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.
Our Rights are well defined. Have been since the Constitution and each amendment has been ratified.
We the people tell, them the centralized federal government, what they can control and marriage isn't one of them.
You're wrong. Courts have already determined that marriage is a right, not a privilege.
When the Constitution was written, people were happy to enslave others and eliminate the rights of many. The Constitution has never been perfect, nor has its implementation ever been perfect. Even if the Constitution expressly said "gays cannot have legal relationships," that would still be stupid and we as reasonable people should amend the Constitution, as we have done in the past.
You hide behind this veneer of the Constitution, but really you are just expressing your own homophobia and dislike of people different than you. There is no legal framework or document that will put lipstick on that pig.
You're wrong. Courts have already determined that marriage is a right, not a privilege.
When the Constitution was written, people were happy to enslave others and eliminate the rights of many. The Constitution has never been perfect, nor has its implementation ever been perfect. Even if the Constitution expressly said "gays cannot have legal relationships," that would still be stupid and we as reasonable people should amend the Constitution, as we have done in the past.
You hide behind this veneer of the Constitution, but really you are just expressing your own homophobia and dislike of people different than you. There is no legal framework or document that will put lipstick on that pig.
If that were the case, it would not be illegal in many states
Deflection. It is illegal because of narrow minded-ness whether it is homophobia or religious conviction driven.
Deflection...
That's a fact. It has never been a right. It is but a privilege your state allows, or disallows. What they cannot do is deny you the right to co-habitat.
That's a fact. It has never been a right. It is but a privilege your state allows, or disallows. What they cannot do is deny you the right to co-habitat.
Then what did the Loving V. Virginia ruling say if the Supreme Court didn't rule that marriage is a right?
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
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.
In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."
In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."
In 2006, judges were casting about for any argument they could bring forth to stop gay marriage. Public sentiment was opposed to it as state after state sought bans. Today, not even 10 years later, the opposite is true. Now, the courts will stretch to permit it as public opinion has shifted.
In 2006, judges were casting about for any argument they could bring forth to stop gay marriage. Public sentiment was opposed to it as state after state sought bans. Today, not even 10 years later, the opposite is true. Now, the courts will stretch to permit it as public opinion has shifted.
Yeah the same as Plessy v. Furegson held up Jim Crow laws in the 1890's but by the time Brown v. Board of Education came up in the 1950's, it was shot down and shot down continually until 1964's Civil Rights Act stopped most (besides voter suppression.) A redundant but needed law because without it, people would freely discriminate. The same happened with birth control and abortion throughout the 1950's and into the 1970's.
Listen, I am not knocking those on the wrong side of the issue. I'm just saying how we have seen MANY laws be upheld for years only for them to be shot down decades later.
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.
