Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

And your ignorance of the subject matter precludes you from realizing that the states already had such limitations in place.

 

Tell that to the single mother and grandmother joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren together who are denied marriage in 50 states.

 

It was the first courts declaring that gays had a right to marriage that motivated DOMA.

Would be like some court declaring that Muslims have a right to multiple wives, and when states or the fed respond with statutes and amendments that limit marriage to just one, those same courts turn around and try to argue that marriages limitation to just one is intended to "disparage and injure" muslims. It really is absurd on its face. Had those first courts declaring a right to gay marriage had instead declared any two consenting adults had the right to marriage, states and feds would have responded with the same type DOMA statutes, maintaining the limitation to men and women..

 

no state had any such limitation in place prior to 1971

 

they courts didn['t declare a right to gay marriage. they struck down bans on same sex couples as unconstitutional. They couldn't make a blanket ruling as to any 2 consenting adults, as that wasn't the question before them.

but you knew all that.

 

Biggest crock of (*)(*)(*)(*) Ive heard in a while.The gay marriage case had to overturn the Baker precedent.

 

ONLY because they prevented gays from marrying. Only because they were declared by the court to be an intent to "disparage and injure" gays. THAT is what made them unconstitutional. Where as an intent to only include heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation, was upheld as perfectly constitutional dozens of times.

 

nope, because the bans violated the 14th amendment.

no court declared that to be the intent.

the 14th amendment made them unconstitutional.

the supreme court never heard a case on the matter before. procreation is completely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

the baker precedent didn't apply. It only applied in 1 district.

 

And only because it was an intent to "disparage and injure" gays, did it violate the 14th amendment

Evidently the court thought otherwise when they overturned the Baker precedent.

 

Wrong.

The bans on same sex marriage were struck down because their intent was to disparage and injure gays, they were struck down because they
targeted AMERICAN CITIZENS who happened to be gay.

 

To show how dishonest homosexuals actually are, the word gay has for a very long time meant happy.

I am old enough to recall that homosexuals did not use the word GAY to self describe.

This is a fiction that they are all happy.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

no court made any such ruling.

nope. they had to overturn the baker precedent because that district was bound by it. no other district was.

 

I didn't say that they were in the statutes- I said that the state bans put in place- virtually from the 1990's onward- were put in place specifically to exclude gay couples- even though they don't name them. What part of the word 'Intent' is unclear to you?

These states all put these specific limitations in place- limitations which didn't exist before- specifically to exclude gay couples- but those limitations also excluded all same gender couples.

And all of them unconstitutional.

Just as bans on mixed race marriages were.

 

I will point out that you haven't been able to provide any examples of those limitations.

The laws that the Supreme Court overturned in Obergefell were all passed from 1990 onward.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep- from the beginning the intent of DOMA was to deny marriage to gays.

 

Except of course- once again- you are to put it politely 'deviating from the facts'.

The Supreme Court in Obergefell didn't declare that the laws were passed with the intent to "disparage and injure gays'.

The majority opinion in Oberfefell uses the term 'disparage' 3 times- not once mentioning 'gays' or 'homosexuals'- each time referring to same-sex couples.
DOMA, the Court held, impermissibly disparaged those same-sex couples “
Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here
Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here

You are once again- posting factually incorrect statements.

 

And how they did

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

 

Not sure what you mean by "and how". I don't recall any other court precedent, ever, over ruled without any explanation. In passing, in a 4 sentence they jus stated its over ruled. Usually such a court decision would have extensive explanation as to the flaws in logic, reason or the law made by the previous court that set the precedent. I don't think they had any explanation to offer so they simply overruled it.

To bad Rahl cant be convinced even with your direct quote from the decision.

 

the Granddaughter/Grandmother Argument....a dixon classic. Of course it lasts about as long as his other arguments.....two posts, then he moves to his Next One.



- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you're that old. Even younger REPUBLICANS support gay rights.

 

I support men marrying women. I voted in CA for homosexuals to have civil unions to get full rights in law.

 

lol, he quoted the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing explanation and you omitted it.

you would think having been called out for this over and over and over again you would stop deliberately misquoting people in an attempt to change the context.

- - - Updated - - -

the problem with civil unions is that they are the equivalent of "whites only" or "blacks only" drinking fountains.

 

"Disparage and injure" is a quote from the DOMA decision. From Obergefell


"this denial works a grave and con¬tinuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbi¬ans."

"As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects."

"It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society."

The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.

their States’ enduring defini¬tion of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors.

 

You mean the "Jim Crow" "separate but equal" approach to gay rights?

And if "civil union couples have all the rights of married couples"....except for the fact you don't like gays....why not call them "marriages" if there is no legal difference???

 

I haven't misquoted anybody. You of course could simply quote the post where I did to prove me wrong. Why don't you. You know, back up the (*)(*)(*)(*) you spew here for a refreshing change. Im sure now is where you go to telling us 20 times my argument has been refuted.