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.
I am a mother and a house wife. Why should I not be allowed to access those benefits when an elderly couple past reproduction age, or couples that are are sterile can?
What? If you married or had been married and are a survivor you can. You are arguing the exceptions, what if they marry when elderly, what if they don't/cant have kids etc. Those are just exceptions and don't change the reasoning behind the benefits.
It was 100% legal 10 years ago for me to marry a woman, even if we were not in love and never had sex - true or false?
You're the one tap-dancing. Of course the license is based on the honor system and you can't have a love test or sexual test. It's just assumed to be the case.
What? If you married or had been married and are a survivor you can. You are arguing the exceptions, what if they marry when elderly, what if they don't/cant have kids etc. Those are just exceptions and don't change the reasoning behind the benefits.
I was not allowed to get married to my wife before Obergefell. And 30% of all married couples do not have children.
You're the one tap-dancing. Of course the license is based on the honor system and you can't have a love test or sexual test. It's just assumed to be the case.
No, the license is based on the intent of both parties to be married to each other. Nothing more.
If you’re talking about getting married in a church with that love honor obey stuff, then that’s different. You and your partner are making “vows”. They however have nothing to do with a marriage license. Nor are they an enforceable part of the marriage contract.
No, the license is based on the intent of both parties to be married to each other. Nothing more.
If you’re talking about getting married in a church with that love honor obey stuff, then that’s different. You and your partner are making “vows”. They however have nothing to do with a marriage license. Nor are they an enforceable part of a marriage contract.
Yes I been claiming all along the 14th amendment had a very narrow original intent and meaning mostly regarding the recently freed black citizens and criminal law. And in more recent years judicial activism and abusing judicial review have been at play, and I oppose it. The 14th didn't even give woman the right to vote. The Constitution had to have an amendment added. It didn't require everyone to be eligible to be naturalized etc.
Apparently, you are using the same & lame legal argument used in Loving v. Virginia. That lame argument, that it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both the white & the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation was found "odious" by unanimous decision:
Quote:
Conclusion
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
No, the license is based on the intent of both parties to be married to each other. Nothing more.
If you’re talking about getting married in a church with that love honor obey stuff, then that’s different. You and your partner are making “vows”. They however have nothing to do with a marriage license. Nor are they an enforceable part of the marriage contract.
That's you just changing the original meaning, intent and history of it all. No benefits would've ever been created for two people of the same sex being a couple. Gay marriage was just a grab and usurpation of something never intended for that.
That's you just changing the original meaning, intent and history of it all. No benefits would've ever been created for two people of the same sex being a couple. Gay marriage was just a grab and usurpation of something never intended for that.
Originally marriage was a transfer of property. We moved on from that.
That's you just changing the original meaning, intent and history of it all. No benefits would've ever been created for two people of the same sex being a couple. Gay marriage was just a grab and usurpation of something never intended for that.
Originally marriage was based on practical things not love. It was mostly a business deal. Women were chattel and had no say in who they married. It’s been around way before Christianity so if there’s been any usurping it was when the Church hijacked the concept and claimed they invented marriage. Nope. Not hardly.
Apparently, you are using the same & lame legal argument used in Loving v. Virginia. That lame argument, that it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both the white & the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation was found "odious" by unanimous decision:
Are you saying that same sex marriage should be a crime?
What the heck are you getting at here?
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.
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.
