Uh Oh

[ConHog]

Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

[OCA]

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

Its up to the states dumbass.

Did you and Juanita go get blood tests when you married her? Sure you did, a GOVERNMENT requirement.

When they pronounce you man and wife they say " by the power vested in me by God and the great state of (whatever)".......marriage sure is a government function dumbfuck, state givernment.

God I swear! You are dumber than a box of bricks.

[Nell's Room]

Its up to the states dumbass.

What right do the people in a State have to decide who can and cannot marry?

[jimnyc]

Sure.

Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.

Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.

/thread

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

[OCA]

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

[fj1200]

I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:

To commemorate the 44th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's decision that that struck down laws that forbade African Americans and whites from marrying, AFER's co-counsel in the Prop. 8 case, Ted Olson and David Boies, recorded a special message. They talk about how the Loving case set an important precedent for the current fight for marriage equality.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ols...#ixzz1wwj4IN4k

Unfortunately it's in video form.

Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.

No, you're the one claiming some sort of straight marriage "right" where one is clearly absent. A ban certainly can violate COTUS if someone is denied Equal Protection. You're trying to have it both ways.

[jimnyc]

Interracial marriage was the question before the court so of course they didn't mention gay marriage. I can unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs if the principle is the same. I'll look more if Loving has been used specifically But Olson and Boies argued the Prop 8 case in CA:


Unfortunately it's in video form.

This isn't precedent in a legal form, but rather from an attorneys POV. The court didn't rule on a case based on Loving is what I'm saying. And YOU think the principle is the same, not everyone, so you cannot just change things 30+ years down the road - that's what we have courts for. "Maybe" someday the SC will rule on a gay marriage case, and they'll use Loving as precedent, and THEN your argument will be valid. But until such time, right now, Loving has nothing to do with gay marriage - it's only a comparison that many like to make, and a legal reference of sorts with no weight whatsoever, 'cept to interracial marriage.

[fj1200]

This isn't precedent in a legal form, but rather from an attorneys POV. The court didn't rule on a case based on Loving is what I'm saying. And YOU think the principle is the same, not everyone, so you cannot just change things 30+ years down the road - that's what we have courts for. "Maybe" someday the SC will rule on a gay marriage case, and they'll use Loving as precedent, and THEN your argument will be valid. But until such time, right now, Loving has nothing to do with gay marriage - it's only a comparison that many like to make, and a legal reference of sorts with no weight whatsoever, 'cept to interracial marriage.

But that's how you cite prior cases as precedent. Loving may be used and it might not be used, I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out eventually. Just because they haven't yet does not make the principle any less valid until it has been decided.

[jimnyc]

But that's how you cite prior cases as precedent. Loving may be used and it might not be used, I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out eventually. Just because they haven't yet does not make the principle any less valid until it has been decided.

But it's a principle not yet rooted in a legal decision. There is no connection between Loving and gay marriage, other than in discussions or debates. No case that I'm aware of, has a judge referenced Loving as precedent. Things change each time a judge makes a decision based on prior court rulings. Each time they do so they are affirming the original decision to be applicable to the current one. Your desire to link the 2, Loving and gay marriage, is only theory at this point.

[ConHog]

Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

[jimnyc]

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)

Where is this 1st amendment violation occurring? What religion is being told what they call marriage is illegal?

[OCA]

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.

[ConHog]

No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.

Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.

[OCA]

Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.

I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.

[ConHog]

I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.

Oh good grief