Author Topic: BREAKING>>>>Supreme court declares same-sex marriage a right in 5-4 vote  (Read 13953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.

Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.

Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

A few quick points.  If you have a fundamental right to those things above and cannot afford them, then there are only three ways to get them: You steal them; someone gives them to you as in charity; the government provides them, which results in tax collections from someone else.  If you meant they have a right to purchase those things, then within the legal limitations, I agree.

Marriage isn't a fundamental right as an activity.  If it is a right at all, it is through the equal protection clause.  Driving isn't a fundamental right, but if certain people such as gays or blacks are denied licenses and the state cannot provide a compelling rationale, those groups will have a "right" to the license because of the equal protection and due process clauses.  If marriage were a fundamental right, then a parent could marry his child, and groups could marry each other.  So far, I don't think those things are permitted.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
A few quick points.  If you have a fundamental right to those things above and cannot afford them, then there are only three ways to get them: You steal them; someone gives them to you as in charity; the government provides them, which results in tax collections from someone else.  If you meant they have a right to purchase those things, then within the legal limitations, I agree.

Marriage isn't a fundamental right as an activity.  If it is a right at all, it is through the equal protection clause.  Driving isn't a fundamental right, but if certain people such as gays or blacks are denied licenses and the state cannot provide a compelling rationale, those groups will have a "right" to the license because of the equal protection and due process clauses.  If marriage were a fundamental right, then a parent could marry his child, and groups could marry each other.  So far, I don't think those things are permitted.

Marriage is a fundamental right insofar as it could be achieved without governmental interference, but for many reasons, including the ones you mentioned, government took it upon itself to regulate it.

Before government regulated marriage, marriage was largely managed by the Church as a Sacrament, and they didn't permit child/parent marriages. Once Martin Luther decided that marriage was not the business of the Church, government took over, and the infamous slippery slope  of redefining marriage began.

I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Marriage is a fundamental right insofar as it could be achieved without governmental interference, but for many reasons, including the ones you mentioned, government took it upon itself to regulate it.

Before government regulated marriage, marriage was largely managed by the Church as a Sacrament, and they didn't permit child/parent marriages. Once Martin Luther decided that marriage was not the business of the Church, government took over, and the infamous slippery slope  of redefining marriage began.

I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

In 2006 the 8th Circuit Court entertained an appeal on a same-sex marriage case.  In finding that states did not violate the rights of same-sex couples, it made two points.  First this case was not comparable to Loving because race was a suspect classification while sexual orientation wasn't.  Second these laws didn't amount to bills of attainder.  Additionally, in the majority opinion, the judge said that should the definition of marriage be changed on constitutional grounds, then the slippery slope concerns we have heard much about cannot be ignored.

Having said that, the SCOTUS has put all of that to rest.  Now we move on. 

As to Luther, I had never heard that he wanted the Church out of marriage.  He is quoted as saying:  "Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God".

Of course in those days the Church and government were very much together in most areas, and for a thousand years marriage had been as much a political joining as a purely religious one.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,960
    • I try my best ...
I married my dog to another dog. And the Supreme Court says that I am great!

I just married a rock in my garden to another rock, and the Supreme Court loves me!

I was just about to marry a snail to a piece of wood, but then I go hungry, I cooked it and ate it. I am guessing that I have failed the supreme court.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
I married my dog to another dog. And the Supreme Court says that I am great!

I just married a rock in my garden to another rock, and the Supreme Court loves me!

I was just about to marry a snail to a piece of wood, but then I go hungry, I cooked it and ate it. I am guessing that I have failed the supreme court.

If you're single, you can now marry your house-plant (which you love and loves you back) so that you can file your taxes 'married filing jointly' and save on taxes...


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,802
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!

I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."


That quote needs clarification, Luis.   And, I'm not trying to poke you in the eye, here.

I have a problem with the underlined.   "Survival"??  I don't think so.   Blacks currently are doing just 'fine' existing outside of marriage.

There's a reason that one of the Ten Commandments deals with coveting a neighbor's wife.

