• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

Ultimately, this was the Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The citizens who voted that amendment into law, REGARDLESS of your feeling for it, deserve to at LEAST have a say in court. So while the Attorney General is not defending it, it has been allowed for other entities within Virginia to put forth a defense.

While the Attorney General may not be interested in defending the laws of Virginia, he does not singularly get to make a call as to what laws the people of the state wish to have defended in court. There have been other's that have been found by the court to have standing, and as such able to take over as defense for the case.

Redress beat me to it, but SCOTUS ruled that "others" don't necessarily have standing to do that. The "pro family" groups, at least, were ruled to not have a dog in that fight, therefore no grounds to appeal. (a deceptively important precedent: SCOTUS basically declared heterosexuals are in no way harmed by same-sex marriage)

Another poster said it was the county clerks who had to give out marriage certificates who were appealing. They, at least, have a somewhat better grounds to appeal because this case does affect them kind of. I think it's pretty frigging shaky grounds, though, and will make for a really, really weak case right from the start. But, hey, the social conservative types are getting pretty desperate at this point.
 
The courts ate not defining marriage. That is a common misunderstanding. The courts are saying that certain bans on marriage are not legal under the constitution. That is the proper role of the courts.

States establish the definition of marriage when the Courts decide that the definition the State uses is "Un-Constitutional" then yes they do make a definition of marriage. Previously we did have States who prohibited mixed race marriages and they were Unconstitutioal (no quote marks) since the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection with respect to race so in that instance the States are prohibited to transgress there. There is no explicit requirement with respect to sexual idenity. I'm sorry this is somthing that the culture will have to deal with and it will probably take a couple of generations in some States to resolve.


More because it is irrelevant and impossible to implement.

I was just responding to your comment.

.

True but kinda pointless to say. No one is mistakenly referring to bisexual or asexual marriage.

Yes, but there is no need to test whether is a person has a sexual slant for marriage.


It is a state issue. Just like all state issues, the individual states can regulate them as they choose within the boundary of the constitution. What the courts are ruling on is the constitutionality of SSM bans.

Unless there is a specific prohibition in the Constitution the States can make any requirement for marriage even things like income if they chose. I would not favor any restriction beyond prohibiting marriage between second dgree or closer, multiple partners, 17 or older, and be mentally competent. The fact that both partners must consent is implied.

1.) yeah just like blacks could drink out of fountains in all states too, sorry thats thats a intellectually dishonest and failed argument

2.) sorry equal and civil rights arent state issues

The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.



Once again you're making the argument that rights should be voted on, and not given equally. We happen to live in a country that is supposed to respect the rights of even the minorities, and even the 95% can't take the rights away from the 5%.

The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.


I've asked you this before and you went out of your way to ignore it, most likely because it is extremely uncomfortable to your position. If 51% of the country wanted to remove rights from African Americans, would you support it because it's democracy? Or do you believe that maybe all US citizens should be treated equally under the law?

The Constitution of the United States require that equal protection under the law with respect to race. It would Un-Cnstitutional and I would be against it snce I do believe it violates the fundamental Rights of those who were targeted.

A majority does not have the right to vote away rights of a minority. I don't know what kind of society you thought you were living in.

That is correct but the question is whether the Courts can argue that it is Un-Constitutional to do so. My view is it cannot be argued under the Constitution that gay marriage is a Right that supersedes the Power of the States to decide what is allowable under the law the State's Legislature decides at a given time.



I find it curious that you claim to be a libertarian yet believe that states should vote on who gets rights and who doesn't. Most libertarians I know, by definition, support absolute rights even for the minorities.

States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.
 
Marriage also use to be about property. Man getting married to a woman who was nothing more than property.

This was somewhat less in the United States which is where the issue is about.

He even paid for for in the form of a dowery.

The dowery was for the wife in case of the husband died or became destitute that she would still have something to live off of.

He could even do whatever he wanted with her.

Not quite anything murder is murder.

And claim to her fathers lands if she happened to be an only child
.

As long as her farther did not disown her. Even if not the husband would only have control of the property at worst.

While she got nothing.

She technically got title not that matters much.

