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.
It's not the same, Loving it was decided only dealt with race. There was no crime and punishment aspect in Obergefell. Neither sex was being discriminated against or punished criminally or otherwise. That was a logical theory or fallacy it was sex discrimination. Besides Obergefell overturned 84 years precedent regarding what constitutes discrimination.
This is like the 4th time someone as claimed its the same has Loving and I've had to respond.
Neither race was being discriminated against before Loving. Each person could marry someone of their own race. No discrimination.
It's not the same, Loving it was decided only dealt with race. There was no crime and punishment aspect in Obergefell. Neither sex was being discriminated against or punished criminally or otherwise. That was a logical theory or fallacy it was sex discrimination. Besides Obergefell overturned 84 years precedent regarding what constitutes discrimination.
This is like the 4th time someone as claimed its the same has Loving and I've had to respond.
So that’s your true objection? You support gay marriage, just not the constitutional justification behind Obergefell?
That at one time there was somewhat of a property right, is completely irrelevant to benefits intended for women. housewives, children etc.
So that change was good, any other change that you don't like is bad?
Again homosexual couples have children, many heterosexual couples do not.
Having children is not a requirement to get married.
Having sex is not a requirement to get married.
Being a house wife is not a requirement to get married.
Heck living in the same house is not a requirement to get married.
If you want to change marriage laws so that only those that have sex, have children, and have someone staying home, that would still not rule out same sex marriage.
Neither race was being discriminated against before Loving. Each person could marry someone of their own race. No discrimination.
Which was the long precedent, but even so the decision was that race was the only factor, and the 14th did kind of speak to race, but little else. To say sex is the only factor in Obergefell is a logical fallacy, putting aside whether the 14th originally speaks to sex.
That at one time there was somewhat of a property right, is completely irrelevant to benefits intended for women. housewives, children etc.
Are you upset because a non working woman married to another woman would get the same SS benefit as your non working spouse?? Or that the minor children of a gay married couple would be eligible for SS benefits if their parent died? Is this really the crux of your issue?
You need to just come out and say whatever you believe. It’d make the conversation much shorter instead of you hiding behind a constitutional argument.
It's not the same, Loving it was decided only dealt with race. There was no crime and punishment aspect in Obergefell. Neither sex was being discriminated against or punished criminally or otherwise. That was a logical theory or fallacy it was sex discrimination. Besides Obergefell overturned 84 years precedent regarding what constitutes discrimination.
This is like the 4th time someone as claimed its the same has Loving and I've had to respond.
How is being denied the right to marry NOT being discriminated against?
Besides, the ruling in Obergefell did no such thing.
The ruling answered these two Constitutional questions:
(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
Quote:
Conclusion
Yes, yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. ...
Are you upset because a non working woman married to another woman would get the same SS benefit as your non working spouse?? Or that the minor children of a gay couple would be eligible for SS benefits if their parent died? Is this really the crux of your issue?
You need to just come out and say whatever you believe. It’d make the conversation much shorter instead of you hiding behind a constitutional argument.
It's partly that but mostly the judicial review, constitutional argument and that the legislator should create the law.
Which was the long precedent, but even so the decision was that race was the only factor, and the 14th did kind of speak to race, but little else. To say sex is the only factor in Obergefell is a logical fallacy, putting aside whether the 14th originally speaks to sex.
Sex is the only factor. You do not have to be homosexual to marry someone of the same sex, just like you do not have to be heterosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex. In fact you are not asked your sexual orientation on a marriage license. The bans denied a woman the right to do the same thing that a man was legally allowed to do, That is discrimination based on sex.
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.
