GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[INVAR]

Marriage and matrimony is an institution of the church and religion.

Government has no moral authority to be involved in that institution.

We took it out of the court of The Lord and put it into the courts of men - and men will always redefine institutions and laws to be in their own image, likeness and passions.

[Jazzhead]

Marriage and matrimony is an institution of the church and religion.

Government has no moral authority to be involved in that institution.

We took it out of the court of The Lord and put it into the courts of men - and men will always redefine institutions and laws to be in their own image, likeness and passions.

So, in your view,  a couple that is not religious cannot marry?   What about couples from different religions?   That was my situation - Mrs. Jazz and I are of different faiths.  So we got married before a judge.   So is my marriage invalid in your eyes as well?   

The reality is that the civil law attaches valuable rights and benefits for those couples willing to take on the obligations of civil marriage.   As such,  civil marriage is subject to the equal protection of the law.   

The state should be unconcerned about what additional requirements a church may require before it will solemnize a marriage "before God".  If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple,  then that is its right.  But it is not the right of the religious to deny gay couples the equal protection of the civil law. 
. 

[txradioguy]

I didn't say civil marriage is a right.   But as I said above:
 

It's those valuable protections and benefits which are subject to equal protection.   

I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do.  And my marriage - and yours - isn't affected in the slightest.     

Hate to break it to you...but you have no protected "right" to marriage...never have.

The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?

Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.


<snip>

Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/Miscellaneous/2015/03/19/why-the-14th-amendment-cant-possibly-require-same-sex-marriage

[thackney]

So, in your view,  a couple that is not religious cannot marry?   What about couples from different religions?   That was my situation - Mrs. Jazz and I are of different faiths.  So we got married before a judge.   So is my marriage invalid in your eyes as well?   

The reality is that the civil law attaches valuable rights and benefits for those couples willing to take on the obligations of civil marriage.   As such,  civil marriage is subject to the equal protection of the law.   

The state should be unconcerned about what additional requirements a church may require before it will solemnize a marriage "before God".  If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple,  then that is its right.  But it is not the right of the religious to deny gay couples the equal protection of the civil law. 
.

Do you apply the same thought process to polygamy?  If marriage is not to be defined as man and woman, why is it limited to only 2 people in bound commitment?  Immediate family members?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Do you apply the same thought process to polygamy?  If marriage is not to be defined as man and woman, why is it limited to only 2 people in bound commitment?  Immediate family members?

   It's an arbitrary decision supported by society. As all these things are.

[Hoodat]

I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do.   

They had the right to marry just as you do BEFORE the tyranny of the Court was imposed upon this nation.  We already had equal protection.

[INVAR]

So, in your view,  a couple that is not religious cannot marry?   

I said nothing about those who are not religious being unable to marry, nor did I suggest it.  Where did the institution of marriage originate in the first place?  Who created it and for what purpose?

What about couples from different religions?   That was my situation - Mrs. Jazz and I are of different faiths.  So we got married before a judge.   So is my marriage invalid in your eyes as well?

I lived in India. Marriage is a big deal in India - especially for Hindus, and despite how they treat women - those marriages are obviously valid in the eyes of God.   I got married before a Justice O The Peace decades ago, same as you.  I said nor suggested nothing about invalid marriages between a man and a woman.  Civil society was established so as to protect and promote the foundations of said society - of which marriage and biblical principles - were a central core. 

Despite the depravity of Caligula's Rome - not even they messed around with redefining marriage.

The reality is that the civil law attaches valuable rights and benefits for those couples willing to take on the obligations of civil marriage.   As such,  civil marriage is subject to the equal protection of the law. 

Marriage is marriage - between one man and one woman as it was intended from the beginning.  A society that promotes that, even in the civil sense - ensures it's posterity.  But when you want to pervert that institution - then Pandora's box is opened - and if you want to hand out 'equal protections under the law' - then you will be making Beastiality, Polygamy, Pedophilia, Necrophilia and every other assorted sexual appetite a people demand "the right" to practice with 'equal protections' (meaning forced acceptance) and you will empower government to define and decree what is and is not acceptable sexual behaviors regardless if it is current deviant behavior or not.

And that is exactly what you are living in.  And it is the catalyst to the ruin of society and liberty.

[chae]

Ok, if someone wants to drive a car, we say they must meet certain conditions to legally drive, like they must be 16, they must have a liscense, etc.  That was the case with marriage.  If you wanted to get married you must meet certain guidelines, like must be man and woman, must be 18, etc.
We don't change the law just because a few 13 year olds want to be able to legally drive.  I don't see this as much different.

[SirLinksALot]

Ok, if someone wants to drive a car, we say they must meet certain conditions to legally drive, like they must be 16, they must have a liscense, etc.  That was the case with marriage.  If you wanted to get married you must meet certain guidelines, like must be man and woman, must be 18, etc.
We don't change the law just because a few 13 year olds want to be able to legally drive.  I don't see this as much different.

I can see your point.... the only difference in the analogy is this --- 13 year olds WILL eventually become 16. However, Men will always be men and Women will always be women as well, which is to say, unlike the present 13 year old who will be 16,  gays will never be able to marry.

[Jazzhead]

Do you apply the same thought process to polygamy?  If marriage is not to be defined as man and woman, why is it limited to only 2 people in bound commitment?  Immediate family members?

There is no Constitutional right to marry,  whether to one person or several.   But as it turns out,  the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations.  It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract.   That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy.   But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship,  it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex.   That's the essence of equal protection. 

