Same-sex marriage and Constitutional rights

[Rhubarb]

If the demand for same-sex marriage is Constitutional, we still need to know why it is a right embedded in the Constitution … which Article? And if it is embedded in the Constitution, why is the right of incestuous marriage also not embedded in the Constitution … and which Article? We are talking about institutions, not waffles.

As in the precident caae of Loving v. Virginia, where marriage was decided to be a fundamental right, I’d say the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Incest and the other slipprely slope worries have plenty of good arguments to keep them in check.

 

[frobert]

But both are institutions.

Institutions can be viewed as good or bad.

The demand for either slavery or same-sex marriage is not ipso facto legitimate.

Nice try, but forcing square pegs into round holes does not work well.

When did the Catholic Church condemn slavery? According to some notable figures, the Church did not finally condemn slavery until recently.

Judge John T. Noonan stated that it was not until 1890 that the Church condemned the institution of slavery, lagging behind laws enacted to outlaw the practice. He and others argue that slavery is one of the areas in which the Church has changed its moral teaching to suit the times, and that the time for this change did not come until near the end of the last century.

Theologian Laennec Hurbon may be cited as representing a belief among many authors that no Pope before 1890 condemned slavery when he stated that, “. . . one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See—those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV—for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery.”

Source…

The CC changed its position on the legitimacy and morality of slavery. That it still holds homosexual acts illegitimate is strictly a religious belief and one that is not held by all religions including many Christian denominations. To be sure I take no offense in others holding a religious belief that I do not share.

 

[casey_cates]

If marriage is now going to be re-defined then what is to say a thruple or polygamists cannot also marry? As I think it was Scalia that said if we set that precedent, wouldn’t they also have a claim? The State has a higher interest in protect the children of a marriage than tax law. This is what happens when you break down the family. Not just gay vs straight but when you start bringing multiple parents in whether it’s through divorce or surrogacy. Children start to be treated like the recliner. Who gets what and when? And marriage has already been defined to primarily to protect the children that come out from it and predates the State who has no right in the Constitution or otherwise to redefine it. Pope Francis said that every child has a right to a mother and father. Does that mean every child will have the ideal? No! But just because every child can’t have the ideal doesn’t mean we as a society should increase the odds of that not happening. It’s all about the “adults” in society. Adults should act like adults - and make a priority to the children they bear.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As in the precident caae of Loving v. Virginia, where marriage was decided to be a fundamental right, I’d say the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Incest and the other slipprely slope worries have plenty of good arguments to keep them in check.

There were plenty of good arguments to keep same-sex marriage in check, but that did not stop the advocates of same-sex marriage getting their way. So I expect it will not stop anyone else declaring that he suddenly has the right to marry anyone he likes … even his dog.

There is a collective insanity today in America, as there was a collective insanity in Nazi Germany.

Only today the liberals are the insane Nazis. Real Christians need to run for their lives, as they did in Nazi Germany.

 

[freeRadical]

Since same-sex marriage is not specifically protected by the Constitution, whereas the right to practice one’s religion is, in which Article of the Constitution would anyone locate the right for same-sex marriage?

Well, if we are talking about civil marriage, doesn’t the 14th Amendment apply?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, if we are talking about civil marriage, doesn’t the 14th Amendment apply?

In what way does the 14th Amendment identify a right to marriage between members of the same sex?

If you are going to say it does, why wouldn’t it also guarantee a right of parents to marry their children or siblings to marry each other?

A further question to ask yourself:

Why never before in human history have humans demanded the right to marry MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SEX?

 

[freeRadical]

In what way does the 14th Amendment identify a right to marriage between members of the same sex?

If you are going to say it does, why wouldn’t it also guarantee a right of parents to marry their children or siblings to marry each other?

A further question to ask yourself:

Why never before in human history have humans demanded the right to marry MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SEX?

Civil marriage is a contract. As such, it is protected by law and the 14th amendment applies.

Children cannot enter into contracts and cannot give consent under US law.

As long as the siblings are old enough to consent and to enter into a contract then, yes, the 14th amendment would apply as well.

I don’t know the answer to your last question and I don’t care. As far as I’m concerned the US has backed itself into a corner. With civil marriage being a contract and the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law, I do not see how the US government can deny same-sex civil marriage or any civil marriage between two consenting adults.

The easiest solution here would be for government to stop civil marriage all together but as long as they allow a man and a woman to civilly marry, they cannot deny it to any two consenting adults. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

 

[freeRadical]

There were plenty of good arguments to keep same-sex marriage in check, but that did not stop the advocates of same-sex marriage getting their way. So I expect it will not stop anyone else declaring that he suddenly has the right to marry anyone he likes … even his dog.

There is a collective insanity today in America, as there was a collective insanity in Nazi Germany.

Only today the liberals are the insane Nazis. Real Christians need to run for their lives, as they did in Nazi Germany.

You are being very over-dramatic here. How can someone marry his dog? Animals cannot consent and, thus, cannot enter into a contract. So how can someone civilly marry their dog?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are being very over-dramatic here. How can someone marry his dog? Animals cannot consent and, thus, cannot enter into a contract. So how can someone civilly marry their dog?

Why is it overly dramatic to demand the right to marry your dog but not overly dramatic to demand the right to marry someone of your own sex?

When you have figured that out, we can talk.

Is it also overly dramatic to demand the right to marry your mother or your sister?

I agree. It’s not overly dramatic. It’s insane.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The easiest solution here would be for government to stop civil marriage all together but as long as they allow a man and a woman to civilly marry, they cannot deny it to any two consenting adults. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

Why, never before in the history of the human race (except for that nitwit Nero, who was betrothed to his horse) has it never occurred to men to demand the right to marry other men?

Could it be that that particular form of insanity was never heard of before?

After all, we live in times full of dramatic possibilities for the mentally unstable.

 

[freeRadical]

Why is it overly dramatic to demand the right to marry your dog but not overly dramatic to demand the right to marry someone of your own sex?

When you have figured that out, we can talk.

Is it also overly dramatic to demand the right to marry your mother or your sister?

I agree. It’s not overly dramatic. It’s insane.

It’s not over-dramatic to demand the same rights as your fellow citizens. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Civil marriage is a contract and, thus, it falls under equal protection under the law.

Under US law, animals cannot enter into a contract so your point is moot.

As long as the government allows a consenting man and woman to marry, then yes, I do not see how, under US law, the government can deny any two consenting adults the ability to enter into a marriage contract.

I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about contract law and in the US, marriage is a contract. Like I said, the US government has backed itself into a corner here.

 

[freeRadical]

Why, never before in the history of the human race (except for that nitwit Nero, who was betrothed to his horse) has it never occurred to men to demand the right to marry other men?

Could it be that that particular form of insanity was never heard of before?

After all, we live in times full of dramatic possibilities for the mentally unstable.

I am not talking about the right to marriage. I am talking about equal protection under the law, which the 14th amendment guarantees. As long as civil marriage is treated as a contract, it falls under the protection of the 14th amendment. That’s how US law and the Constitution works.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am not talking about the right to marriage. I am talking about equal protection under the law, which the 14th amendment guarantees. As long as civil marriage is treated as a contract, it falls under the protection of the 14th amendment. That’s how US law and the Constitution works.

Laws are made not only by men, but by reasonable men.

Insane laws do not ipso facto deserve the protection of the 14th Amendment.

If the same-sex marriage proposition were sane, it would have been adopted by societies millennia ago.

Only in our lunatic leftist society has the idea even surfaced.

 

[freeRadical]

Laws are made not only by men, but by reasonable men.

Insane laws do not ipso facto deserve the protection of the 14th Amendment.

If the same-sex marriage proposition were sane, it would have been adopted by societies millennia ago.

Only in our lunatic leftist society has the idea even surfaced.

The 14th amendment does not say that you to get pick the laws that it applies to.

Whether you think the law is “insane” does not matter.

The fact of the matter is that as long as civil marriage is a contract between two people under US law, then the 14th amendment applies. Like I said, the US has backed itself into a corner here.

There are only two solutions: get rid of the 14th amendment or get rid of civil marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The 14th amendment does not say that you to get pick the laws that it applies to.

Whether you think the law is “insane” does not matter.

The fact of the matter is that as long as civil marriage is a contract between two people under US law, then the 14th amendment applies. Like I said, the US has backed itself into a corner here.

There are only two solutions: get rid of the 14th amendment or get rid of civil marriage.

either/or fallacy

No sir. Insane people are not to be treated as if they are sane.

No law regards their rights as equal to the rights of sane people. For one thing, they do not have the right to command that laws be created to satisfy their demands.

If you want to defend that position, you have to explain why same sex-marriage is sane.

You’d also have to explain also why as a Catholic you are defending such insanity.

 

[JimG]

The 14th Amendment applies equal protection to individual persons, not couples. It doesn’t make exceptions for age. Do minors enjoy equal protection of the laws? If so, they also should be able to marry, thus enabling pederast marriage. The alternative is to start carving out exceptions to the 14th Amendment. It would apply equally to all persons. Any individuals could marry: parent and child, two siblings, two sisters, two (or more) business partners. Applying the 14th Amendment equal protection to marriage in effect renders marriage meaningless; since it can mean anything, it means nothing.

But we all realize that the authors of the 14th Amendment had not the slightest intention of authorizing same sex marriage. If that had been their intention, the Amendment would never have passed.

Now, of course, there is a way to put same sex marriage into the Constitution–by the process of Constitutional Amendment. But the Courts won’t suggest that, I’m sure. They have their own informal Constitutional amendment process whereby they can cause the words to mean something entirely different from what those who wrote the words meant.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The 14th Amendment applies equal protection to individual persons, not couples. It doesn’t make exceptions for age. Do minors enjoy equal protection of the laws? If so, they also should be able to marry, thus enabling pederast marriage. The alternative is to start carving out exceptions to the 14th Amendment. It would apply equally to all persons. Any individuals could marry: parent and child, two siblings, two sisters, two (or more) business partners. Applying the 14th Amendment equal protection to marriage in effect renders marriage meaningless; since it can mean anything, it means nothing.

But we all realize that the authors of the 14th Amendment had not the slightest intention of authorizing same sex marriage. If that had been their intention, the Amendment would never have passed.

Now, of course, there is a way to put same sex marriage into the Constitution–by the process of Constitutional Amendment. But the Courts won’t suggest that, I’m sure. They have their own informal Constitutional amendment process whereby they can cause the words to mean something entirely different from what those who wrote the words meant.

That may well be what this Supreme court will do, carve out new laws even though they are not supposed to enact laws.

 

[AyJSimon]

That may well be what this Supreme court will do, carve out new laws even though they are not supposed to enact laws.

Every time the SCOTUS rules that a given law is unconstitutional, it makes a new law, by definition.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Every time the SCOTUS rules that a given law is unconstitutional, it makes a new law, by definition.

A law is supposed to be obeyed. How can you obey a “law” ruled as unconstitutional?

 

[AyJSimon]

A law is supposed to be obeyed. How can you obey a “law” ruled as unconstitutional?

Pretty easily. But your question is beside the point.