Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry  It’s quite simple; marriage is a ‘Fundamental Right’: Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 first to declare marriage a “basic civil right”. Loving v. Virginia 1967 interracial couples have a fundamental civil right to marry. Zablocki v. Redhail 1978 “ deadbeat dads” have a fundamental civil right to marry. Turner v. Safley 1987: Prisoners have a fundamental civil right to marry. Romer v. Evans 1996 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Lawrence v. Texas 2003: Friend-of-the-court brief opposing sodomy laws.
Gay people have a civil right to privacy ( end of sodomy laws). Citizens For Equal Protection v. Nebraska
(US District Court) 2005 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Source.
Fundamental Rights can only be infringed upon when there is a compelling state interest to do so, and no such compelling interest has been demonstrated.
As a black atheist lesbian I have long awaited the day when the state no longer discriminates on the basis of gender. We have made great progress in the last century in curbing discrimination based on religion and race, yet I still can’t legaly marry my wife in a secular state. Why?
Free the women. |
After taking the time to read each and every court case you presented (and it wasn't a short task, by the way), I can safely say that you did nothing to promote your argument for SSM.
The first four rulings which you offered as precedent have nothing to do with SSM as they all hinge their ruling on the fact that people have a right to "promote race" and to procreate. Homosexual unions, by their nature, are not inclusive in these rulings.
The remaining rulings you cite have only to do with discrimination and privacy issues. Marriage is not a privacy issue, but a social and legal one. Marriage confers benefits and a social nod of acceptance to the union based on the union's function: as a cornerstone of society. Further, there is no discrimination against anyone as the marriage laws stand now; everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
You still have not addressed how you can justify creating a special right for a subclass of people (people who are a subclass based on a behavior, at that) with no intrinsic benefit to society by creating said right. The state must also have a compelling interest in creating institutions and you have yet to show a compelling interest by the state in creating a new form of marriage for homosexuals.