 

[txradioguy]

There is no Constitutional right to marry,  whether to one person or several.   But as it turns out,  the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations.  It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract.   That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy.   But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship,  it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex.   That's the essence of equal protection. 

 

You're lack of knowledge of the Equal Protection Clause is stunning. 

[goodwithagun]

I couldn't be more pleased that friends, relatives and colleagues of mine now have the right to marry just as I do.  And my marriage - and yours - isn't affected in the slightest.     

They already had equal marriage rights. A lesbian could marry a man just like a straight woman. A gay man could marry a woman just like a straight male. What they demanded and recieved were extra rights. The LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community has more marriage rights than the non-perverse. How is that equal?

[txradioguy]

They already had equal marriage rights. A lesbian could marry a man just like a straight woman. A gay man could marry a woman just like a straight male. What they demanded and recieved were extra rights. The LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community has more marriage rights than the non-perverse. How is that equal?

Gays in the U.S. now have a (wrongly interpreted) Constitutionally protected right...that I as a straight male do not enjoy.

That is neither equal nor is it fair...but it's called "social justice" by the left and now it seems some on the right as well who don't understand the Constitution.

[INVAR]

There is no Constitutional right to marry,  whether to one person or several.   But as it turns out,  the law provides for civil marriage between two individuals, and conveys benefits and protections for those who agree to its obligations.  It is, in essence, a unique and extremely valuable form of contract.   That the contract is limited to two individuals gives no right to demand that it be extended to polygamy.   But since it is extended to two adult individuals, who are presumed to be in a sexual relationship,  it must be extended on the same basis to two adult individuals of the same sex as well as two adult individuals of the opposite sex.   That's the essence of equal protection. 

You have no idea what you are talking about - except that which seems right in your own eyes.

A little leaven, leavens the entire lump we have been told, and warned.

You want to extend a sexual perversion of what nature and God intended from the beginning, and give it legal protections and right - simply because individuals 'feel' that they are entitled - then by your own definition - you MUST afford those who want to marry their animals, marry a dead person, marry a child or infant, marry multiple persons or objects, the same "right" you decided to afford two men or two women who want to have their 'right' of 'equal protection' for the behaviors they engage.

And for what point do they demand this?  The evidence is that they demand everyone accept, embrace and declare a deviancy as normal.

The excuse that they want the legal benefits is a bogus ruse - about the same tactic that the Abortionists use when citing incest and rape victims as a justification for their "right" to be enjoyed and imposed on the rest of us as a 'right'.

[TomSea]

The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

If one expects perfection, one might get 8 years of Obama and that leftist agenda.  That was pretty bad.

[txradioguy]

The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

If one expects perfection, one might get 8 years of Obama and that leftist agenda.  That was pretty bad.

[TomSea]

Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

[SirLinksALot]

Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

When the "law" ( note the quotes) affects your personal livelihood and the way you ought to live your life, I'll say it is. Otherwise, there is no hill that one will be willing to die on at all, only servile acceptance.

[INVAR]

The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

If one expects perfection, one might get 8 years of Obama and that leftist agenda.  That was pretty bad.

Then God is your enemy, because He is perfect and Jesus told us in Matthew 5:48 to strive for that same perfection.

The premise that the perfect is the enemy of the good is bunk.

[txradioguy]

Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

Same sex "marriage" is a symptom of a larger problem our country faces in relation to the Constitution.

The stand against the systematic dismantling of everything our country was founded on has to start somewhere.

If you're unwilling to die on this hill it's pretty safe to say you're unwilling to die on any hill.

[Jazzhead]

You're lack of knowledge of the Equal Protection Clause is stunning.

Right back at ya, TRG.   

By the way, the SCOTUS agrees with me, not you.  I understand the origins of the equal protection clause, but it's scope isn't limited to slavery.    That's been settled for a century.

 If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it.  If you want to call two folks in a loving, monogamous relationship perverts, then that's your right under the First Amendment.  But you don't have the right to impose your morality on others, and neither does the state by declining to extend to my gay friends, relatives and neighbors the equal protection of the law.   

[goodwithagun]

Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

The only way to get rid of viral federal government overreach is to treat the symptoms. Same sex "marriage" is a pretty nasty symptom as its purpose is to rip apart the fabric of our nation.

[TomSea]

When the "law" ( note the quotes) affects your personal livelihood and the way you ought to live your life, I'll say it is. Otherwise, there is no hill that one will be willing to die on at all, only servile acceptance.

I have had this kind of debate with others, the internet was full of this before the SCOTUS ruled.

What those people who wanted SSM often say, "well, how does it affect you if some people get married?"; that is a good question.  You alluded to this but did not answer in clear terms.

It should be left to the states who have long legislated marriage, the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this, if Texas and NY want different laws, that is the way I believe the Constitution works.

[TomSea]

When the "law" ( note the quotes) affects your personal livelihood and the way you ought to live your life, I'll say it is. Otherwise, there is no hill that one will be willing to die on at all, only servile acceptance.

Barry Goldwater, who is often looked up to as an ideal conservative, worked with other people, this is not hailed about him but it is true and he saw working with other people as essential.

Is there ever a time one can compromise? I see people not compromising, being pure and then, being left with nothing at all.

[goodwithagun]

Same-sex marriage is not a hill to die on in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

Furthermore (sorry, the rice for tonight's black bean soup was boiling over) it is one of the nastiest symptoms because it is unconstitutional (in that marriage isn't in the Constitution), it is given to a severe minority of the electorate, it is an extra right granted to a severe minority of the electorate, and the reasons put forth are unconstitutional (for example social security distribution to a partner is unconstitutional in that SS is itself unconstitutional).