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.
What behavior? Going to work, owning a home, raising family, soccer practice, karate classes, running errands, grocery shopping, taking care of each other when sick, worrying over college expenses, the cost of braces, walking the dogs, etc? You know those things that families do?
Nor is interracial marriage, the right of a married woman to obtain birth control, the right to display the American flag, the right to parent one's children, or the right to think. But those rights are all respected by the Constitution.
You are very wrong. Loving was about the fundamental individual right to marry a person of one's choosing. It was not about being able to bear children.
And marriage is much more than bearing children. The Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws because they were simply attempts to uphold White Supremacy at the expense of individual rights.
Right--and the question is whether state bans on gay marriage respect the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Priviliges and Immunities rights of gay people. I think that the appropriate answer to each of those questions is that the state bans fail to respect those rights and must be struck down.
Hypothetical for you.......
if Loving v Virginia had been about two white men wanting to marry, do you believe the SC would have struck down a law limiting marriage to woman and man ?
What are you talking about? What does Section 8 of Article 1 - the delegated powers of Congress - have to do with the issue of whether state laws that allow heterosexual to marry but ban homosexuals from doing so violate the 14th Amendment???????
By that token then if a State allows 14 year olds to marry then should all States be required to do so?
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.
I'm bolding other words in the 1st sentence:
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).
Why do you think the court accepted that marriage was fundamental to our very existence and survival ?
The answer isn't because married people get survivor benefits or discounts for gym memberships or spousal health insurance coverage, etc..
Procreation. Not that every marriage would or could produce children. Rather, those old-fashioned judges were under the impression that marriage was the core social institution in which to have and raise children.
I'm bolding other words in the 1st sentence:
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).
Why do you think the court accepted that marriage was fundamental to our very existence and survival ?
The answer isn't because married people get survivor benefits or discounts for gym memberships or spousal health insurance coverage, etc..
Procreation. Not that every marriage would or could produce children. Rather, those old-fashioned judges were under the impression that marriage was the core social institution in which to have and raise children.
It was an acknowledgement of the biological fact that human procreation cannot occur outside of a legally sanctioned marriage.
My mother can no longer conceive a child, yet she can get married. My sister had a hysterectomy and can still get married. In fact there is not one requirement that the people getting married have to be able, or willing, to conceive a child to get legally married. Why should same sex couples be treated differently? We can and do have children using the same means as many heterosexuals.
I'm bolding other words in the 1st sentence:
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).
Why do you think the court accepted that marriage was fundamental to our very existence and survival ?
The answer isn't because married people get survivor benefits or discounts for gym memberships or spousal health insurance coverage, etc..
Procreation. Not that every marriage would or could produce children. Rather, those old-fashioned judges were under the impression that marriage was the core social institution in which to have and raise children.
And same sex couples are currently having and raising children. Why shouldn't our families have the same legal protections as any other family?
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.
