- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,826
- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Which is still better than having left it up to the states themselves, where it would have been longer, evidenced by the fact that segregation is still on the books in at least one state and interracial marriage bans were just removed from SC and Alabama constitution/laws around 15 years ago.
translation: once again your posts have been proven wrong and you choose to run away
par for the course
this wont stop me and many other posters from pointing out the failures in them LOL
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.It does if you are not related by blood. In that case, only things like marriage and adoption are acceptable and those require legal paperwork. Which, costs $$ unless you get it automatically thru marriage. It is the extra cost that is discriminatory.
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.It requires some form of documentation from the government, which is what the marriage license is.
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.
My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.
I don't support SSM, which is an aside from the issue I am posting about. I support SSU.
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?What other document establishes legal kinship for the myriad of laws that exist and do so for the $35.00 of a Civil Marriage license?
(And no Powers of Attorney do not establish legal kinship, the provide a legal proxy - something totally different).
>>>>
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?
Well, if they are so great, why didn't they get rid of it the first time it was before them?
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.
My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.
In other words, you got nuthin'. And you are just another that's fallen into the "Loving" trap and don't have what it takes to admit that you are wrong about it. Obviously, you need to ignore that "Loving" is completely different, because you want so very badly for it to fit your argument. But it's a case about race, not marriage, which I'm sure you know, not even that deep down, but... you... just... can't... face the truth. Carry on.
lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg
The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....
You are correct about Loving, although it's inconceivable that the court deciding that case would have had SSM in mind. And that's where the analogy breaks down, IMHO. The debate about SSM has been about whether there can be such a thing as SSM (which I favor, btw).
Doesn't matter whether or not they had it in mind. They set the precedent. Marriage is a right, and certain classifications are protected. Gender is one of them. Some level of constitutional scrutiny applies, and same-sex marriage bans don't pass any of them.
Re SSM bans, I agree and so does the SCOTUS. Otherwise, no. A decision about access to a traditional social convention cannot be a precedent for the validity of creating a new social convention.
Because people make mistakes? Why didn't our founding fathers get rid of slavery from the beginning or give women the right to vote from the very start of our country?
lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.
That is a bit more complicated than "people make mistakes." In this case, and many by the Federal courts, I'd have to call it more than a mistake. Actually, they had quite a while to work on it, so it's more like a colossal, egregious blunder. And that's the point I was making, that our Supreme Court has a history full of this, and will do so in the future.
Trying to narrow marriage into merely a "traditional social convention" is disingenuous. It is also a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. Decisions about those legal rights absolutely can carry future precedent.
You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.
All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.
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?