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.
You guys are nuts!!! Too Funny.....LMAO! Good debate though. Butt sex? Would have used a different term myself, but hey whatever floats your boat. LMAO!
Really? Can you cite the majority decision where it states that the 14th amendment extends due process protection to gay marriage? I can't seem to find that part.
Why do you feel a need to change the argument? Here again is the statement that you have been arguing against...
The state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priveleges shall be construed in the institution of marriage, but it must be mindful of the constraints imposed upon it by the Equal Protection Clause, and as well of the fact that the Due Process Clause specifically protects personal decision-making with respect to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.
Otherwise, I cannot imagine that you are unable to find the opinion.
Why do you feel a need to change the argument? Here again is the statement that you have been arguing against...
The state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priveleges shall be construed in the institution of marriage, but it must be mindful of the constraints imposed upon it by the Equal Protection Clause, and as well of the fact that the Due Process Clause specifically protects personal decision-making with respect to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.
Otherwise, I cannot imagine that you are unable to find the opinion.
So in other words, the state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priviledges shall be construed in the institution of marriage.
And since my argument from day 1 has been that individuals don't get to decide what marriage is (or isn't) the state gets to do that, where is the change you refer to?
"Personal decision making with respect to marriage" can mean many things, among them the choice to marry or not, or the choice of whom to marry within the constitutionally approved qualifications the state is allowed to define.
"Personal decision making with respect to marriage" can mean many things, among them the choice to marry or not, or the choice of whom to marry within the constitutionally approved qualifications the state is allowed to define.
And the Constitutionally approved qualifications that the state is allowed to define are limited by the Equal Protection Clause, and by the protections of personal decision-making that the Due Process Clause provides.
The argument was changed meanwhile by adding the word "gay" to the word "marriage". It had not been there before. The Due Process Clause protects the right of personal decision-making within the broader category. Within it, it is as easy to find protection for personal decisions regarding gender as it is to find protection for personal decisions regarding race. In this matter, what we have is a decision that merely awaits the author who will write it. The decision itself has already been made.
And the Constitutionally approved qualifications that the state is allowed to define are limited by the Equal Protection Clause, and by the protections of personal decision-making that the Due Process Clause provides.
The argument was changed meanwhile by adding the word "gay" to the word "marriage". It had not been there before. The Due Process Clause protects the right of personal decision-making within the broader category. Within it, it is as easy to find protection for personal decisions regarding gender as it is to find protection for personal decisions regarding race. In this matter, what we have is a decision that merely awaits the author who will write it. The decision itself has already been made.
<Shrug> The decision has been made? Except for that annoying little line, "The state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priveleges shall be construed in the institution of marriage."
<Shrug> The decision has been made? Except for that annoying little line, "The state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priveleges shall be construed in the institution of marriage."
The statement doesn't stand on it's own and never has. State powers are all limited at their margins, and in this case by the individual rights assured under the two 14th Amendment Clauses heretofore frequently referred to. The propriety of their application to the circumstances of marriage has been repeatedly endorsed and underscored by the courts, as in both Casey and Lawrence. Not to mention, Loving v. Virginia...
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. 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.
-- Mr. Chief Justice Warren, 1967
The statement doesn't stand on it's own and never has. State powers are all limited at their margins, and in this case by the individual rights assured under the two 14th Amendment Clauses heretofore frequently referred to. The propriety of their application to the circumstances of marriage has been repeatedly endorsed and underscored by the courts, as in both Casey and Lawrence. Not to mention, Loving v. Virginia...
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. 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.
-- Mr. Chief Justice Warren, 1967
You are running out of legs to stand on...
<shrug> A dead justice's quote from 40 years ago? 'Tis not me grasping at straws.
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.
