Supreme Court Weighing Gay Marriage Cases (speech, voted, New York, Florida)
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.
No, it is not, it is simply mentioned in the opinion. It is not legally binding. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage.
You need to learn the law.
after you learn to read.
I never said it was a requirement I said the right in Loving was based on Procreation.
Quote:
First, how ironic is it that this post is talking about lack of intelligence? Second, such reasoning was shot down in a handful of SCOTUS cases.
and was judicial activism at it's worst.
not a singe person 50 years ago thought there was a constitutional right for 2 men to get "married" and if the authors of the 14th amendment were transported to today's time period the would be on the side of those fighting against this lunacy. The interpretation of the constitution has to be in line with the meaning it was written has not what some evil people decide to make it say despite the words on the document.
If the 14th amendment truly gives 2 men the right to "marry" each other you should be able to find 1 law maker who was involved in the process (every member of congress and the state legislators who voted on it) who thought so. until till you prove differently then you should be considered the idiolagical decedent of the coiner of the "Big Lie".
Well I actually do support gay marriage but the best argument against it that I have seen is that it actually does affect everyone else because of studies showing that the traditional nuclear family is the best environment for children. So gay marriage as a contributing factor to the breakdown of the traditional family unit is therefore a contribution to all manner of social ills that affect all of society such as teenage pregnancy, juvenile crime, drug abuse, etc. While I imagine there may be some truth to that, I don't see it as enough cause to legislate peoples' lifestyles. This is supposed to be a free country.
Specifically, what studies? Citations, please. Regnerus "study" was based on parents of children who had ANY sort of same sex relationship, encounter, however brief or exploratory, and deigned them to have a same sex orientation. Regnerus set up his study to create the outcome he desired. The Faults of Mark Regnerus's Gay-Parenting Study : The New Yorker
Here's an excerpt from research and analysis done by doctoral students in psychology at UCLA:
"However, when drawing conclusions about same-sex parenting versus different-sex parenting, many people (including researchers and politicians) have cited or compared families with married different-sex parents to families with a single mother, stepfamilies, or families with the mother’s boyfriend present, instead of comparing the traditional mom-dad arrangement to a mom-mom or a dad-dad arrangement.
In these cases, it makes sense that the different-sex married parents are doing a better job – single parents and their children are usually more stressed out, deal with more financial troubles, and so forth. Research on lesbian and gay parenting is relatively scarce, which may be a reason why some choose to erroneously compare single parent families or stepfamilies to married different-sex couples."
If the 14th amendment truly gives 2 men the right to "marry" each other you should be able to find 1 law maker who was involved in the process (every member of congress and the state legislators who voted on it) who thought so. until till you prove differently then you should be considered the idiolagical decedent of the coiner of the "Big Lie".
What part of "equal protection of the laws" do you not understand?
Rather, it is based on the fundamental civil right of marriage
please see the logic about where the fundamental civil right of marriage comes from.
Quote:
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. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
so to review
Loving establishes a right to marry primary based on Skinner v. Oklahoma
If you're thrilled by the stats you quote, bully for you. If 1/3rd or so of the population having ssm where they live is ok for you, fine by me. There's a limit to how many more states will legislatively or via referendum approve ssm. In my opinion, a few more states and that's it.
All I'll say about Loving is that some courts have rejected it as a case validating ssm.
Despite the super-confidence that the bans against ssm are unconstitutional I keep reading, maybe you fear the SC won't rule the bans unconstitutional.
If ssm advocate experts think state-by-state, court-by-court laws and rulings are more effective in getting ssm nationally than a SC ruling, so be it.
The anti-marriage equality folks *know* that time is not on their side. Check out the ages of the SCOTUS justices: United States Supreme Court Justices
At the end of Pres. Obama's second term, both Scalia and Kennedy will be close to 81 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already 79 years old and has had health issues. I project she'll retire possibly at the end of this term or the next. Breyer is 74 years old. I'm sure Scalia will hang on as long as there's a Democratic president in the White House; Kennedy has said as much, seeing as how this story flung itself all over the conservative interwebs in 2010: Bad news for Obama: Conservative Justice Kennedy tells pals he's in no rush to leave Supreme Court - NY Daily News
There are FOUR justices in their seventies and Clarence Thomas is 68. NOTE: what I am about to cite from the CDC, are FACTS. I am not casting aspersions on the African American community:
"... Blacks or African Americans have disproportionately high prevalence of the following conditions and risk factors: hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, etc. http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/po...ck.html#HiPrev
What courts have rejected Loving as a precedent for validating marriage equality? Just about every federal court transcript is online. Find it and cite it her to prove your assertion. Court Records
I just did the first part of your homework in 5 seconds. You do the rest to be taken seriously.
I am very confident SCOTUS will find DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional, period. The federal government cannot arbitrarily discriminate (for federal law purposes) against married couples that a particular state has deigned MARRIED. That is WHY it's called marriage EQUALITY.
What part of "equal protection of the laws" do you not understand?
you are equal your just not smart enough to realize it.
allowed marriages
a "straight" man can marry a "straight" woman
a "straight" man can marry a "gay" woman
a "gay" man can marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" man can marry a "gay" woman
not allowed marriages
a "straight" man can't marry a "straight" man
a "gay" man can't marry a "straight" man
a "gay" man can't marry a "gay" man
a "straight" woman can't marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" woman can't marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" woman can't marry a "gay" woman
thus there's "equal protection of the laws"
if you want to change the world then admit your a radical and admit the truth.
if you were right there would have been 1 person in the first 100 years since the 14 amendment was passed who thought 2 men should have the "right" to "marry". (based on words that were already law)
Since there wasn't you a dead wrong and liar of the worst order.
if you were right there would have been 1 person in the first 100 years since the 14 amendment was passed who thought 2 men should have the "right" to "marry". (based on words that were already law)
You're probably right, such a notion was so foreign to them it never even entered their mind. But freedom is a fickle b*tch, and as time has gone by, we've realized what it really means.
As an example, when TV was invented, it was censored, indeed, it still is. You can't show boobs, you can't say Carlins "seven dirty words", etc, despite the first amendment, which is clearly a violation of that. But because of the timing, the people accepted the censorship as not only acceptable, but desirable, for it was a less enlightened time.
Fast forward to 1990 and we have this new thing called the Internet. They have tried on many occasions to censor it the same as TV, but they have been told, because of the aforementioned first amendment, that they can't. Do you imagine the founders, when they wrote it, envisioned a time when people would have electronic screens and access to free porn simply by choosing to access it? No, I don't either, but it IS a violation of the constitution to attempt to ban it despite their lack of foresight.
you are equal your just not smart enough to realize it.
allowed marriages
a "straight" man can marry a "straight" woman
a "straight" man can marry a "gay" woman
a "gay" man can marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" man can marry a "gay" woman
not allowed marriages
a "straight" man can't marry a "straight" man
a "gay" man can't marry a "straight" man
a "gay" man can't marry a "gay" man
a "straight" woman can't marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" woman can't marry a "straight" woman
a "gay" woman can't marry a "gay" woman
thus there's "equal protection of the laws"
if you want to change the world then admit your a radical and admit the truth.
if you were right there would have been 1 person in the first 100 years since the 14 amendment was passed who thought 2 men should have the "right" to "marry". (based on words that were already law)
Laws change. Period. Get used to it. If you're living in New York, you really need to either find something else to worry about or move to another country, probably not on this continent, seeing as Canada has had marriage equality since 2004 and Mexico is moving in that direction, too.
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.
