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 here is a quote from YOUR link. Did you think I didn't link to the same case or something?
Ready?
Here it is:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
Quote:
I'm thinking you need to go back to school.
Really? At my law school, they taught us how to read a case. I can only wonder what they taught you at yours.
Which one was that, by the way?
And since I have your attention, please do explain for us why you think marriage should not be a right.
Or is it that you fail to understand that the court found marriage to be a right as part of their analysis?
Either way, you're wrong. Loving has been and continues to be cited for this specific legal point - that marriage is a right, not a privilege.
Having dispensed with your ludicrous argument that the Loving decision doesn't say exactly what it says, in the final paragraph of the holding no less, can we now move on to why you think marriage SHOULDN'T be a right?
The court explicitly ruled, as a part of its ultimate holding, that marriage was a fundamental right, citing Skinner v. Oklahoma.
And here is a quote from YOUR link. Did you think I didn't link to the same case or something?
Ready?
Here it is:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
Really? At my law school, they taught us how to read a case. I can only wonder what they taught you at yours.
Which one was that, by the way?
And since I have your attention, please do explain for us why you think marriage should not be a right.
In your own words.
Who said this? Did the court rule that marriage was a right? I know of no case that asks that very narrow question - If marriage is a right. Maybe you could link to it?
Quote:
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942).
A social contract, administered by a given state. That is not a "right".
You can have successful reproduction of any species without
marriage The definition of marriage under religious doctrine
and ceremony is much different than it should be under
federal/state law to get "a license". One really has nothing to do with the other.
And no, not all who marry even want or choose to reproduce. e.g. childless couple.
Believe what you believe in your house of worship.
And, leave it there
Respect everyone's personal choice.
Yep, 20 years married and no kids which is just how my husband and I like it. My personal preference is childfree rather than childless.
Civil rights are not the subject of majority opinion under our system of government.
The one you seem to have so very little understanding of.
If Conservatives had more understanding..................................... ...They wouldn't be Conservatives.
The primary motives of the Conservatives Movements are based on fear, ignorance, bigotry and hatred. They are for the most part dedicated to the vision of American being a White Christian country where corporate power is unfettered. All their political and social agendas are focused on these goals.
Who said this? Did the court rule that marriage was a right?
Yes, they did, following two prior cases setting the precedent.
Quote:
I know of no case that asks that very narrow question - If marriage is a right. Maybe you could link to it?
Loving was that case. So was Skinner and Maynard. Holdings can include multiple findings, and multiple rulings that all support the ultimate decision. There is NO QUESTION - outside of the addled minds of people like you - that the holding in Loving *included* a holding that marriage is a fundamental right.
Because the SAID IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH IN THE HOLDING.
You might as well argue that the sun rises in the West, sanrene. You would be laughed out of court making the argument you make here, among other reasons.
Again, this is First Year Law school stuff. I guess you missed that class.
Quote:
A social contract, administered by a given state. That is not a "right".
Sorry, the highest court of the land has said three times since 1888 that you are WRONG.
Now, are you going to answer my question, or will this be another "don't respond, report" situation?
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
That, sanrene, is what people formally trained in the law call a "holding." It is usually (as it is in this case) found at the end of the opinion, but not always. Warren's opinion is pretty standard in structure. Finding that marriage is a fundamental right is part of the reasoning of the court, right along with finding that they have jurisdiction, etc.
You cannot separate it out. It is the law.
Don't believe me?
Go to law school and find out for yourself how educated people read cases. Or what do you think they meant by "to deny this fundamental freedom."
I'll just wait for another case that declares marriage a right. Maybe I missed it, I don't know.
If you are permitted to do something by law that is a RIGHT.
Marriage is a government licensed and sanctioned act on the state level. For example, if you are below the legal age in a given states YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY.
They can't defend marriage when they can't uphold their own marriages or manage a modicum of acknowledgement for womankind.
GOP; If you'd quit treating marriage like legalized prostitution, you might see better results in your 'defense' that don't require legislative props. Control yourselves is all your maker asks of you, and if you can't manage to lead by example, you're an incompetent leader. Some of us do know full well the difference between a real man and a juvenile delinquent faking his way in life wearing his daddy's shoes. NEXT!
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.
The definition of marriage under religious doctrine
