- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
But state government does?
If I had my way government wouldn't be involved at all.
But state government does?
The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.
You have a bizarre way to interpret my words.You have a bizarre reading of this decision. Somehow, in your mind the fact that 11 states are being told by federal courts that they cannot ban same-sex marriage means states are deciding SSM? What?
the amendments ban SSM, which is the denial of a fundamental right to a group of people based solely on sexual orientation. this violates the equal protection clause.
Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.
Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.
incorrect. if heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, then homosexual marriage must be, as well. it is no different than Loving v. Virginia.
You realize that none of the law were written in terms of heterosexual or homosexual right?
Since heterosexuals and homosexual is a sexual orientation, a homosexual man and a homosexual woman are not in a heterosexual marriage.
The more proper term to describe the context is different-sex and same-sex Civil Marriage since the laws are written in terms of gender.
>>>>
The amendments "ban" government recognition of SSM, which does not deny a fundamental right to anyone. It does create an equal protection issue worth examining, but this has to do with unequal application of marriage law with respect to gender, not the denial of a fundamental right to people of a certain sexual orientation.the amendments ban SSM, which is the denial of a fundamental right to a group of people based solely on sexual orientation. this violates the equal protection clause.
Please keep in mind that I support SSM, but your analogy is flawed. In Loving v Virginia the couple were denied heterosexual marriage, the legality of which as an institution was not in dispute. In the SSM debate it is the validity of homosexual marriage itself that is in dispute.
it is denial of a fundamental civil right to a class of people, and in some states, but not others. clearly a violation of equal protection under the law.
The amendments "ban" government recognition of SSM, which does not deny a fundamental right to anyone.
It does create an equal protection issue worth examining, but this has to do with unequal application of marriage law with respect to gender, not the denial of a fundamental right to people of a certain sexual orientation.
Because the law itself is in flux the question of equal protection is premature.
The amendments "ban" government recognition of SSM, which does not deny a fundamental right to anyone. It does create an equal protection issue worth examining, but this has to do with unequal application of marriage law with respect to gender, not the denial of a fundamental right to people of a certain sexual orientation.
no, it isn't. if you're born heterosexual, you can marry the partner of your choice. if you're born homosexual, you cannot. that is not equal protection under the law.
You did not comprehend my point. I didn't mean government should just rename the marriage license to something else and then issue that. I'm not sure why you would assume I was talking about semantics.Well, ok, but the government could also build "paved driving surfaces" instead of "roads" but I don't see that as changing anything.
No interpretation required, just pointing out the flaw in your logic which was plain to see at first glance.You have a bizarre way to interpret my words.
The person who posted it (me).
That may be self-evident in the abstract but the law is not yet fully formed enough to make equal protection something real. I believe that's why the SCOTUS is content to let lower federal courts overturn state bans, but does not want to move toward a federal precedent, at least not yet. Given the rapid evolution of attitudes on this question, I think that's wise and will yield a broadly accepted fundamental change.
they punted the issue, and will have to revisit it if a circuit court upholds a state ban. it's my opinion that they should have heard the case, but i've said that already.
Loving prevented that law from being enforced. So long as it was implemented as written, then no it did not ban interracial marriage, it prevented the state from "authorizing or legalizing any [such] marriage". Compare to the many, many examples from other states where such marriages (and even cohabitation) were unlawful or prohibited, declared null and void, or even criminal.And when Alabama Amended it's Constitution to read:
That didn't ban interracial marriage in Alabama and so wasn't overturned by the Loving decision in 1967.
>>>>
Well hey, at this rate we need only wait until 2019 to once again find ourselves on common groundI can't believe you wrote something on here I actually agree with.
Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society.
Well, that doesn't quite fit in here, does it? It's a different argument. But I'm glad you brought that up, because you know what does fit? The Loving case! Fits in quite nicely. But wait, how could that possibly be? Because that is the case that the libs go running to as being the exact same argument as SSM! What is going on here?What if a man wants to marry a man?
incorrect. homosexual couples are being told that they can't get married in some states, which violates the equal protection clause.