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.
If you have to fill out a piece of paper to get something it is not a right, it is a privilege or benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Except that now marriage is a "fundamental right"
Have you heard of a piece of paper called a marriage license? You have contradicted yourself as you make up this nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
If you think they're just ordinary folk, why do you think allowing them to marry will open the door for all kinds of less mainstream behavior such as polygamy and marriage of close relatives?
I mean, allowing ordinary folk to marry, should be a no brainer.
Because the definition of marriage can be changed now by whichever group screams the loudest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmissary
RedZin - It's so hard to argue with, and educate a closed-mind! You have my sympathy and admiration!
Oh I see, because I don't think like you I have a closed mind. Yours is the superior intellect right? Where is that tolerance I keep hearing about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Have you heard of a piece of paper called a marriage license? You have contradicted yourself as you make up this nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
The courts are the ones who stated marriage is a fundamental right in their recent decision and I was quoting them. I have always maintained that marriage was a privilege granted by the state and continue to get shouted down for thinking that. I had to ask permission from the state to get married as did many of you. That doesn't sound like a fundamental right to me.
Because the definition of marriage can be changed now by whichever group screams the loudest.
And that's just about always has been the case. Nothing new. Bigots screamed pretty loudly to limit marriage among certain racial groups. Civil rights activists screamed loudly in the '60s and got those laws revoked. People screamed to have couverture removed, marital rape made illegal, no-fault divorce to be granted, etc., etc., etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Oh I see, because I don't think like you I have a closed mind. Yours is the superior intellect right? Where is that tolerance I keep hearing about?
Ah the infamous cry to tolerate intolerance. All the same, it's a strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
The courts are the ones who stated marriage is a fundamental right in their recent decision and I was quoting them. I have always maintained that marriage was a privilege granted by the state and continue to get shouted down for thinking that. I had to ask permission from the state to get married as did many of you. That doesn't sound like a fundamental right to me.
And you've been wrong. Over and over and over again we've gone over this, Braddy. Let's try one more time though. I'll hope against hope that THIS time it'll sink in. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled repeatedly since the late 19th century that marriage is a fundamental right. Period. Done. End of story. Yes, you have to ask permission from the state to do so because in certain cases the State does have a fundamental interest in ensuring that right isn't abused. They want to make sure you aren't committing incest. That both parties can give consent. That you aren't committing bigamy. All the litigation and decisions by multiple jurisdictions is saying is that denying the right to marry based on a couple being of the same gender violates equal protection. Just as at one time the Courts found that denial of the right to marry based on racial grounds or criminal background or owing child support obligations violated the equal protection clause.
There are other rights you have to apply to the state to exercise that don't make them any less of rights. The right to vote, for instance. I have to register to vote and, presumably, the state can reject my application if I'm a felon, if I'm already registered in another locality, or if I'm not of age. Or the right to bear arms. You have to go through NICS and a waiting period. Both suffrage and gun ownership are rights, the same as marriage.
The courts are the ones who stated marriage is a fundamental right in their recent decision and I was quoting them. I have always maintained that marriage was a privilege granted by the state and continue to get shouted down for thinking that. I had to ask permission from the state to get married as did many of you. That doesn't sound like a fundamental right to me.
The United States Supreme Court first stated that marriage was a fundamental right in 1888. They have repeated this 13 times in the decades since. The facts and history are not on your side.
Ah the infamous cry to tolerate intolerance. All the same, it's a strawman.
Disagreeing with a lifestyle is not intolerance. Refusing to even consider someone's opinion, telling them they have no right to speak and accusing them of being closed-minded because of political differences is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnetpalmetto
And you've been wrong. Over and over and over again we've gone over this, Braddy. Let's try one more time though. I'll hope against hope that THIS time it'll sink in. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled repeatedly since the late 19th century that marriage is a fundamental right. Period. Done. End of story.
And which constitutional amendment followed these rulings? Where is the right to marry codified in federal or state law?
Last edited by RedZin; 07-30-2014 at 08:05 AM..
Reason: No.
And which constitutional amendment followed these rulings? Where is the right to marry codified in federal or state law?
This is where actually reading the court opinions might help you, Bradford, instead of, you know, just rushing to conclusions. Nice to see thought that you're finally recognizing what myself and others have said in the thread about the right to marry not being a new invention.
To answer your question: The Due Process clause of the 14th. Let's take a look at a relevant paragraph from Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Emphasis mine. Also, see how nice I am - I'm even telling you where/how to find the opinion to read in full yourself!):
Quote:
The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Disagreeing with a lifestyle is not intolerance. Refusing to even consider someone's opinion, telling them they have no right to speak and accusing them of being closed-minded because of political differences is.
You seem to think that being gay is something people choose to be. Why else call it a "lifestyle?"
It's just a life.
You are male. If people disagreed with your being male and wanted to deny you tax benefits, rights of survivorship, and the freedom to marry based on your being male, all while demeaning your maleness to a "lifestyle choice," would you not find that insulting?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