Overall, civilization mandates that a man should be able to not sleep with one eye open...in case his neighbor covets his chosen mate...otherwise, as in a lion pride, for example...the day will come when he loses a challenge by a younger, quicker and stronger male.

A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate.  It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice.   Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.

Everybody here in the forum already knows all this....but I just felt compelled to argue that quote/definition.   :laugh:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
 11513 11513 11513 11513 11513

Nope. Thread still alive .....

 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty

Still Alive!

 :drunk:
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,686
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate.  It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice.   Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.

Everyone here avocating for gay marriage equality thinks there will be these restrictions and lines on marriage now that this is out there.There won't.  The left wants incest, pedophilia, and will even agree to polygamy, Mormon distaste aside. Nor will there be any restriction of attacks on everyone's rights who disagree. Gay marriage is just a sledgehammer for tearing down bigger things.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 05:51:13 pm by Free Vulcan »
The Republic is lost.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,863
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Quote
Gay marriage is just a sledgehammer for tearing down bigger things.

Exactly
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline Machiavelli

  • Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,222
  • Gender: Male
  • Realist
11513 11513 11513 11513 11513

Nope. Thread still alive .....

 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty

Still Alive!

 :drunk:

All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,960
    • I try my best ...
Under his holiness,  Mustafa Umgurue Huessin Obmamama, Americas will be detroryed.

An average human has 98% of monkey DNA. Obama and his friends have 99.9 monkey DNA. I don't know? Maybe it is just me?

Bit do you really think that electing a monkey as President will make everything "all better?"
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.

Makes one wonder why some are so interested in a thread dying that they feel it necessary to monitor said thread and post said opinion multiple times... thereby keeping the thread going...   

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.

Every thread I've seen here for months dies on its own including the 99% with no responses.  At least with this one, there have been interesting comments on all sides of the issue.  I'm with Dan on this one.  Why is anyone worried that there are too many posts?
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
That quote needs clarification, Luis.  And, I'm not trying to poke you in the eye, here.

I have a problem with the underlined.   "Survival"??  I don't think so.   Blacks currently are doing just 'fine' existing outside of marriage.

There's a reason that one of the Ten Commandments deals with coveting a neighbor's wife.

Overall, civilization mandates that a man should be able to not sleep with one eye open...in case his neighbor covets his chosen mate...otherwise, as in a lion pride, for example...the day will come when he loses a challenge by a younger, quicker and stronger male.

A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate.  It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice.   Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.

Everybody here in the forum already knows all this....but I just felt compelled to argue that quote/definition.   :laugh:

You'll have to reanimate Earl Warren to do that.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,326
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
You know I hold absolutely ZERO respect for Earl Warren and what he, William Brennan and his merry band of iconoclasts did to this country.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
Quote
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

For what it's worth, neither the Loving case, nor the Skinner case from which the quote was actually taken were in any way attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage.  In fact the original quote had the term and procreation and finished with fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race..

So actually the case of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with either of those cases, and it's very doubtful that either majority opinion would have even thought about changing the definition of marriage since SSM may be politically correct today, but is hardly fundamental to our very existence and survival, and certainly wouldn't have been considered such in the 1940s and 1960s.


It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Machiavelli

  • Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,222
  • Gender: Male
  • Realist
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches
« Reply #191 on: July 02, 2015, 02:19:18 am »
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches

Brady McCombs and Rachel Zoll
AP via Yahoo
July 1, 2015

Quote
Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop.

The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.
More
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 02:19:59 am by Machiavelli »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
For what it's worth, neither the Loving case, nor the Skinner case from which the quote was actually taken were in any way attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage.  In fact the original quote had the term and procreation and finished with fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race..

So actually the case of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with either of those cases, and it's very doubtful that either majority opinion would have even thought about changing the definition of marriage since SSM may be politically correct today, but is hardly fundamental to our very existence and survival, and certainly wouldn't have been considered such in the 1940s and 1960s.

The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".

As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.

It went from a sacrament to a license.