It was also forbidden between two differing races.

Yes even after that would have been Constitutionally prohibited.


IE Only between whites or blacks but never whites and blacks.

I think members of the various tribes were an exception.



1: Why should it concern you? How do two males or two females getting married affect you? Whether they are neighbors or a couple that live on the other side of the continent.

It doesn't concern me and I do not care. At this time there is no Constitutional requirement that States legislate gay marriage.



2: I'm quite sure someone said the same thing when the courts were trying to "expand" marriage into meaning whites and blacks can marry each other.

Given the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection under the law with respect to race they were wrong.


3: Why wouldn't it be under the equal protection clause? Marriage IS a right according to many SCOTUS judges...even before it was even acceptable for gays to be out of the closet, much less vying for marriage equality. If you are going to allow two people to be married then what difference does their gender make? Marriage is not about status anymore. Its not about having kids otherwise all those sterile couples would not be allowed to marry....much less the ones that can have kids but don't want them. Marriage now a days is about nothing more than love, tax breaks, and being able to have a say in the medical decisions of a loved one and inheritance rights. What valid reason does the State have to deny marriage between two men or two women?

The concept of gay marriage is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too fast on the issue. This is something the general culture is going have to deal with. I think that eventually most States will recognize it.



It may not have been your point. But it is the logical conclusion to what you said. If you truely believe that the courts striking down this law is a legislative step and that the courts should not be taking legislative actions then you have to logically apply that to EVERTHING. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical, biased, and prejudicial.

The Courts should strike down laws that are in conflict with the Constitution and not strike down laws that they do not like. I should point out that I fear the Courts striking down Rights that they do not like is just as likely and they have done so in the past.



As well you should. Everyone should. But striking down a law banning same sex marriage is not over riding anyones rights. It takes nothing from you or anyone else. It instead gives rights. Indeed when a court strikes down ANY law that is giving freedom to the people. Its when they uphold laws that they start to over ride our Rights. Of course you may want to say that by them striking down this law...which people voted on...is taking away peoples Right to vote. Well, you would be wrong in that assessment. For the simple fact that people cannot vote away other peoples Rights. Was it taking away peoples Right to vote when the ruling for Loving vs Virginia came in? The people voted on the law that was struck down in that ruling also. The answer of course is No. If it wasn't then...well....its not now.

Again the problem is that the Courts read into the Constitution Rights that are not explicitly stated and negate the Power of a State by doing so they also decide to negate Rights of individuals such as to property and seizing it to give to competitor that would make more taxes for government is wrong.

I do not have an issue with gay marriage but I do not want the Courts being involved at this point since once this is done in this manner it will allow multiple marriage (and possibly others) which we are not any way ready for.
 
The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.

weird you addressed nothing that was actually said and the complete failures of your previous post still exist.
 
States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.

Man has right to contract and the government may not discriminate. The Marriage License is government issued and recognized contract. It requires additional force to forbid same sex couples from entering the contract, and if that force is not response to the violation of rights of others, it is rarely legitimate.
 
Human nature is evil Just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it should be approved of or used in defense of it being "normal" or "moral" or even "acceptable." As far as biology and sex goes, homosexuality is dysfunctional and "unnatural" in how those sex organs are being used. But that's besides the point. I sincerely hope this gets struck down. It is a grave injustice to the voters of VA to have their attorney general refuse to defend state laws and the state constitution in court and also have their ability to uphold traditional marriage, which has been the defacto marriage position for many many years, essentially removed largely due to a progressive judicial opinion and changes in public opinion. I'm happy for the gays in VA that may be able to get married and I support SSM, but not through this type of judicial tyranny and lack of legal representation for those on the other side. Equal rights is not imposing a new definition of marriage upon every state due to new social changes and acceptances of certain sex practices or sexual relationships. Equal rights is respecting the rights of voters who disagree and allowing them to govern as well. The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality or personal sex choices/relationships unless amended.

You have used this argument before, it gets the same response- that sex organs are not always used for the prime function isn't an issue. Young bulls mount each other, cows even mount other cows, you have to be very arbitrary on where you draw the 'biological natural' line.

