to anyone.
Do you think the same court that has said marriage is a right will then turn and deny marriage to someone, lets say a religious group in which there are consenting adults, will deny them that right to be married??
I didn't miss the point.
Voting, your example, is restricted by age, citizenship, and your geographic place of residence. If you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote. Under your analogy all of that would not be possible.
You miss the point as well. Marriage IS A RIGHT now. It does not matter that a gay couple had it ruled in their favor, the court found that marriage is a right that cannot be denied. Just like voting is a right that cannot be denied to anyone.
Do you think the same court that has said marriage is a right will then turn and deny marriage to someone, lets say a religious group in which there are consenting adults, will deny them that right to be married??
Actually, voting is denied to some people. People under 18 and people who are felons (in most states).
Felons can, however, get married. So can people under 18. Depends on the state.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I would think NC residents would have more important things to worry about.
How about the dolts in Raleigh voting to allow Fracking that is sure to pollute our meager supply of groundwater.
I don't know about anybody else but I don't want to have to worry about my kitchen tap water catching on fire or having to purchase bottled water to drink, bathe of even wash my car with.
Leave the gay people alone they don't bother anybody except the homophobes. And nobody on this board is a homophobe.
The precedent is set, marriage is now a right that cannot be denied and the court cases will happen.
Killing a person is legal in self-defense... it's been proven in courts, are we in danger of all homicide being legal? That's about the same logical leap you're making, lol.
The BEST part about all this?
The GOP bringing this issue to the forefront of everyone's mind has put a bright light on bigotry in our state, and people are appalled. Not exactly what the thumpers were hoping for, I'd bet...
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
I agree with Cooper. To continue to uphold Amendment One is to throw good money after bad.
I'm firmly convinced that Amendment One was a political move, not based in a religious or moral basis. There is certainly nothing moral or charitable about it. In my opinion it was used to fan hate & fear to divert attention from the harms that our tea party GA planned to do to people who are not wealthy.
I'm a baby boomer. I've known too many gay people to be afraid of letting them marry. If you're afraid of gay people & letting them marry, blame the Republicans in Raleigh. If they had left things as they were & not pushed Amendment One for devious purposes it would be a much longer time before gay marriage would come to NC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
