Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

I tried to just represent an idea. But some simply want to argue.

Anyway, I think this topic is over. For me anyway. The court ruled. I am in no position to change that. I think it is wrong.

But to keep repeating this daily for so many times seems wasteful of my time.

I have several more on this same topic to reply to and once finished, plan to move to the more important topics. Such as the crappy tax system this nation has that targets the rich so the poor simply are not really interested in voting.

 

LOLOLOL!!! Government licensing and regulation of homosexual relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before is an EXPANSION of government involvement.

 

What????, more clerks will now issue marriage licenses than prior and you tell us government is less involved?

 

The Democrats have no shame in the words they select to type out.

They toss out words like Bigot, FEAR, and the like, which words assume a thing to be true. But is it true?

Are we in fear of homosexuals? I never have been in fear.

I simply never wanted to corrupt a word that applied in full to the majority of citizens in this country. Very very few homosexuals will end up showing up for a ceremony they never needed.

A dozen can show up but compared to the normal citizens, those are but a few.

Bigot is an insult. Everybody has topics they might be called a bigot for.

Some claim if you don't want Muslims here, you are a bigot. But if you want them here, you are not a bigot yet the topic is one and the same thing. Muslims ...

To want marriage preserved as humanity has for centuries is no fault. That does not make me a bigot.

To realize the set up for the court decision is reality. Democrats proudly tell you that they know that this decision is favored by one political party.

Had one justice flipped, it would have gone the other way.

 

This thread isn't about a Supreme court decision.

 

Look Greatdanechick.

The nature of the arguments made by homosexuals is why they should fight for all humans and not make it this me me me crapola.

They only show an interest over the 14th amendment for selfish reasons.

Yes it is selfish when you seek to upset marriage and don't give a tinkers darn about the rest of the citizens.

The 14th was not created for homosexuals at all. So if they quit using that argument, I won't need to point out that laws ban a hell of a lot of people from marriage and not merely homosexuals.

 

Like we're supposed to just forget what you originally replied to with your statement. You were basically avoiding having to address the points raised by the other poster.

Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of law understands that it isn't solely about legislation, but also the application of the Constitution - the point the other poster raised and you tried to ignore.

 

Marriage to this day is not in the Federal Constitution.

But the part your side ignores is that it has for a very long time been in each state's constitution.

And there are a lot of bans in the states constitution. A matter your side loves to ignore.

 

Actually, no law has ever banned homosexuals from marriage. Most gay men I know in their 40s -60s, used to be married. Most with kids. Because sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is the combination of a man and a woman that leads to procreation, EVEN if they are homosexuals. That's why marriage law is unconcerned with sexual orientation, until just recently.

Their plans to "upset marriage"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1367267801

 

So as a 'fan' of limited government- you supported States passing laws to specifically limit marriage to a man and a woman- and to exclude same gender couples.

Because you consider more laws to be more 'limited government'

While when those very laws are overturned- you call that 'more government'.

And you call less discrimination to be more discrimination.

A great example of Conservative double speak.

 

No version of Obergefell I can find.

I like the Cornell law site for decisions- here is the link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
Type Alt F to search
Copy and paste "The question presented is whether a state can do"
Hit enter
result= Phrase not found.

Now type the same phrase into Google- and you get what I pointed out

This quote is from the lower courts-
As Judge Timothy Black put it in the Ohio case: "The question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot -- i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples ... simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality (or at least didn't in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."

The Supreme Court made no such claim.

Not sure why you keep insisting on making the same false claim.

 

So in the twisted double speak of Conservatives allowing more persons the freedom to marry is an expansion of government.

 

Odd- then why do you keep referring to Supreme Court decisions then?

 

We haven't ignored a thing about it. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

 

But they may be issuing fewer marriage licenses.

Especially now that gay people being married has ruined marriage for conservatives, I have already heard of conservatives saying that they will no longer get married.

No one knows what the net numbers will be-but we do know that just as after Loving v. Virginia- that are now fewer laws restricting the freedom of couples in America to marry.

Conservatives complain because they are 'fans of more limited government'

Good thing that didn't work against the Lovings.

 

To this day, states still ban people from getting married.

What troubles me most about homosexuals is that they simply do not care.

That site is very interesting.

 

Marriage law is still unconcerned about sexual orientation.

Marriage law no longer restricts marriage based upon gender.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me more about how you care about the people who are restricted from marrying- and what your concerns are- and how they differ from 'homosexuals'?

- - - Updated - - -

So you think that Margaret and Richard Loving were 'selfish' because they sought to upset marriage laws against mixed race marriage but didn't advocate that 5 year old's should be able to marry 45 year olds?

 

I don't ignore them- I just don't think every 'ban' is the same.

Just like some state's constitutions used to ban mixed race marriages.

Each restriction stands on its own.

If you want to argue for bigamous marriage- you have every right to do so.

 

There is a poster posting on a forum who explained why the ruling caused him and his wife to divorce.

Why don't you invite him here? I am not welcome to that site. I simply am too honest for that forum.

I will only send it via mail and not on the forum. I wish he were here.

I sent an e mail to the forum mod for the guys forum name. I can scan the other forum and do not see his name showing up.

This guy is very interesting. He has worked up from the bottom to the very well off. And is polite.

- - - Updated - - -

What is so special about homosexuals?

 

The nature of the arguments made by 'homosexuals' - i.e. every homosexual couple who fought to be married is they had the right under the Constitution to be treated equally with opposite gender couples.

The 'argument' such as it is- by the anti-gay marriage folk- is that gay people should be discriminated against- and that if they can't be discriminated against, then the anti-gay marriage folk want to turn around and say they are hypocrites for not ending every marriage restriction that there is.

The anti-gay marriage folk just want to continue to whine and whine that there is no more legal marriage discrimination against gay couples.

 

uh...... because supreme court decisions are relevant to the actual topic of the thread.

 

You appear to not care about other bans so why do you care about that given it was not about your special interest group, homosexuals?

 

Every person is 'special'.

Me?

I think a homosexual couple should be treated equally with my wife and I when it comes to legal marriage.

Why do you think homosexuals should not be treated equally?

 

The constitution says not one word about this.

 

You appear to equate the marriage between two consenting adults with the marriage of a 5 year old girl to a 50 year old man- why can't you tell the difference?