There is no NEW definition of marriage but rather expanding the definition by dropping the innie/outie ahhhh coupling to the definition.

There is no judicial tyranny as the Judges are reading the Constitution and doing their job.

Hetro marriage is in no way diminished by expanding marriage to same sex couples. My wife and I lose nothing by Bob and Hank getting hitched.

No one is saying hetros can't govern- whatever that means- but they can't impose their beliefs on others in violation of the Constitution, and this is in far more categories other than marriage.

Wanting a Constitutional amendment alteration is just a stall tactic, the 14th works just fine to measure the progress this country has made and will continue to do so. It is reactionary folly to try and fossilize our national lifestyle and not advance.

Bottom line is no one is losing any rights, someone being paid with taxpayer money works for ALL Americans, not just the ones who's lifestyle you approve of.
 
States establish the definition of marriage when the Courts decide that the definition the State uses is "Un-Constitutional" then yes they do make a definition of marriage. Previously we did have States who prohibited mixed race marriages and they were Unconstitutioal (no quote marks) since the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection with respect to race so in that instance the States are prohibited to transgress there. There is no explicit requirement with respect to sexual idenity. I'm sorry this is somthing that the culture will have to deal with and it will probably take a couple of generations in some States to resolve.




I was just responding to your comment.

.



Yes, but there is no need to test whether is a person has a sexual slant for marriage.




Unless there is a specific prohibition in the Constitution the States can make any requirement for marriage even things like income if they chose. I would not favor any restriction beyond prohibiting marriage between second dgree or closer, multiple partners, 17 or older, and be mentally competent. The fact that both partners must consent is implied.



The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.





The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.




The Constitution of the United States require that equal protection under the law with respect to race. It would Un-Cnstitutional and I would be against it snce I do believe it violates the fundamental Rights of those who were targeted.



That is correct but the question is whether the Courts can argue that it is Un-Constitutional to do so. My view is it cannot be argued under the Constitution that gay marriage is a Right that supersedes the Power of the States to decide what is allowable under the law the State's Legislature decides at a given time.





States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.

hears the bits that makes it unconstitutional to put a price tag on marriage to ban marriage based on race or to ban marriage based on gender

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Equal protection under the law requires it.

The problem is that gay marriage is a new idea and the Courts should at least hold off until there has been enough time has past where States have made laws on this and with the reasoning those laws were enacted. There is noting explicit in the Constitution that would make gay marriage a Right. Technically marriage is not a Right at all. Loving vs Virgina was delivered not due to a Right of marriage but due to a prohibition of a violation of equal protection on account of race. Also the question is does States have the Power to make laws respecting an establishment marriage or not?

States forbid marriage to children for example. And there are people who want children to have the equal rights as adults. By the same reasoning States could be required to grant marriages to children also. This is an extreme example but I am thinking hypothetically here.
 
The problem is that gay marriage is a new idea and the Courts should at least hold off until there has been enough time has past where States have made laws on this and with the reasoning those laws were enacted. There is noting explicit in the Constitution that would make gay marriage a Right. Technically marriage is not a Right at all. Loving vs Virgina was delivered not due to a Right of marriage but due to a prohibition of a violation of equal protection on account of race. Also the question is does States have the Power to make laws respecting an establishment marriage or not?

States forbid marriage to children for example. And there are people who want children to have the equal rights as adults. By the same reasoning States could be required to grant marriages to children also. This is an extreme example but I am thinking hypothetically here.

Marriage is not a right, but contract is. And when Government usurped marriage and invented the Marriage License, it made it contract. The Government cannot discriminate.
 
Man has right to contract and the government may not discriminate. The Marriage License is government issued and recognized contract. It requires additional force to forbid same sex couples from entering the contract, and if that force is not response to the violation of rights of others, it is rarely legitimate.

I don't quite know what you mean by the bolded sentence.
 
The problem is that gay marriage is a new idea and the Courts should at least hold off until there has been enough time has past where States have made laws on this and with the reasoning those laws were enacted. There is noting explicit in the Constitution that would make gay marriage a Right. Technically marriage is not a Right at all. Loving vs Virgina was delivered not due to a Right of marriage but due to a prohibition of a violation of equal protection on account of race. Also the question is does States have the Power to make laws respecting an establishment marriage or not?

