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.
I don't have to wriggle, since the original question had nothing to do with the "right" of marriage.
Can you find me a case that asks and answer that narrow question?
I know you don't get it.
But everyone else here with even a passing familiarity with the law understands that a holding encompasses the reasoning of the court, the things that they have to find true in order to decide the way that they do.
Being appellate courts, they are not permitted to make findings of fact, generally speaking. They rule on matters of law.
They ruled, as a matter of law, that marriage is a fundamental right of man, and, BECAUSE OF THAT, the state of Virginia could not discriminate in its regulation on the basis of race.
If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty, you would admit this.
I can only imagine why you resist logic so stridently.
I believe the Supreme Court will eventually get around to ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.
More and more countries around the world are recognizing the legality of same sex marriage from Argentina to Spain to Israel. In the US I expect to see at least a couple of more states legalize it. It won't happen overnight, but history is on the side of liberty and equality.
I think I've mentioned in this very thread I consider it a freedom, not a right.
The states administer AND define the terms of a marriage. Not all states have the same min age a person can marry for instance, but the vast majority define marriage between a man and a woman.
I don't see any of them declaring one has the right to marry their sister, brother or pet dog.
If it were a "right", would there be criteria and restrictions? I don't think so.
Of course for the militant gays, having it marriage as a right might further their cause of usurping "marriage" for their own agenda.
Marriage is just a social contractual construct, and the states get to dictate the criteria.
I think I've mentioned in this very thread I consider it a freedom, not a right.
What you consider is immaterial. It is the law.
Quote:
The states administer AND define the terms of a marriage. Not all states have the same min age a person can marry for instance, but the vast majority define marriage between a man and a woman.
State laws have to comport with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
We've been through this already.
Quote:
I don't see any of them declaring one has the right to marry their sister, brother or pet dog.
Neither do I. I do see the court specifically holding that marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
Explicitly. Your ability to continue to deny that it says precisely what it says is both telling, and disturbing.
Quote:
If it were a "right", would there be criteria and restrictions? I don't think so.
No rights are absolute. What a dumb argument. There are restrictions on your free speech rights, for instance. Does that mean you don't have the rights?
You should have stopped when I warned you to, because this is just getting stupid.
Quote:
Of course for the militant gays, having it marriage as a right might further their cause of usurping "marriage" for their own agenda.
Their agenda of wanting to be treated equally under the law?
Quote:
Marriage is just a social contractual construct, and the states get to dictate the criteria.
Well then, how is it that Virginia got its law declared unconstitutional in Loving?
Really, please stop now. You are embarrassing yourself.
I still haven't seen the case you're talking about - the one that specifically goes to the issue of marriage as a right. You see, all the cases you have cited didn't address that question at all.
State laws have to comport with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
We've been through this already.
Well then, they should all have the same minimum age for marriage, for instance.
Neither do I. I do see the court specifically holding that marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
Explicitly. Your ability to continue to deny that it says precisely what it says is both telling, and disturbing.
Well, I didn't see it that way. In fact, the question is never raised. It is very telling and disturbing that you can't come up with a case and continue to pull up these tangential quotes that really had nothing to do with the case you cited.
No rights are absolute. What a dumb argument. There are restrictions on your free speech rights, for instance. Does that mean you don't have the rights?
Well, that "right" is spelled out, clear as a bell. No need to speculate and argue about it.
You should have stopped when I warned you to, because this is just getting stupid.
I think not, but I do agree we can continue to go round and round.
Their agenda of wanting to be treated equally under the law?
The gays could have equality if they wanted it - through civil unions, which most people don't oppose. But no, usurping "marriage" for their own political agenda is what they want.
And look where it has gotten them - in every single state, when put to the voters, it has been defeated, as it should be, even in states like CA and MD.
Well then, how is it that Virginia got its law declared unconstitutional in Loving?
You really have to ask? VA was using race in determining whether or not 2 people could marry, NOT whether marriage was a right. Never asked or addressed the question.
Really, please stop now. You are embarrassing yourself.
Marriage is just a social contractual construct, and the states get to dictate the criteria.
Its a legal contract. You know this, come on now.
If said criteria is deemed unconstitutional, no bueno. Not affording "equal protection under the law" to every law abiding adult citizen in the State is against our constitution.
This case had nothing to do with the question of marriage being a right. It had to do with the STATE of VA and how they were administering the contract of marriage based on RACE.
Still waiting for the case that determines if marriage is a right, because this one doesn't, sorry. Just because the judge makes a statement about what he believes marriage to be, if the issue does not reside in the main question AND ruling...forget it.
But I am - debunking your misreading of the ruling with your pull quote. Your quote was not an issue OR addressed by the court.
Now find me one that was.
People have the "freedom" to marry, based on restrictions and criteria determined by the state. IF it were truly a "right", could we marry our cousins, brother, pet dog?
Maybe you should be asking instead; Does a state or federal statue have "the right" to even issue marriage licenses in the first place - to anyone.
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.