From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.

From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.

From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.

Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.

The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Machiavelli

  • Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,222
  • Gender: Male
  • Realist
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".

As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.

It went from a sacrament to a license.

From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.

From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.

From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.

Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.

The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.

Luis: excellent post, as usual. Thank you.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,802
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
The "procreation argument" is indicative of a juvenile mind.  Children link babies with marriage, it's all their minds can grasp.  One would expect a mature response.  It does however, go to the warped mind of the homosexual.  Trapped indefinitely in childhood, tantrums and all.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".

As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.

It went from a sacrament to a license.

From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.

From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.

From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.

Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.

The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.

Don't look to me to defend the history of marriage, as it's had some strange twists and turns throughout the ages.  My point was simply to show that the "fundamental right" you quoted actually had nothing to do with gay marriage, but simply reinforced the age old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and referred to procreation as a purpose.  It just shows we can take any quote regardless of its meaning and intent and use it for whatever contemporary issue we want.

I know this is a done deal as far as two gay adults goes, but there's more to come, and we'll have to see how quickly our culture changes on those new "distinctions".  My only hope is for now the election doesn't get bogged down with this issue.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,792
  • Gender: Male
The "procreation argument" is indicative of a juvenile mind.  Children link babies with marriage, it's all their minds can grasp.  One would expect a mature response.  It does however, go to the warped mind of the homosexual.  Trapped indefinitely in childhood, tantrums and all.

Procreation was the "compelling state interest" that kept marriage between one man and one woman, at least as far as the courts saw it.  A state can "discriminate" if it can show a compelling state interest in the discrimination.  Today the SCOTUS didn't accept that argument.  On another note, that's been almost the sole purpose of planned marriages for ages.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,686
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".

As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.

It went from a sacrament to a license.

From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.

From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.

From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.

Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.

The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.

Goodness, what a load of crap. Quit mixing liberal driven pop culture with legal status for your rhetorical smokescreen. Marriage in this country has always been licensed. I have the county list of my gg-grandparents getting their marriage license in the 1840's, a few years after Iowa became a state. Divorce has nothing to do with a legal application for marriage or it's definition.

You can marry anywhere by anyone, but for legal purposes it has to be recognized by the govt. We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.

Which does nothing to address the legal fallout. Is my church required to marry, is my business required to cater to, am I allowed to speak out against, every homo, transexual, polygamist, pedophile, Satanist, Muslim, or any other kind of wedding I may disagree with? Forced thought, agreement, and morality?
The Republic is lost.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Goodness, what a load of crap. Quit mixing liberal driven pop culture with legal status for your rhetorical smokescreen. Marriage in this country has always been licensed. I have the county list of my gg-grandparents getting their marriage license in the 1840's, a few years after Iowa became a state. Divorce has nothing to do with a legal application for marriage or it's definition.

You can marry anywhere by anyone, but for legal purposes it has to be recognized by the govt. We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.

Which does nothing to address the legal fallout. Is my church required to marry, is my business required to cater to, am I allowed to speak out against, every homo, transexual, polygamist, pedophile, Satanist, Muslim, or any other kind of wedding I may disagree with? Forced thought, agreement, and morality?

You want to talk about loads of crap?

You talk about the traditional, historical and biblical roots of marriage until it's no longer convenient to do so, then you shift to marriage on this country, as if the history of marriage confined itself to this country.

There were no "no fault" divorces (what I referred to in my post) in this country until 1969.

"Your" Church may decide to conduct same-sex marriages, the Episcopalian Church has already decided they will, if that happens, you'll have to either deal with it, or find another Church.

You can speak out against anything that you want to. Your problem, as I see it, is that you don't want anyone who disagrees with you to have the reciprocal right, when they do exercise that right.

You don't have to agree with, accept or engage in any activity that you don't want to, but you want to disallow people from engaging in activities that do not fit your morals, so who is forcing morality on whom?

We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.

Laws forbidding religious plural marriages are a direct violation of the First Amendment and as such, they are unconstitutional.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 04:05:28 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx