Gay Marriage

[Ms Tree]

Spin away.
 
The reason why its unconstitutional is that under the 14th amendment all the laws have to treat people equally, Tree has explained this many times.
 
Sorry I am straight, the ruling doesnt apply to me, but you and Chub can tie the knot now.

Trying to explain the 14th to some here is useless. They do not understand that laws must apply equally to all.

I wonder if these same.people would be OK with a law saying that only Chinese people can buy a house. After all, there is nothing in the COTUS saying that you are guaranteed the right to buy a house. Never mind that the law preventing one group (or more) from buying a house violates the 14th. Not sure why that concept is so difficult for some.

 

[delldude]

I asked if there is a Constitutional guarantee to marriage.

 

[700UW]

Is there a constitutional right to have a drivers license, own a house or many other things?
 
Is there a constitutional right for a divorce?

 

[SparrowHawk]

There are no such thing as group rights. Only individual rights
 
The Federal government should be OUT of the marriage business. The role of government is to preserve Liberty. Strong Private Property laws are a must. Take away religion and emotion and a "Marriage" is nothing more then civil tort law.
 
So the solution is simple. Civil Union contracts for all regardless. The religious covenant known as marriage can then be dealt with outside of government.

 

[delldude]

There are no such thing as group rights. Only individual rights
 
The Federal government should be OUT of the marriage business. The role of government is to preserve Liberty. Strong Private Property laws are a must. Take away religion and emotion and a "Marriage" is nothing more then civil tort law.
 
So the solution is simple. Civil Union contracts for all regardless. The religious covenant known as marriage can then be dealt with outside of government.

 
You missed Obama talking about how America needs collective salvation.

 

[SparrowHawk]

 
You missed Obama talking about how America needs collective salvation.

 
Yep I did. I try not to listen to Hopechnage, he's a downer

 

[Ms Tree]

Is there a constitutional right to have a drivers license, own a house or many other things?
 
Is there a constitutional right for a divorce?

Yet another thing these folks don't get. The COTUS does not grant any rights. As Sparrow has said numerous times, rights are assumed to be natural rights. The COTUS (if they would actually read it) limits how govt can restrict things such as speech.

 

[PHXConx]

im going to post my views on marriage... i guess its extreme in the fact that it fixes the problem instead of kicking the can down the road to the next time society changes its mind on what is acceptable... it usually pisses off neocons, and some liberals as well..
 
I think we should learn from the Interracial marriage movement of 60 years ago, and the gay marriage movement of the last 20 years... 
 
i dont think the state should be in the marriage business i dont think they should charge you for love(a marriage license) and i dont think it should be a marriage at all i think its time to retire the word in the sense of a civil union..  because of the many meanings of the word usually based on religious texts..
 
We have let the state usurp a religious ceromony, have made it able to dictate the terms of the union, usually with religious or societal moralities.  the people do not get to dictate the terms, except in cases of prenuptial agreements. the state forces on the parties involved to follow set rules... do we really need some inbred state senator who scribbled out a law on marriage, to dictate to everyone his views on the subject? 
 
i think thats crap.
 
i think its time to eliminate all marriages... yes all of them
 
I think that they should be civil contracts that follow the basic laws of all contracts in each state, that the only state required rule should be that of consent.  I dont care if you are gay straight monogamous or polygamous..  i dont even care if you want to marry your sister, brother or cousin... (look if they get into a relationship we arent going to stop them from having sex, yes we should discourage it, but we should also discourage smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy both cause birth defects too last i checked those people can get married)  so since they are going to be in these relationships we might as well let them form the union to protect their loved ones...  because quite frankly its not any of our business what consenting adults do in their lives... this has been the argument for past changes and it should be for future ones... 
 
so this is the way id do it, 2 or more  consenting adults would form a contract.  they would define their union in ways that only pertain to them, perhaps they will decide that once every blue moon they can have a free date with anyone they want... whatever... or they will want to form a more conventional idea of what marriage should be.. i dont care they decide.. it shouldnt be dictated by the state.  
 
The word marriage the term as in legal sense will no longer be allowed... it will be relegated to a non binding ceremony whether sanctioned by a religious entity or you want your dad to officiate it doesnt matter its not official.  also no one would be able to force a church, or individual preacher pastor rabbi priest or witch(yes witch)   to marry them, if its against their religious dogma...  so im sorry if you want to be married in the big church on the hill and that church says sorry we dont believe in that you cant force them to concede. since the ceremony is religious in nature its up to their dogmas..  and its not violating your rights, you do not have a right to trespass on their property just because its a cool church...  
 
now what do you do with the ones already married?  
 
i think you should get a get out of jail free card... you have 180 days from institution of the bill, to either A, dissolve the union no questions asked... done no longer together.
 
or B take your marriage license in and get a free contract drawn up.  
 
After the 180 days if you have not gotten out of your union, or had the free contract drawn up  you will be contracted using a general purpose contract, amendable at a later date for cost.(each states contract laws will dictate those costs)
 
Since the contract clause is already part of the Constitution then states cant later come in and deem a contract non official based on arbitrary reasons such as religion or other societal moralities, also it gurantees contracts binding in every state no more one state deciding to allow a union but another one saying nope sorry not in this state... 
 
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 
this would finally fix these issues and future generations would not be able to impose their beliefs on people wishing to be in a union with others.  that either new thought societal norms or 5000 year old texts can no longer be the deciding factor on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to personal issues like these. 
because gay marriage is here to stay (and rightfully so) two consenting adults should not be denied the same privileges as others...  and my way goes further than that its a right... guaranteed by the constitution...   and i would love to see self righteous "republicans in name only" start declaring the constitution as wrong...
 
this really isnt that far of a leap from common law marriages...in fact i think its the natural progression... 

 

[PHXConx]

There are no such thing as group rights. Only individual rights
 
The Federal government should be OUT of the marriage business. The role of government is to preserve Liberty. Strong Private Property laws are a must. Take away religion and emotion and a "Marriage" is nothing more then civil tort law.
 
So the solution is simple. Civil Union contracts for all regardless. The religious covenant known as marriage can then be dealt with outside of government.

seems we are on the exact same page...  though im way more long winded lol 

 

[SparrowHawk]

seems we are on the exact same page...  though im way more long winded lol 

All kidding aside, posting on line really sharpens your writing skills. You learn to make points in articulate sound bite time frames, which is important today.
 
Keep writing you'll learn how to boil it down. I used to write posts that made yours seem short and concise.

 

[PHXConx]

All kidding aside, posting on line really sharpens your writing skills. You learn to make points in articulate sound bite time frames, which is important today.
 
Keep writing you'll learn how to boil it down. I used to write posts that made yours seem short and concise.

ive been putting this together for 2 decades... its long right because i get it all out at once.. short soundbites are great when people have already read what you believe... but until then you tell it all or forever try to catch up.  
 
now i can reference the post if questions arise... and answer accordingly, thats been an ever evolving process..  my first draft of that in the 90s is entirely different than it is now..and this one is actually quite a bit shorter lol 

 

[Ms Tree]

I have said much the same thing as well.  I think it's all fantasy.  The word marriage, much like Q-tip and Band Aid are part of our lexicon.  They are not going to go anywhere.
 
Seeing as I do not think it will happen in my life time, lets deal with what we have.   Marriage is a word.  People can define it how ever the heck they want.  I am married to my wife.  I know I define our relationship far different than others here define their marriages.  Who the heck cares?  I do not care how any of you define it, none of you care or are affected by how I define mine or others define theirs.  There are legal obligations and rights attached to the institution and that is what the argument is about.  Other wise anyone could go to any church they wanted to and say they were married.  
 
The appellate court just up held the decision of the lower court and its probably headed for the SCOTUS (about freaking time) and they will strike down the ban nation wide.  Case closed.  I think the word and the institution is here to stay as far as I can tell.  

