Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

They're not using discrimination. They're removing it.

 

Feel free to quote me- rather than claim what I said.

I have repeatedly said you equate same gender marriage to children marrying adults- and challenged you on that.

I have asked you whether you are in favor of children marrying adults.

I have never said that you are in favor of children marrying adults.

Now with that said

Why do you equate same gender marriage with children marrying adults?

- - - Updated - - -

In the Conservative double speak less discrimination is more discrimination.

Treating gay couples equally with straight couples is discrimination in bizarro Conservative world of Dixon.

 

Which page is it on? I can't find it in the Obergefell majority opinion nor in any of the dissents.

 

Okay- you whine when others post in the same manner you do. I get it.

 

I imagine it's because she has to deal with ignorance and bigotry on this thread.

 

Its another of Dixon's bait and switches- it is from the District Court decision in Ohio- not from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court- the court whose decision overturned all contrary decisions- made no mention of Dixon's obsession at all.

 

Sure it is. It's about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, of which the Court released an opinion last year regarding the unconstitutional restriction of it. Seem pretty directly related to me.

 

Good, then the topic is over since you admit you never at any time saw me claiming I am in favor of children marrying adults.

And for good reason. I never said it because I do not believe in that one bit.

 

WOW

Me too. But I am still GAY and admit it means happy.

I do not engage with homosexuals though to them they may believe they are happy.

But she sounds so miserable.

 

Now- why do you equate same gender marriage with children marrying adults?

 

You are engaging with homosexuals throughout this thread.

Whether that makes them gay or you gay I leave to each of you to decide for yourselves.

 

Might want to adjust your hearing aid and glasses then - she sounds like one of the more pleasant people on this site.

 

Actually I am so relaxed, full of fun and loved by many so when homosexuals say hateful things about me, it rolls off like water off the ducks back.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a fake accusation so you need to end this.

 

Jeff, I have never asked that. I have not seen homosexuals tell me they support children marrying adults. And I never defended it either.

 

I really don't think Gay's give you a seconds thought.

They are too busy being good with decor and style.

AA

 

Yes, full of it seems to cover it quite well.

 

I'm thrilled actually. In a loving relationship with a woman I care about, have a job I love. Things are going well or me. I just don't understand thread after thread of the same argument. Isn't this fight over?

 

I am so pleased you believe that. At least i don't stereotype their activities.

- - - Updated - - -

TMI

I sure wanted this so called fight to be over.

 

What...no sense of Humor?

AA

 

Sure

 

I understand exactly what you are saying but I have a different point of view. States originally got into marriage to prevent inter-racial marriage and sexual relations.
"Anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany as part of the Nuremberg laws, and in South Africa as part of the system of Apartheid. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have been termed "miscegenation" since the term was coined in 1863."
Since the states and the government founded their involvement in marriage because of racism....The states and government should get out of the marriage business all together. just as the rebel battle flag was deemed racist, so should marriage licenses...These should be returned to the Church and individuals...Any two individuals should be able to go to the courthouse and sign a paper with a recording fee only stating they are married...No more marriage licenses, no church needed.

 

Well that is certainly an interesting account of the history of government involvement in marriage. I’m not certain that it is entirely motivated by a desire to prohibit interracial marriage but I don’t doubt that was part of it. However, to conclude that because of that history , the government’s continued involvement in marriage is “racist” and comparing the rebel battle flag to a marriage license is a little over the top nuts. The rebel flag is a symbol of a dark time in our history. The marriage license and government regulation of marriage serves many practical purposes. Therefore, that argument fails as a non sequitur.

I have heard proposals many times before that government be divorced from marriage and it is, in my experience, motivated by a wish to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage. The thinking is that if we can’t preserve marriage for heterosexual, then -by God- no one can be married and enjoy government benefits of it. However, few will admit to that reason. “Throw the baby out with the bath water” “Sink the ship to drown the rats”

Now you are saying that “any two people “should be able go to the court house….. Seriously ? Any two people ? Can you think of some unintended consequences if there is absolutely no government regulation of who those two people are? Please think about that. Oh, and “the court house” is government so right from square one, you have stumbled. But don’t feel bad, no one who ever proposed have government out of marriage has been able to explain what that would actually look like in practical terms in the real world.

Regardless of how we got here, government is deeply entrenched to marriage. There are all of those government benefits to consider. If government were out of marriage, what would distinguish the married from the no so married? What would motivate people to marry? Sure some would but others would not. More unintended consequences such as more children without clear legal parentage ties. No, the system of marriage -save for the human short comings- is doing just fine and we have no need to change it.

 

No, could really care less who marries whom, but if we are constantly throwing around the word racism, why not attack the oldest institution of racism in this country. Did you know the easiest way to get married in this country is to declare it on your tax returns. No ceremony, no fees, just file as a married couple.

 

You're just muddying the waters with a false equivalency and a red herring. Marriage is not a "racist institution" And sure you can probably get away with filing a joint return as married when you are not.....for a while, until some situation arose where you had to prove your marital status, and then what? This is really pointless. If you don't like marriage just don't do it.

 

Tax Fraud ?
Filing a fraudulent tax return, if audited, and you cannot produce a marriage license ??