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 state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."
Such a statement is an example of INSANITY or STUPIDITY.
If one needs permission (a license), no right is involved.
If one has a right to marry, no license is necessary.
As to the function of a marriage, common law or statutory, that has been known for millennia - the joining of property rights of the parents for the benefit of progeny.
Proof?
An illegitimate child has no claim upon his father or his property... only its mother.
Since homosexual couples do not gene splice progeny, a marriage compact is a nullity, like training wheels for fish. You can do it, but for what purpose? Merging property rights via a civil contract is more consistent with logic.
Remember, there is no such thing as a homosexual common law marriage.
Because there are no children from such a union.
(See curtesy and dower in old law dictionaries)
this has nothing to do with the will of the people in the state of Oklahoma, this is a democrat liberal judge who is being an activist.
The people do not have the power to vote against another citizen's civil rights. What part of that concept do you not grasp? There is nothing activist about this judge's ruling. It has been very consistent with every court ruling against same-sex marriage bans, because there is absolutely ZERO legal justification for banning it.
Quote:
36 states have define the definition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman by referendum......its these liberal activist judges making it as they go along.
And pretty soon, those 36 states will be required to marry gays by order of the Supreme Court.
"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."
Such a statement is an example of INSANITY or STUPIDITY.
If one needs permission (a license), no right is involved.
If one has a right to marry, no license is necessary.
The Supreme Court has declared marriage a fundamental right in numerous cases. It is by law, a civil right.
Voters can not vote in unconstitutional laws, they will be overturned by judges, because that is the job of the judge.
States can not deny equal protection of the laws. States have protections called marriage. States can not deny marriage to a segment of society without first showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest. So far no state has been able to show how denying SSM would further a compelling state interest.
Yes, the 14th amendment applies to the states too.
the 14th amendment doesn't apply for the definition of marriage, that is left to the states, if that's the case it would be in the U.S. constitution.
"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."
Such a statement is an example of INSANITY or STUPIDITY.
If one needs permission (a license), no right is involved.
If one has a right to marry, no license is necessary.
As to the function of a marriage, common law or statutory, that has been known for millennia - the joining of property rights of the parents for the benefit of progeny.
Proof?
An illegitimate child has no claim upon his father or his property... only its mother.
Since homosexual couples do not gene splice progeny, a marriage compact is a nullity, like training wheels for fish. You can do it, but for what purpose? Merging property rights via a civil contract is more consistent with logic.
Remember, there is no such thing as a homosexual common law marriage.
Because there are no children from such a union.
(See curtesy and dower in old law dictionaries)
Then please show one state marriage law that requires the ability to reproduce in order to get married.
Quote:
Smith argues that “through the institution of marriage, societies seek to increase thelikelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by both themothers and fathers who brought them into this world.”
<snip>
Second, there is no rational link between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and thegoals of encouraging “responsible procreation” among the “naturally procreative” and/or steeringthe “naturally procreative” toward marriage. Civil marriage in Oklahoma does not have any procreative prerequisites.
See supra
Part VI(C);
see also Gill
, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (“[T]he abilityto procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in thecountry.”). Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriagesof couples who cannot “naturally procreate” or do not ever wish to “naturally procreate.” Marriageis incentivized for naturally procreative couples to precisely the same extent regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included.
40
the 14th amendment doesn't apply for the definition of marriage, that is left to the states, if that's the case it would be in the U.S. constitution.
The 14th amendment applies to all state legal protections. State have legal protections called marriage, thus state marriage laws do fall under the 14th. Every SSM case has cited the 14th. But I guess you know more about constitutional law than judges, including the supreme court justices.
the 14th amendment doesn't apply for the definition of marriage, that is left to the states, if that's the case it would be in the U.S. constitution.
The 14th Amendment requires state laws to apply to all citizens equally without a compelling state interest to stop it. If a State allows opposite-sex couples to marry, they must also require same-sex couples to marry.
There is no legitimate legal reason to ban same-sex marriage, which is why bans are being struck down everywhere. Deal with it.
"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."
Such a statement is an example of INSANITY or STUPIDITY.
If one needs permission (a license), no right is involved.
If one has a right to marry, no license is necessary.
As to the function of a marriage, common law or statutory, that has been known for millennia - the joining of property rights of the parents for the benefit of progeny.
Proof?
An illegitimate child has no claim upon his father or his property... only its mother.
Since homosexual couples do not gene splice progeny, a marriage compact is a nullity, like training wheels for fish. You can do it, but for what purpose? Merging property rights via a civil contract is more consistent with logic.
Remember, there is no such thing as a homosexual common law marriage.
Because there are no children from such a union.
(See curtesy and dower in old law dictionaries)
Progeny has nothing to do with marriage. My Uncle has been married to his wife for about 50 years and they have no children and same to all the other married 5 minutes in meeting then divorce two day later couples without conception.
This is only January, I see this year is going to be just excited as last year for equality in America.
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.
