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 United States Supreme Court says marriage is a civil right.
Gee, I wonder who is right ...
OK, show me the quote, page #, etc. where the U.S. Bill of Rights says that. The only significant ruling that the United States Supreme Court (who has been wrong in the past in their interpretations) has made on marriage is "Loving v. Virginia " in the 1960s regading interracial marriage. That is an entirely different animal than same-sex "marriage", where marriage has throughout time been defined as a man and woman. A consenting man and woman shall not be denied a civil marriage license.
OK, show me the quote, page #, etc. where the U.S. Bill of Rights says that. The only significant ruling that the United States Supreme Court (who has been wrong in the past in their interpretations) has made on marriage is "Loving v. Virginia " in the 1960s regading interracial marriage. That is an entirely different animal than same-sex "marriage", where marriage has throughout time been defined as a man and woman. A consenting man and woman shall not be denied a civil marriage license.
Justices McReynolds, Douglas and Warren will be happy to show you the source of marriage as a civil right. (though why you confuse the Bill of Rights with the Constitution as a whole is known only to you)
Quote:
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Loving v. Virgina (1967)
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
You might familiarize yourself with common law -- your comment about the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that you are not, in fact, particularly familiar with it.
Now, have a close look at those statements by the court. Nothing is said about interracial marriage. Do you know why? Because interracial marriage is not a basic civil right -- marriage in general is a basic civil right. And from that fact flowed the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to bar a white adult and a black adult from marrying. When something is determined to be a basic civil right, then government encroachments on that right must pass, at minimum, the rational basis test. (here -- get a clue -- Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Not surprisingly, you're running away from your claim that marriage is not a right. But you're wrong, as you've apparently realized. And what you fail to understand is that when marriage is codified as a right in caselaw in many, many cases -- not just the three notable ones I present here -- it is then incumbent on the government to establish a rational basis for barring certain marriages. And increasingly, courts are unable to find any rational basis for prohibiting two consenting adults of the same gender from marrying.
The fact that you don't like it, or that we didn't do it that way last year, or that you have some ancient book that you claim decries it, doesn't even pass the laugh test, much less the rational basis test. Those excuses are no more compelling that the nonsensical garbage ignored by Loving, claims like preserving the purity of the races and whatnot.
Marriage is a civil right. From that fact, many things flow.
Justices McReynolds, Douglas and Warren will be happy to show you the source of marriage as a civil right. (though why you confuse the Bill of Rights with the Constitution as a whole is known only to you)
You might familiarize yourself with common law -- your comment about the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that you are not, in fact, particularly familiar with it.
Now, have a close look at those statements by the court. Nothing is said about interracial marriage. Do you know why? Because interracial marriage is not a basic civil right -- marriage in general is a basic civil right. And from that fact flowed the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to bar a white adult and a black adult from marrying. When something is determined to be a basic civil right, then government encroachments on that right must pass, at minimum, the rational basis test. (here -- get a clue -- Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Not surprisingly, you're running away from your claim that marriage is not a right. But you're wrong, as you've apparently realized. And what you fail to understand is that when marriage is codified as a right in caselaw in many, many cases -- not just the three notable ones I present here -- it is then incumbent on the government to establish a rational basis for barring certain marriages. And increasingly, courts are unable to find any rational basis for prohibiting two consenting adults of the same gender from marrying.
The fact that you don't like it, or that we didn't do it that way last year, or that you have some ancient book that you claim decries it, doesn't even pass the laugh test, much less the rational basis test. Those excuses are no more compelling that the nonsensical garbage ignored by Loving, claims like preserving the purity of the races and whatnot.
Marriage is a civil right. From that fact, many things flow.
Get used to it.
I'm totally bummed that I cannot rep you again at the moment. Awesome post!
I am still trying to figure out why anyone cares that two consenting adults want to get married. Who does it hurt? What does it hurt?
Here is a quote from the reference book the zealots love to thump.
Judge not les ye be judged.
Pluck the plank from your own eye before the splinter from your neighbors eye.
Why does it bother you?
Oh that part in Leviticus. Yep my favorite reading from that book. Its got the action in it.
So what do people do? sneak peeks in their neighbors windows to see how they do it?
