Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

Just like a colony of all straight men.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

Please explain why gays wouldn't be able to have children. I am unaware of any medical conditions that solely target gays that make them infertile.

originally posted by: macman
So, a household can do this because they have established rules. But the person can't.

Every person has their own rules. When a person lives within a society or a household, there is a need for a common set of rules.

originally posted by: macman
Since the Govt has stated they control the border, yet do nothing with it, the people are forced to act.

I knew you'd agree with the vigilantes on the border.

Soon they can develop tribes like the Middle East. That's worked out so well.

It's not perfect, but I'll stick with government by representation. In other words --- voting.

a reply to: Annee

Is the Govt doing it's job, in regards to the border???

originally posted by: ketsuko
So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

Gays have children all the time. The women, that is. Those children grow up to be STRAIGHT. So yes, the population would last FAR beyond a generation. I'm not sure what's difficult about this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ok, I don't deny most of this, but if all days wanted was the legal benefits, civil unions would have been the way to go. Instead, they are fighting for the word.

Civil Unions do NOT equal marriage. There are many rights and benefits given in marriage that civil unions do not. And only a few states have civil unions.

Gay people want EQUAL TREATMENT. And it's protected by the 14th amendment.

The other consideration is this - we change it. Now, what do we do for the next group to come forward, and polygamists are already suing using gay marriage as their precedent.

Let them marry each other! Who cares? It's not going to affect your marriage.

And after them, who comes next? Because, if we are now saying that any two (or more) adults ought to be able to form a legal contract in the manner of a marriage, where does that end. Is there any arrangement of individuals who ought to be barred from enjoying this sort of contract?

No. As long as they're consenting adults, they should be treated the same as all other citizens.

Anyone can enter a legal contract with the state to buy a car. Why shouldn't all contracts issued by the state be treated the same??

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

Is the Govt doing it's job, in regards to the border???

I live on the border. I actually know a lot of what's been done to increase security.

Facts are a good thing.

a reply to: Annee

Well then. Do enlighten me.

Wonder if it lines up with people that I speak with on a regular basis that also live on the border.

a reply to: macman

This thread is about Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America. Please stop taking it off topic. Thanks.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hey, you really should address ALL that are involved with that. Not just me.
Or the person that began the thread drift.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Annee

I am not anti government. Government is needed. You can look at a single family household and see chaos if there are no rules, no limitations. Multiply that by 300 million.

Comparing households to the Govt is pretty weak. And basically shoots down your theory.

Simplicity helps clarify.

People can in fact self govern.

Like the vigilantes on the border?

Or just tell me, as being the opposition, it is probably better just to point at me.

What I do find interesting is most crossers are trying to escape a situation where citizen groups have taken charge due to an ineffective government.

You know, self governing.

-----

Yep, sorry. My fault for responding to off topic post. Personal responsibility.

Marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

I believe it will be a Federal law before too long and override all state votes.

From a colony of gays on mars to the border crisis, lol.

I am laughing while I read. I find the discussion to be interesting at some parodically low level, but really we don't get anywhere with the philosophical debate about whether or not gays can metastasize a self sufficient, lasting population. Not attempting to control the conversation, just being real.

If you spent all that time, energy and intellect on learning how the constitution and legalities apply or could apply to this, then you'd have some solid clout, and I mean beyond a message board.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis

If you spent all that time, energy and intellect on learning how the constitution and legalities apply or could apply to this, then you'd have some solid clout, and I mean beyond a message board.

Is there really much else to say at this point on marriage equality in the legalities of the Constitution?

Its already been ruled unconstitutional in several states because of the 14th amendment. Its only a matter of time.

Government does take into consideration society acceptance, but latest polls show acceptance of marriage equality has passed 50%.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuko!!!

So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

Your thought experiment was about stability - not progeny

But, I think all that will be worked out too. You know, in the future - when we're colonizing Mars. Or pigs can fly - whichever comes first

:-)

Hey ketsuko - nice to see you

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, the gays can suddenly have children? They'd last beyond one generation?

Well in all honesty gays have been having children since the dawn of time.

a reply to: ketsuko
I would agree that a civil union would be acceptable, however, in most cases, the way the laws that govern civil unions are not as all encompassing as that of a marriage. The civil union laws often lack some of the more fundamental aspects of a marriage and is not equal in the eyes of the law as a marriage. Nor are civil unions recognized across the country as a marriage would be. It is more of a piece meal system of laws that fail to grasp the basic protections and rights of same sex couples, and often lack some of the more important aspects of said unions.


The reality is that there are only 2 ways to end this once and for all. The first is to allow for same sex marriages, or to strip all rights and legal protections under the law from all marriages, where it is matter of wanting. Of course it would mean that if one did that, then ultimately a 2 people who did get married, they would not have the nice aspects of some legal protections that they do now, and end of life choices would be taken away from the spouse.

originally posted by: Annee
What I do find interesting is most crossers are trying to escape a situation where citizen groups have taken charge due to an ineffective government.

You know, self governing.

-----

Yep, sorry. My fault for responding to off topic post. Personal responsibility.

Marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

I believe it will be a Federal law before too long and override all state votes.

Here is the text. Point out where it states Marriage is a Civil right.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

Legal Dictionary

The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws of ALL citizens of a state.

Is marriage a civil right?

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: NavyDoc

Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

Legal Dictionary

The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws of ALL citizens of a state.

Is marriage a civil right?

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

One could argue that a gay person has the exact same right under the law to marry a member of the opposite sex as a heterosexual person.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes... Some do argue that, ridiculously enough. But ALL citizens means ALL citizens. I will paraphrase Chief Justice Earl Warren - Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race (or gender) resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If I can choose the race of my marriage partner, it follows that I can choose the gender. There is no legal or social benefit to denying gay marriage.