States forbid marriage to children for example. And there are people who want children to have the equal rights as adults. By the same reasoning States could be required to grant marriages to children also. This is an extreme example but I am thinking hypothetically here.

violating equal protection on account of gender is not any more constitutional

letting kids marry is not givng them equl rights sice then in danger of being unable to detmine whats best for them and form being exploted

this


Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by white citizens, means the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make.

applies to same sex marriage along gender

if a man and women both meet the requirements to marry a man or a woman then men and women should be free to make that same contract

theirs no difference in the marriage contract to a man or women based on either race or gender

Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by male citizens, means the right to make any contract which a male citizen may make.


Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by female citizens,
means the right to make any contract which a female citizen may make.
 
hears the bits that makes it unconstitutional to put a price tag on marriage to ban marriage based on race or to ban marriage based on gender

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I understand then the issue is that States do not have the Power to pass laws determining what would constitute a valid marriage.
 
and another one
and another one
and another one bites the dust

even thought this one was stayed (which is awesome in itself because it will go to SCOTUS) the two court cases by FEDERAL judge have BIG TIME verbiage in them. not just saying equality or equal rights or unfair discrimination but UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VIOLATES THE 14th AMENDMENT

HUGE steps
this is awesome equal rights is coming and coming soon!!!!!

:usflag2::2party:

link
Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | NBC4 Washington

back-up links:
Judge: Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - ABC News
Virginia judge strikes down gay marriage ban
Judge rules VA gay marriage ban unconstitutional - NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News
Federal judge declares Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional | Fox News

Just shows what a lousy job the supreme court did. This should be settled law. This is a tremendous waste of time and money to have to go through this in very state. Does anyone think that a federal court will ever come to a different conclusion?
 
I don't quite know what you mean by the bolded sentence.

The government is required to deny same sex couples access to contract as the Marriage License is government issued and recognized contract. That force needs to be legitimized, and can only be done so if the exercise has infringed upon the rights of others. When we elicit government force for issues which do not infringe upon the rights of others, rarely is that force legitimate.
 
I'd answer the rest of your post but I don't have time at this moment. For now consider the following....

Again the problem is that the Courts read into the Constitution Rights that are not explicitly stated and negate the Power of a State by doing so they also decide to negate Rights of individuals such as to property and seizing it to give to competitor that would make more taxes for government is wrong.

There are lots of Rights that people have that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. That was the whole point of the 9th Amendment being added to the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IE: Not all the rights that we have are explicitly stated in the Constitution.
 
violating equal protection on account of gender is not any more constitutional

letting kids marry is not givng them equl rights sice then in danger of being unable to detmine whats best for them and form being exploted

this


Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by white citizens, means the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make.

applies to same sex marriage along gender

if a man and women both meet the requirements to marry a man or a woman then men and women should be free to make that same contract

theirs no difference in the marriage contract to a man or women based on either race or gender

Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by male citizens, means the right to make any contract which a male citizen may make.


Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by female citizens,
means the right to make any contract which a female citizen may make.

What I gave was a hypothetical idea about kids being married as an analogs to the current issue. The idea of equal protection of gender and race is established. The idea of equal protection under the law with respect to marriage for same sex is not established. I believe that this will become established. I do think that it should be done carefully and I think that due care is not being done and I am worried about loopholes that could occur if such hypotheticals are not checked.
 
I understand then the issue is that States do not have the Power to pass laws determining what would constitute a valid marriage.

they don't have the power to violate the 14th amendment of the untied states in their determination
 
But isn't that similar to what happened with Hollingsworth?

I do believe it's similar, but slightly different as the intervening individuals stance in the CA case is slightly different in the VA case with the clerk being the focal point of the defense. Now that may not hold up at the SCOTUS level, but to my understanding (And admittedly I don't care a great deal on the issue, or on the lower court cases, so my reading of it may very well be off a bit. If so I'm sure you'll highlight where) they would be somewhat different. Though it could come to the same conclusion ultimately.
 
