Which is it dummy, have you read his decision or haven't you. Last night you were complaining that it's 136 pages long. Since you've read it, can you explain how the protection clause applies to gay couples, but not to a stick of wood and a squirrel?

There is no mention of sticks of wood or squirrels

Quote:There is no mention of sticks of wood or squirrels

Yeah, there's also no mention of marriage in the Constitution.

Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 on the grounds California has a “constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis.”

So why stop at humans. Why not a squirrel and a stick of wood.............I mean if we're being equal to anyone and anything that wants to be married.

Question- The Constitution gives certain powers to the feds and certain ones to the states. Only the feds can print money, declare war etc. Powers not granted to the national government are reserved for the states (Reserved Powers). They include the power to establish local governments and the power to issue licenses, such as hunting, driving and yes, marriage.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage anywhere in the document. Therefore, states have traditionally defined what is marriage.

So, if individual states have the power to create marriage laws, why is Prop 8 being judged in a federal court?

Because the opponents of Prop 8 claim that a ban on same-sex marriage violates civil liberties. B.S.

Quote:So, if individual states have the power to create marriage laws, why is Prop 8 being judged in a federal court?

The plaintiff's argument is directed to the US Constitution.

There's no mention of marriage in the Constitution, those powers are reserved for the state.

I've said all along, the Supreme Court will overturn this 5-4, but they won't say same sex marriages are illegal, they say it's a state issue and send it back to them.

Please read carefully as it's been said before and apparently you are still not getting it:
Minors and animals lack the legal standing to sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married. Any argument that mentions either is willful ignorance and beyond stupid.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
Relevant section:

Quote: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.

As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states cannot put restrictions on it that deny equal protection to a minority group.

Now, since apparently critical thinking skills get lost after to much time spoon feeding young children, I will try to make this simple. Those who oppose gay marriage will continue to have their bans struck down as explained above, or they can find another way.

Quote:Minors and animals lack the legal standing to sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married. Any argument that mentions either is willful ignorance and beyond stupid.

Where does it define the term "minor" in the constitution?

Doesn't that age vary from state to state?

And where does it say that minors can't sign contracts in the constitution?

So your position is that BHO is legally free to marry Sasha when she turns 18 if they both consent?

^
Are you being myopic on purpose?

No.

Maybe unintentially obtuse :).

Prohibited Marriages

In the United States, every state prohibits you from marrying any of your ancestors or descendants including your brother, your sister, your half-brother, your half-sister, your aunt, your uncle, your niece, your nephew, your mother, your father, your grandmother, your grandfather, your great-grandmother, your great-grandfather, your child, your grandchild, or your great-grandchild.

Some states have additional prohibitions concerning marrying your adoptive brother, your adoptive sister, your step-mother, your step-father, your former step-mother, your former step-father, your mother-in-law, your father-in-law, your former mother-in-law, your former father-in-law, your adoptive mother, your adoptive father, your former adoptive mother, your former adoptive father, your step-child, your former step-child, your adoptive child, your former adoptive child, your daughter-in-law, your son-in-law, your former daughter-in-law, your former son-in-law, or your cousins.

(08-13-2010 10:06 AM)Tommyboy Wrote:  Please read carefully as it's been said before and apparently you are still not getting it:
Minors and animals lack the legal standing to sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married. Any argument that mentions either is willful ignorance and beyond stupid.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
Relevant section:

Quote: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.

As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states cannot put restrictions on it that deny equal protection to a minority group.

Now, since apparently critical thinking skills get lost after to much time spoon feeding young children, I will try to make this simple. Those who oppose gay marriage will continue to have their bans struck down as explained above, or they can find another way.

Well stated.

ESSS you missed a major loop hole; since minors can marry with parental consent he is technically free to marry her as soon as the paper work on his divorce to Michelle is final. However most places do have restrictions on incest which have far better rational support than the restrictions on gay marriage.

Well maybe not:

(08-13-2010 11:18 AM)Tommyboy Wrote:  ESSS you missed a major loop hole; since minors can marry with parental consent he is technically free to marry her as soon as the paper work on his divorce to Michelle is final. However most places do have restrictions on incest which have far better rational support than the restrictions on gay marriage.

Well maybe not:

Looking at the first cousin chart, that explains a lot.

W Va does allow first cousins to marry?

Blows my theory...

How can one explain Marshall?

Quote:However most places do have restrictions on incest which have far better rational support than the restrictions on gay marriage.

I'm not arguing that it isn't rational for gays to marry.

And I'm not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'm simply pointing out that your statement...."As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states cannot put restrictions on it that deny equal protection to a minority group"....is clearly false.

There are plenty of restrctions that limit who can and who can't marry.

And my guess is that YOU probably agree with some of these restrictions.

Am I right?

(08-13-2010 11:27 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:However most places do have restrictions on incest which have far better rational support than the restrictions on gay marriage.

I'm not arguing that it isn't rational for gays to marry.

And I'm not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'm simply pointing out that your statement...."As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states cannot put restrictions on it that deny equal protection to a minority group"....is clearly false.

There are plenty of restrctions that limit who can and who can't marry.

And my guess is that YOU probably agree with some of these restrictions.

Am I right?

Having met a person whose parents were brother-sister. I know there are biological reasons to restrict who can marry. There is no similar evidences for gays. Myths, fears, misconceptions, yes, and that is a part of what Walker addressed.

Quote:Having met a person whose parents were brother-sister. I know there are biological reasons to restrict who can marry.

If that's your position, do you think it is OK to deny marriage to people with certain inheritable diseases?

What Steer said. I did specify "rational support", stereotypes and religion are not rational support, an increase in unstable and unhealthy genetic issues is.

(08-13-2010 11:42 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:Having met a person whose parents were brother-sister. I know there are biological reasons to restrict who can marry.

If that's your position, do you think it is OK to deny marriage to people with certain inheritable diseases?

OK, I'm on the hook. Reel me in. :ncaabbs:

Arlo Guthrie never wanted to be tested for the condition that Woody had.

I need time to think on this one.

Quote:What Steer said. I did specify "rational support"

Now I get it.

This "fundamental right" that you claim is in the constitution only applies if a federal judge thinks it "rational" for whatever group is under consideration?

Quote:"As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, states cannot put restrictions on it that deny equal protection to a minority group"....is clearly false.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Where in the Constitution (which never once mentions marriage) does it state that?

The Constitution reserves LICENSING powers to the states. Therefore if a state doesn't want to marry a brother and a sister they don't have to. If they don't want to marry Chris and Terry or Bob and Bill they don't have to do that either. If their legislature wants to change that they can. New York's tried, but it didn't get enough votes. CA put it on the ballot, 7,000,000 voted it down. But for a shot time anyway, one gay judge in the most liberal city in America overturned the wishes of 7 million Californians.