Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

If the Declaration is a guide to what the Constitution intended, we are all created equal; black, white or purple. Nothing to disagree on by interpreting our Constitution that directly. Even if it did, the 14th A reiterates that blacks are full citizens and have equal protection under the law. No one disputes this since the 14thA was ratified. So, if a man and woman of differing races wanted to marry just like a man and woman of the same race, the law must treat them the same.

That is not the same as changing the fundamental nature of marriage as both custom and law have treated the institution. That sort of change is best done involving as many citizens as possible.

hanuman wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Dude! You have no idea what I believe on this issue. The SCOTUS decision was not unanimous, was it? 4 out of nine disagreed with the logic. How many Amercians will continue to agree with the dissenters? Here's a hint. Roe v Wade is still controversial.

My point still stands. Making fundamental changes to our society is best done involving as broad a base of our citizenry as possible.

As recently as the 90s something like 60% of voting age Americans disapproved of interracial marriages. Should the SCOTUS have refused to rule on Loving? Or Brown, for that matter? Do you think it would have been RIGHT to make interracial couples wait 30 years and more to commit themselves in marriage?

The SCOTUS is part of the democratic process. Everyone has the right to approach it for relief from burdensome laws. Its job is to test existing laws against the Constitution to determine whether they comply with the provisions contained therein. It did so in Obergefell and determined that the laws banning same sex marriage do in fact violate certain constitutional provisions.

PeterZ wrote:If the Declaration is a guide to what the Constitution intended, we are all created equal; black, white or purple. Nothing to disagree on by interpreting our Constitution that directly. Even if it did, the 14th A reiterates that blacks are full citizens and have equal protection under the law. No one disputes this since the 14thA was ratified. So, if a man and woman of differing races wanted to marry just like a man and woman of the same race, the law must treat them the same.

That is not the same as changing the fundamental nature of marriage as both custom and law have treated the institution.

Are you reading the words you're typing?

Was the custom for interracial marriage in the US to be acceptable before that ruling? No it was not.

Was it the law for interracial marriage to be permitted before that ruling? No it was not.

It is 100% precisely the exact same thing as what you just said. That decision altered the fundamental nature of marriage as custom and law in the US had previously defined it, because they figured out that those customs and laws were unconstitutional violations of equal protection under the Constitution.

Which is exactly what just happened again. No difference whatsoever... in either the action, the justification, or the arguments being presented against it. You are the modern day equivalent of those people ranting against interracial marriage being permitted using the exact same arguments you are making here.

PeterZ wrote:If the Declaration is a guide to what the Constitution intended, we are all created equal; black, white or purple. Nothing to disagree on by interpreting our Constitution that directly. Even if it did, the 14th A reiterates that blacks are full citizens and have equal protection under the law. No one disputes this since the 14thA was ratified. So, if a man and woman of differing races wanted to marry just like a man and woman of the same race, the law must treat them the same.

That is not the same as changing the fundamental nature of marriage as both custom and law have treated the institution. That sort of change is best done involving as many citizens as possible.

Peter, nowhere in Section 1 of the Fourteenth does it say 'black people'. The exact words are 'any person'. I'll grant that the context was that of emancipation; however, I'll argue that the intention of the amendment was to prevent a Drew Scott ruling from being issued against any segment of the American population ever again.

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that we queers are people or not. Clearly, you don't. Just as clearly, you do not believe that we should enjoy the protection of the law. My previous comment about personal bias stands.

That is base libel. I suppose its ok to use libel against those that appear to disagree with you. You demand tolerance and acceptance from others, yet with hold it in your own actions or words. Great way to unify people around controversial ideas. Had I agreed with your position, I would be a mensch. Appear to disagree and I am obviously an inhuman monster worthy of libel and denigration.

Rather than abuse RFC's hospitality in these forums, I bid you farewell.

hanuman wrote:

PeterZ wrote:If the Declaration is a guide to what the Constitution intended, we are all created equal; black, white or purple. Nothing to disagree on by interpreting our Constitution that directly. Even if it did, the 14th A reiterates that blacks are full citizens and have equal protection under the law. No one disputes this since the 14thA was ratified. So, if a man and woman of differing races wanted to marry just like a man and woman of the same race, the law must treat them the same.

That is not the same as changing the fundamental nature of marriage as both custom and law have treated the institution. That sort of change is best done involving as many citizens as possible.

Peter, nowhere in Section 1 of the Fourteenth does it say 'black people'. The exact words are 'any person'. I'll grant that the context was that of emancipation; however, I'll argue that the intention of the amendment was to prevent a Drew Scott ruling from being issued against any segment of the American population ever again.

