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 states did not have the right to decide the fate of interracial marriage, so why should they be allowed to decide the legality of same sex marriage? Marriage is a right and no right for anyone should be up to a majority vote.
Loving applied to a law that only disallowed mixed marriages in which one of the marriage partners happened to be white making the white race distinct and preferred under the law in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While race is mentioned in the Constitution, sexual orientation and marriage are not.
Without a Constitutional amendment to address sexual orientation and same-sex marriage, there is no provision in the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on the states.
Of course that doesn`t mean the Supreme Court can`t or won`t invent such a provision out of thin air as they have done in the past.
But why not simply amend the Constitution?
Do you know why no one questions the right of eighteen-year-olds to vote?
That`s right, the Twenty-sixth Amendment.
After passing both houses of Congress, it only took three months to achieve ratification, so it`s very doable.
Wouldn`t you feel better if this right you claim to already have were a real right instead of a pretend one?
Loving applied to a law that only disallowed mixed marriages in which one of the marriage partners happened to be white making the white race distinct and preferred under the law in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While race is mentioned in the Constitution, sexual orientation and marriage are not.
Without a Constitutional amendment to address sexual orientation and same-sex marriage, there is no provision in the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on the states.
Of course that doesn`t mean the Supreme Court can`t or won`t invent such a provision out of thin air as they have done in the past.
But why not simply amend the Constitution?
Do you know why no one questions the right of eighteen-year-olds to vote?
That`s right, the Twenty-sixth Amendment.
After passing both houses of Congress, it only took three months to achieve ratification, so it`s very doable.
Wouldn`t you feel better if this right you claim to already have were a real right instead of a pretend one?
Actually they claimed that they laws applied equally since both blacks and whites were not allowed to marry someone of the other race. Just like many now claim that marriage laws are equal since no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Banning marriage based on the sex of the people getting married is the same as banning marriage based on the race of the people getting married.
Why should a man be allowed to marry someone that a woman can't?
On April 28, 2015, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in several cases granted certiorari on issues relating to same-sex marriage. The questions for review are: (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between to people of the same sex? And (2), does the amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between to people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? It would appear from the framed issues granted review that the Supreme Court is now poised to set aside the precedent made by its dismissal of the of the direct appeal in the case of Baker v. Nelson. (Citation Omitted). On these questions, the writing is on the wall: The will of the citizens of the several states to vote laws on the definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples does not trump the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are explicit: ". . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The assertion that the Tenth Amendment sanctions the right of a state to enact and enforce laws in violation of these constitutional protections is specious; and certainly contrary to decisions of the Supreme Court binding as precedent. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1974); and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). In order for the Tenth Amendment argument to prevail, the Supreme Court would have to overturn these prior decisions; and that is not likely to happen.
Loving applied to a law that only disallowed mixed marriages in which one of the marriage partners happened to be white making the white race distinct and preferred under the law in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While race is mentioned in the Constitution, sexual orientation and marriage are not.
Without a Constitutional amendment to address sexual orientation and same-sex marriage, there is no provision in the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on the states.
Of course that doesn`t mean the Supreme Court can`t or won`t invent such a provision out of thin air as they have done in the past.
But why not simply amend the Constitution?
Do you know why no one questions the right of eighteen-year-olds to vote?
That`s right, the Twenty-sixth Amendment.
After passing both houses of Congress, it only took three months to achieve ratification, so it`s very doable.
Wouldn`t you feel better if this right you claim to already have were a real right instead of a pretend one?
I don't think any supporter is going to be torn up if the SC decides it is a right as compared to having to pass a constitutional amendment. And not it's not very doable with a subject like this.
If the court were to do that, and I do not believe they will, the Christians who actually believe in and try to follow the Bible will refuse to recognize these homosexual "marriages," as there is truly no such thing, nor will there ever be, and will regard any homosexual who claims to be "married" as someone who is desperately pretending to be something that they are not.
BREAKING NEWS:
Gay and lesbian couples couples don't care if you approve or recognize their marriages.
They care about LEGAL recognition. They care about things like hospital visitations, survivors benefits, filing joint tax returns, etc.
A person's opinion on whether they think it's a "real" marriage or not is worthless.
Either it is legally protected by the Constitution of the United States or it isn't. Ultimately it is the Supreme Court of the United States that makes that determination. Not you. Not me. Not anyone reading this thread
Actually they claimed that they laws applied equally since both blacks and whites were not allowed to marry someone of the other race. Just like many now claim that marriage laws are equal since no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Banning marriage based on the sex of the people getting married is the same as banning marriage based on the race of the people getting married.
Why should a man be allowed to marry someone that a woman can't?
... ... ... "The Law, in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread." ... ... ...
Gay and lesbian couples couples don't care if you approve or recognize their marriages.
They care about LEGAL recognition. They care about things like hospital visitations, survivors benefits, filing joint tax returns, etc.
A person's opinion on whether they think it's a "real" marriage or not is worthless.
Either it is legally protected by the Constitution of the United States or it isn't. Ultimately it is the Supreme Court of the United States that makes that determination. Not you. Not me. Not anyone reading this thread
Obviously that's not true, or laws that say a baker doesn't have to bale a cake for a gay wedding wouldn't be so controversial.
Gays are not disallowed from marrying. They are free to marry anyone they want under the definition of what marriage is. Loving v Virginia was about a specific law that prohibited "whites" from marrying "coloreds". That prohibition violated the Equal Protection Clause. There is no prohibition in the definition I quoted.
In many States they CAN'T marry the CONSENTING ADULT they wish to marry ... WHY can't you understand this ??? There are NO "special" rights requested.
I can't understand WHY you guys are getting so worked up about something that has ZERO to do with YOUR life. Maybe a little conflicted?
In many States they CAN'T marry the CONSENTING ADULT they wish to marry ... WHY can't you understand this ??? There are NO "special" rights requested.
I can't understand WHY you guys are getting so worked up about something that has ZERO to do with YOUR life. Maybe a little conflicted?
To ask other people to support something that goes against God and people morals.? What the gay are really asking is support of their fallen life style.
That's why!
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.