If John and Bill or Mary and Sue want to have relations good for them.
If they want to be married and commit ? Good for them.
The rest of us should mind our own business.
Justices McReynolds, Douglas and Warren will be happy to show you the source of marriage as a civil right. (though why you confuse the Bill of Rights with the Constitution as a whole is known only to you)
You might familiarize yourself with common law -- your comment about the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that you are not, in fact, particularly familiar with it.
Now, have a close look at those statements by the court. Nothing is said about interracial marriage. Do you know why? Because interracial marriage is not a basic civil right -- marriage in general is a basic civil right. And from that fact flowed the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to bar a white adult and a black adult from marrying. When something is determined to be a basic civil right, then government encroachments on that right must pass, at minimum, the rational basis test. (here -- get a clue -- Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Not surprisingly, you're running away from your claim that marriage is not a right. But you're wrong, as you've apparently realized. And what you fail to understand is that when marriage is codified as a right in caselaw in many, many cases -- not just the three notable ones I present here -- it is then incumbent on the government to establish a rational basis for barring certain marriages. And increasingly, courts are unable to find any rational basis for prohibiting two consenting adults of the same gender from marrying.
The fact that you don't like it, or that we didn't do it that way last year, or that you have some ancient book that you claim decries it, doesn't even pass the laugh test, much less the rational basis test. Those excuses are no more compelling that the nonsensical garbage ignored by Loving, claims like preserving the purity of the races and whatnot.
Marriage is a civil right. From that fact, many things flow.
Outstanding! They needed to get a 2/3rds supermajority to override the veto of Governor Lynch. Instead, they couldn't even get anywhere close to simply passing the repeal, mustering only a feeble 116 votes in the 400-member House.
Good for you, New Hampshire ...
I dont really care if same sex marriages are ok in a state or not, as i dont think it should be a state issue in either case.
but since you are so in favor of the repeal failing, are as in favor of the same thing if a state does decide that same sex marriages should not be allowed?
I do remember that same sex marriage was not allowed at 1 time in california, and alot of people howled for the courts to step in and make court decision in favor of making the law unconstitutional.
I dont really care if same sex marriages are ok in a state or not, as i dont think it should be a state issue in either case.
but since you are so in favor of the repeal failing, are as in favor of the same thing if a state does decide that same sex marriages should not be allowed?
I do remember that same sex marriage was not allowed at 1 time in california, and alot of people howled for the courts to step in and make court decision in favor of making the law unconstitutional.
probably because it IS unconstitutional , and it only AFFECTS GAY PEOPLE yet married straight people for some reason think they get in say while enjoying a right that they for some reason THINK they have the right to deny other people?
It's very angering when someone says someone is 'howling' when they get that right. it's AMAZING too me or VERY BASIC LEVEL empathy evades some people.
are you able to empathize when a friend is murdered or does that just go past you since it isn't you directly?
probably because it IS unconstitutional , and it only AFFECTS GAY PEOPLE yet married straight people for some reason think they get in say while enjoying a right that they for some reason THINK they have the right to deny other people?
It's very angering when someone says someone is 'howling' when they get that right. it's AMAZING too me or VERY BASIC LEVEL empathy evades some people.
are you able to empathize when a friend is murdered or does that just go past you since it isn't you directly?
if you dont like the law, change the politicians or vote to get the law changed. do not go for activist judges. that just limits legislation to whatever group wants in their opinion forgoing the lawful process.
I personally do not think that marriage should even be in the pervue of the state, that should stay in the hands of each church.
I am sorry that you had a friend that was murdered, but it happens these days, and not only to those of the PC protected classes.
if you dont like the law, change the politicians or vote to get the law changed. do not go for activist judges. that just limits legislation to whatever group wants in their opinion forgoing the lawful process.
I personally do not think that marriage should even be in the pervue of the state, that should stay in the hands of each church.
I am sorry that you had a friend that was murdered, but it happens these days, and not only to those of the PC protected classes.
um, it isn't the law since it's not constitutional. actually the very ACT of voting on this was unconstitutional. sorry, here in the good old US it is not LEGAL to make a law if it violates someone's constitutional rights.
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.
