Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
Except there's no tangible benefit for anyone to support this. In addition, it appears to be such a fringe position that no search I do can seem to dig up a poll on the number of people who want the Federal government removed from marriage. But while I'm pretty alright at googling, I'm not a wizard so if you can find one I'd like to see it.
No, why should the federal government not recognize legal relationships, which is why they are in marriage? They have programs that recognize spouses and rely on this recognition to determine how they deal with certain things, including SS, military benefits, and taxes.
The states don't have any right to have a definition of marriage that treats people differently in whether they can marry or who they can marry based on their religion, race, sex, or other characteristics that they cannot show further a legitimate state interest by basing restrictions on, whether the federal government recognizes marriages or not.
The right to travel freely between states is likewise "made up" by the supreme court. As is the right to use birth control, and the right to raise one's children. None of those are enumerated in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those, too, and simply hope that no state ever tries to use its general police power to take them from you?
They aren't "muggling" around. Merely enforcing the constitution. A state cannot make a distinction of gender without showing an important interest in doing so. Anti-equality advocates have failed to provide that interest.
Actually, no, it's not made up by the SCOTUS. We inherited a good body of law behind the Constitution. And the US Constitution protects INTERSTATE travel and commerce, giving Congress the power to regulate it. However, it's the state constitutions that protect and enshrine freedom of movement within the state.
AND as enumerated in the US Constitution what happens to all those rights not enumerated in the US Constitution? That's right, they fall to the state and the people.
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.
The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.
True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
They already can do this. It just has to be in accordance with the constitution.
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."
True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.
No, you tried to slide one over. It's not "a distinction of gender" but a distinction of sexual orientation - and that is not a protected class.
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a distinction of gender. Marriage isn't sex, clownboy. The anti-equality crowd isn't writing laws that say "gays can't marry." They're writing laws that say "men can't marry men."
Men can't marry men, is equally limiting as women cannot marry women. Their gender is the limiting criterion, but, they are both equally limited based on this criteria. Now, if men could marry both men and women, and women could only marry men, then you would have an equal protection violation, but that is not the case. Homosexuals, and now polygamists are saying that the limitations, although equally limiting both genders are unfair when one of these genders prefers that of the same gender in marriage. That is a new right, one that does not exist, and the states, and their legislative bodies have full power to decide. In sum; the courts would be making law, and have been re-writing law in order to acquiesce to the homosexual crowd. What the USSC should rule, is that it has no power to write new laws, or create rights where none exist, and should strike down all previous rulings on legislative limitations on marriage and refer them back to the respective legislative branches.
THAT is how it should be ruled, IMO.
Tim-
Men can ride on those buses and women can ride on those other buses. Men can eat in those restaurants and women can eat in those other restaurants. Men can shop in those stores and women can shop in those other stores. Same criterian, same discrimination.
Yeah except that isn't case, nice try.
Any other fake scenarios you wish to push?
Tim-
Yeah except that isn't case, nice try.
Any other fake scenarios you wish to push?
Tim-
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?