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.
No, it was written to address the rights, benefits and protections under the law to ALL CITIZENS.
Marriage falls under those rights, benefits, and protections. Those rights, benefits, and protections are being denied to some American citizens.
How were they trying to redefine marriage? Marriage is a contract, that's it. If NY wants to allow gay marriage what right does the fed have to not grant equal benefits to gay married couple living in NY?
Right, separate but equal works for them as long as it is about us. They want all the rights, all the benefits and all the privelages, yet want the right to deny it to anyone who does not suit them and that happens to be gay people because we do not get the protections that are there for everyone regardless of race, age or sex. We do not have the federal government on our side as of now, but when DOMA is abolished the playing field will be equalized for all US citizens, not just straight christian ones.
Gay marriage is fundamentally different from traditional marriage, the same laws governing gay marriage would be different, because in gay marriage their is no procreation possible between the gay couple. So many of the concerns, benefits and assumptions we make with traditional, male, female couples do not apply to gays.
Marriage is a right, is it not? Denying us gay marriage is not equal representation.
No, not a right. Many states have various laws banning people from even being allowed to marry specific people, other states have laws which apply differently to men, then to women, and they have different age limits. No, it's not a right to get state a endorsed marriage.
On the other hand: If gays want "rights" that will not cost the rest of us money, then I support it.
America is not going to overlook the equal protection clause of the US Constitution because you believe it's gonna cost you money.
The Supreme Court almost never rules based on if a right or priviledge will cost money to the general public to excersize those rights or priviledges.
In Plyler v Doe[1982], the US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas' claim...The State's funding the education of illegal alien children would be a burden in cost to the State. The Court did not take that claim into factor as it ruled that Texas must educate all children in the state regardless of their immigration status.
America is not going to overlook the equal protection clause of the US Constitution because you believe it's gonna cost you money.
The Supreme Court almost never rules based on if a right or priviledge will cost money to the general public to excersize those rights or priviledges.
In Plyler v Doe[1982], the US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas' claim...The State's funding the education of illegal alien children would be a burden in cost to the State. The Court did not take that claim into factor as it ruled that Texas must educate all children in the state regardless of their immigration status.
The equal protection clause is not a grab bag for all liberal agendas. If two black men are banned form marrying in a state, and two white men are also banned, then there is no equal protection issue.
Gay marriage is fundamentally different from traditional marriage, the same laws governing gay marriage would be different, because in gay marriage their is no procreation possible between the gay couple. So many of the concerns, benefits and assumptions we make with traditional, male, female couples do not apply to gays.
Gay marriage is fundamentally different from traditional marriage, the same laws governing gay marriage would be different, because in gay marriage their is no procreation possible between the gay couple. So many of the concerns, benefits and assumptions we make with traditional, male, female couples do not apply to gays.
Boy you are being purposely dense. The rights and benefits that come with a federal marriage certificate do not concern children or progeny. Those same rights, all of them apply to couples who do not have children. Do you not understand that? There do not have to be any separate rights for gay marriage because all of the 1049 benefits and rights apply to us, to senior citizens and to sterile people, ALL OF THEM. And gay people do reproduce and have children, why are their kids being denied having their parents marriage supported and protected. Marriage rights are not about kids, silly rabbit.
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. 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.
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.