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that we queers are people or not. Clearly, you don't. Just as clearly, you do not believe that we should enjoy the protection of the law. My previous comment about personal bias stands.

the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



So if a marriage can be counted as a scenario which grants benefits and protections to a couple, such as tax advantages, or the ability to so things a pair of people who arent a couple cant't, then that would count as priveleges and protection of the laws, and denying marriage to non heterosexual couples is discrimination which would abridge the rights of gay couples, and deny them their protections afforded to married couples.

Marriage until this ruling has not been withheld from homosexuals. Gay men can marry a willing woman of marriageable age and not too closely related. Heck, Cole Porter married and remained married to the same woman for all his life. He was gay and I do not think he abstained from his preferred liaisons. The law did not impact gays and differently than straits. 4 out of 9 SC justices believed something similar to this. The other 5 was sufficient to establish a new definition of marriage.

Spacekiwi wrote:the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



So if a marriage can be counted as a scenario which grants benefits and protections to a couple, such as tax advantages, or the ability to so things a pair of people who arent a couple cant't, then that would count as priveleges and protection of the laws, and denying marriage to non heterosexual couples is discrimination which would abridge the rights of gay couples, and deny them their protections afforded to married couples.

Marriage to one you love and cherish above all others has been withheld from gays. Reading your comment I'm not sure if you are being mischievous or just thick. The whole discussion is plain and simple to understand, however your comment is strange considering that you espouse (pun intended) marriage as a sacred union. Don't marry the one you love, but a convenient legal other?

PeterZ wrote:Marriage until this ruling has not been withheld from homosexuals. Gay men can marry a willing woman of marriageable age and not too closely related. Heck, Cole Porter married and remained married to the same woman for all his life. He was gay and I do not think he abstained from his preferred liaisons. The law did not impact gays and differently than straits. 4 out of 9 SC justices believed something similar to this. The other 5 was sufficient to establish a new definition of marriage.

Spacekiwi wrote:the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



So if a marriage can be counted as a scenario which grants benefits and protections to a couple, such as tax advantages, or the ability to so things a pair of people who arent a couple cant't, then that would count as priveleges and protection of the laws, and denying marriage to non heterosexual couples is discrimination which would abridge the rights of gay couples, and deny them their protections afforded to married couples.

PeterZ wrote:Marriage until this ruling has not been withheld from homosexuals. Gay men can marry a willing woman of marriageable age and not too closely related.

Sigh...

"Marriage until this ruling has not been denied to anyone. People can marry any willing person of the same race they are..."

Sound like a valid argument that laws against interracial marriage shouldn't have been struck down? Do you understand that this is you?

PeterZ wrote:Marriage until this ruling has not been withheld from homosexuals. Gay men can marry a willing woman of marriageable age and not too closely related.

Let's rephrase that:

Marriage until this ruling has not been withheld from mixed-race couples. They can marry willing partners of the same race not too closely related to them.

Do you not see how your arguments are really just a rehash of the old racist ones used back in the day?

PeterZ wrote:That is base libel. I suppose its ok to use libel against those that appear to disagree with you. You demand tolerance and acceptance from others, yet with hold it in your own actions or words. Great way to unify people around controversial ideas. Had I agreed with your position, I would be a mensch. Appear to disagree and I am obviously an inhuman monster worthy of libel and denigration.

Rather than abuse RFC's hospitality in these forums, I bid you farewell.

hanuman wrote:
Peter, nowhere in Section 1 of the Fourteenth does it say 'black people'. The exact words are 'any person'. I'll grant that the context was that of emancipation; however, I'll argue that the intention of the amendment was to prevent a Drew Scott ruling from being issued against any segment of the American population ever again.

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that we queers are people or not. Clearly, you don't. Just as clearly, you do not believe that we should enjoy the protection of the law. My previous comment about personal bias stands.

How is that libel, Peter? Your own words support my statement. You're the one who claimed that the Fourteenth's protections do not apply to LGBT folks. By inference, since the Fourteenth refers to 'any person' and 'all citizens', you do not believe that we are either persons or that my American peers are citizens.

And now you even object to me having an opinion and expressing it? Wow, there go my American peers' First Amendment rights as well.

Your argument that before Obergefell gay men could get married, as long as it was to a willing woman, is exactly the same one that opponents of interracial marriage used. To paraphrase: 'no partner in a mixed race relationship is barred from getting married, as long as it is to someone of the same race as themselves'.

How is it libel when I call out your very obvious bias?