 

[PHXConx]

I have said much the same thing as well.  I think it's all fantasy.  The word marriage, much like Q-tip and Band Aid are part of our lexicon.  They are not going to go anywhere.
 
Seeing as I do not think it will happen in my life time, lets deal with what we have.   Marriage is a word.  People can define it how ever the heck they want.  I am married to my wife.  I know I define our relationship far different than others here define their marriages.  Who the heck cares?  I do not care how any of you define it, none of you care or are affected by how I define mine or others define theirs.  There are legal obligations and rights attached to the institution and that is what the argument is about.  Other wise anyone could go to any church they wanted to and say they were married.  
 
The appellate court just up held the decision of the lower court and its probably headed for the SCOTUS (about freaking time) and they will strike down the ban nation wide.  Case closed.  I think the word and the institution is here to stay as far as I can tell.  

 
 
we arent changing the word marriage, we arent even removing it from the lexicon, just as it is related to the state its no longer legal term. marriage is more than a word when its state offered privilege then it becomes something more than a  mass defined word, it becomes a legal term defined legally by states, you cant just change the term it has to be legally eliminated as a legal entity  
 
and scotus has already decided on this before... its a state issue... i am not sure that this supreme court will rule the way you think they would..they had a chance last year with United States V Windsor.  They didnt strike down all of DOMA.  and they only allowed federal recognized benefits in states that recognize gay marriage.  
 
 
if that goes to court i think it will go 5-4 on whether the states get to decide on marriage or not...
 
thats why what i posted was an excellent answer. marriage can be a state issue but allowing civil contracts is already a Constitutionally  protected entity, and states cant grant "private relief" from contracts, so once a single state removes the language of marriage, and replace it with a civil contract based on contract law, the other states have no say because of the contract clause in ART 1 Section 10.
 
so basically whichever state that does it first will get a mass influx of contracts...  and each other state would have to abide by them... its a thing of beauty...  

 

[Ms Tree]

I get it.  I agree with it BUT…  why do it?


 
You want to eliminate marriage out of the public sector.  You want me and my wife to have a contract that is equivalent to the rights conferred by current day marriage.  All you are doing is rearranging the deck chairs.  I am still going to tell everyone I am married.  That is what two gay people will do, that is what polygamists will say.  So nothing will change other than the behind the scenes stuff that no one sees nor cares about.  If I get on a boat, I don’t care if there is a Penta or a Volvo engine in the stern.  The boat will get me from point a to point b.  Beyond that WGAFF. 


 
If you don’t change and remove ‘marriage’ I fail to see the point of why change how it’s done.  As far as I am concerned there are two marriages.  One is required by law, the other is an optional religious ceremony.  If you want a state/fed recognized union you go to a JP, get hitched and file your paper work.  Done.  If you want to go to your religious institution of your choice and have them do something for you, go for it. 


 
Bottom line is Im married,  I don’t care what you behind the scenes.  I think the sticking point for a lot of the religious zealots is that they do not want gays to get married.  With our plan they would be able to get ‘married’.  Call it a  contract or whatever you want the end result is that they are married.  They will have the exact same rights as a married couple.  They will say that they are married.  How they got there is irrelevant.  For all intensive purposes I have a contract with my wife.  It’s just called a marriage license.  The union is enforceable in a court of law and should the union be dissolved we have legal obligations to each other that are enforceable by law.  

 

[Ms Tree]

OH, as far as the SCOTUS Is concerned I think they will have to do something.  As more and more states strike down the ban on marriage equality how will states deal with people who move?  A couple has been married for 10 years in CA, have a few kids, move to TX and all of a sudden they are not married and the kids have only 1 parent?  Then they move to UT and all of a sudden they are married again?  There are bank accounts, assets, medical care along with a host of other issues that would all of a sudden become null and void.  How does all that work?  
 
Something like 20 states have or will have marriage equality.  More will follow since there are cases pending in every state now.   I think the court will be forced to act.