What I gave was a hypothetical idea about kids being married as an analogs to the current issue. The idea of equal protection of gender and race is established. The idea of equal protection under the law with respect to marriage for same sex is not established. I believe that this will become established. I do think that it should be done carefully and I think that due care is not being done and I am worried about loopholes that could occur if such hypotheticals are not checked.

how do you separate gay marriage from gender? and equal protection for all citizens is established so any law that violates it is unconstitutional

what loop holes would let you endanger or exploit children if you alow gay marriage do to the that gay marriage is an identical situation and institution to heterosexual marriages that we allow?
 
States establish the definition of marriage when the Courts decide that the definition the State uses is "Un-Constitutional" then yes they do make a definition of marriage. Previously we did have States who prohibited mixed race marriages and they were Unconstitutioal (no quote marks) since the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection with respect to race so in that instance the States are prohibited to transgress there. There is no explicit requirement with respect to sexual idenity. I'm sorry this is somthing that the culture will have to deal with and it will probably take a couple of generations in some States to resolve.

The constitution does require equal protection regarding gender. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based distinction. Don't confuse marriage with sex. Ask any married man: marriage and sex are not the same thing. Sex is not a requirement for marriage, nor is procreation.

Yes, but there is no need to test whether is a person has a sexual slant for marriage.

...precisely why your mention of sexual identity earlier is erroneous.
Unless there is a specific prohibition in the Constitution the States can make any requirement for marriage even things like income if they chose. I would not favor any restriction beyond prohibiting marriage between second dgree or closer, multiple partners, 17 or older, and be mentally competent. The fact that both partners must consent is implied.
Gender is a protected classification.
The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.
Same with gender!

The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.
Well, it is that, actually. That's the intent: discrimination against homosexuals. Tradition doesn't matter. Your approval doesn't matter. My approval doesn't matter. Everyone had the same access to same-race marriages too.

States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

Why is your comfort level relevant here? "Too quickly?" Was interracial marriage done too quickly? Women's rights?

With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.

Your disapproval of court action on a different issue affects your approval of their handling of same-sex marriage? That's bizarre.
 
I love how well she puts it too.



She didn't beat around the bush at all about it. In simple terms, she told the proponents of the law that their reasoning holds no water in the law and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Tradition is not valid. Enforcing the will of the people is not valid when it comes to a constitutional challenge. And the claim of "responsible procreation" is not valid (since without some major restrictions upon opposite sex marriages, marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation and limiting same sex couples from marriage in no way harms responsible procreation).

If marriage was only about procreation, then those who are infertile or women who have been through menopause would not be allowed to wed. Besides, gays can and do procreate.
 
The problem is that gay marriage is a new idea and the Courts should at least hold off until there has been enough time has past where States have made laws on this and with the reasoning those laws were enacted.
Interracial marriage was a new idea.

There is noting explicit in the Constitution that would make gay marriage a Right. Technically marriage is not a Right at all. Loving vs Virgina was delivered not due to a Right of marriage but due to a prohibition of a violation of equal protection on account of race. Also the question is does States have the Power to make laws respecting an establishment marriage or not?

Literally the opposite of the truth. Loving v. Virginia literally declared marriage to be a fundamental right.


States forbid marriage to children for example. And there are people who want children to have the equal rights as adults. By the same reasoning States could be required to grant marriages to children also. This is an extreme example but I am thinking hypothetically here.
Equal protection is not a universal magic bullet. The state can still uphold unequal protection when an important enough interest exists in doing so. With children, preventing them from entering permanent legal contracts is a pretty clear interest - children lack the emotional and intellectual capacity to make such decisions in their own best interests, or anyone else's for that matter.

Such an interest does not exist in banning same-sex marriage. There are certainly state interests in the existence of marriage, and the promotion of stable families, procreation, and all that jazz that goes with marriage. But the banning of same-sex marriages does not in any way further any of those interests, nor does same-sex marriage cause any sort of demonstrable harm. Therefore same-sex marriage bans do not pass the test of equal protection, but the age requirement does pass the test of equal protection. Marrying animals and furniture are just stupid, desperate diversions from real discuss. Animals and furniture aren't people, they don't have rights.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom