How Data Helped Win The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage

[WCH]

That is not objective evidence. It is your opinion.

I said you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around it.

 

[WCH]

There is nothing to support any of his argument. Some people are against it because they think it upsets their god. And they will attempt any effort to justify it. Up to and including blaming the fall of the Roman empire on homosexuality.

These people are simply out of touch with reality.

No, out of touch with YOUR reality.

You are never going to convince me of anything using PC coercion. It's getting pretty stale on lots of folks.

 

[AGENT J]

No, out of touch with YOUR reality.

You are never going to convince me of anything using PC coercion. It's getting pretty stale on lots of folks.

Nobody cares about convincing you of anything. In the US you are free to have your factually wrong, bigoted and or hateful views. :shrug: They dont matter, their meaningless.. Equal rights are winning, the country is better for it and that will continue.

 

[Gathomas88]

But I didn't mean that. I meant polyamory. When you got into your thing about all polyamorous relationships supposedly being open, or hierarchical, I specified variations that are not. Again, learn words.

In the vast majority of circumstances - particularly with regard to the gay community - "polyamory" refers to open relationships, not these freaky "quad" or "tri" arrangements you're talking about. That's what people are going to assume you mean when you use the word as such. At best, you were sloppy in your language. At worst, you're being dishonest here, because you really should have realized the above.

This does not prove this is how all gay relationships function. It proves that some do. But we knew that, and furthermore, they seem to be doing it right. Straight or gay, non-monogamous relationships are significantly happier ones.

Again, in other words, you were lamenting the fact that homosexuals have had to reign their more controversial behaviors in a bit to be made publicly acceptable, because you'd much rather see heterosexuals learn to let their own "freak flags fly" instead. :roll:

i.e. You would have preferred that we basically use the LGBT movement as a trojan horse to introduce your own, subjective, ideas regarding what you feel to be best in relationships. That simply happens to include non-monogamous and non-fidelous arrangements.

Should be no limits? It's not a question of what there should be. It's a question of the reality that there are factually only so many hours in a day. It's not a should/shouldn't. It's just reality, like the fact that humans don't have wings.

So, no, it's not valid, because the mechanisms of reality prevent it from ever happening.

Because sex cults, radical Mormons, and people like the Duggar family just don't exist, apparently? :screwy

Even were that not the case, the answer is the same for all the other examples you gave: these are one-off oddities, not things that any significant number of people will ever even try.

Neither is "Polyamory," "Polyfidelity," or whatever else you want to call it. These are, generally speaking, arrangements fit only for a tiny minority of freaks and weirdos, who want to go deliberately out of their way to be different, more often than not.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some rather severe legal ramifications to trying to normalize their lifestyles under marriage law.

Biology says it's not deviant. Statistics plays no part in it -- just because something is uncommon doesn't make it deviant. Being gay is about as common as being redheaded. Are redheads "deviant"?

Everything is a combination of genetic and environmental factors, dude. Literally everything. Including everything about you. But you're "normal," right?

Why? Because at worst, it hurts nothing, and at best, it makes people happy. That's why. And why should things be considered bad when they don't cause any bad effects on anything, anywhere, to anyone? No definition in any field of science calls for the correction of harmless things. Not biology, not psychology, not anything else. So why should it be considered deviant?

Because it scares you? Get over it.

First off, red hair is a racial trait associated primarily with Northern Europeans of Celtic descent. It's most common where those populations are most heavily concentrated for that exactly reason. It's not exactly the same thing as homosexuality.

Secondly, by your logic, there's nothing "deviant" about things like color blindness, dwarfism, autism, congenital blindness, down syndrome, or even pedophilia either. The only reason why homosexuality is considered "harmless," where all the rest of these are rightfully considered to be disorders, is because - as a society - we've decided to redefine our notion of "harm" to be more amenable to homosexual persons.

By all rights, the simple fact that homosexuals have a pathological attraction to non-productive sex, and are almost incapable of enjoying conventional sexual endeavors, could be viewed as being a form of self-"harm." Traditionally, that was the case. There was really nothing "scientifically" wrong with that view either. Again, it is simply the culture and the value judgments which surround it that have changed, not the facts.

The unfortunate reality of the situation is that if they can change for homosexuality, they can just as easily change for pedophilia. There have been a number of cultures over the centuries, in point of fact, who have openly embrace pedophilia.

That's the whole problem of the modern view of this issue in a nutshell. It's reliant primarily upon moral and cultural relativism to make these kinds of judgments of right and wrong. The whole point of a "relativist" standard is that there really is no standard at all.

 

[matchlight]

An arbitrary, whimsical dictate by five judges forced thirty-nine of the fifty states to redefine marriage, against the will of majorities in those states. Obergefell was a flagrantly undemocratic abuse of power, and it deserves no respect in a free country. It is an insult to the concept of self-rule this nation was founded on. What the efforts of someone or other at presenting homosexual marriage in an appealing guise may have achieved here or there does not mean a damned thing.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)An arbitrary, whimsical dictate by five judges forced thirty-nine of the fifty states to redefine marriage, against the will of majorities in those states.
2.)Obergefell was a flagrantly undemocratic abuse of power,
3.) and it deserves no respect in a free country.
4.) It is an insult to the concept of self-rule this nation was founded on.
5.) What the efforts of someone or other at presenting homosexual marriage in an appealing guise may have achieved here or there does not mean a damned thing.

1.) actually a logical, sound, very educated decision based on rights protected marriage and equal rights. Marriage was not redefined but please keep repeating that failed lie lol
2.) based on what? oh thats right your unsupportable opinion and nothing more.
3.) actually the people in this country that understand and want to protect freedom and rights totally respect it
4.) Wrong again it actually increases it since the state was trying to illegally stomp on individual rights
5.) More meaningless opinion since in reality it means MORE freedom was achieved and MORE equal rights are now protected.
Your post fails again

WHat is also means is that the minority that share your bigoted, anti-rights and hateful views are angry.

 

[AGENT J]

Whats the fastest way to not be taken seriously and completely lose a discussion regarding equal rights/SSM. Bring up bestiality and or pedophilia :lamo

 

[ocean515]

Nobody cares about convincing you of anything. In the US you are free to have your factually wrong, bigoted and or hateful views. :shrug: They dont matter, their meaningless.. Equal rights are winning, the country is better for it and that will continue.

My goodness AgentJ. You've vaporized the theory of the thread in about 50 words.

Data had nothing to do with the spread of SSM laws. It was the threat of personal/professional destruction.

 

[matchlight]

I hadn't realized that membership in DP came with a requirement to provide tutorials to those who don't comprehend simple English.

Your post above is a clear enunciation of your liberal philosophy. You're welcome to it. The fact you consider anyone who doesn't carry your same philosophical values is wrong, further embeds you in liberal ideology.

To help, and for the last time, I'll try to make it clear and simple.

1. There's no constitutional right to be married.

2. There is no need for government to sanction marriage.

3. Government sanctions marriage for the purpose of picking winners and losers in the realm of taxation and provision of benefits.

4. There is a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law.

5. As a result of government intrusion into marriage, government must sanction all forms of marriage in order to treat citizens equally under the law. Without the intrusion, there's no inequality.

6. Two people living together and raising a child or children are treated one way by government via taxation and provision of benefits if they acquire the government sanctioned piece of paper, a marriage license, and another way if they fail to acquire that piece of paper yet each can and do provide the same to society. That's the government picking winners and losers by intruding into the daily lives of citizens.

My point, in conclusion, is that if the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage there would be no government unequal treatment under the law. I have stated that since government indulges in that intrusion, SSM must be sanctioned by that same government. However, that doesn't make marriage, of and by itself a right, constitutional or otherwise.

Obergefell is not an equal protection case. Anthony Kennedy disingenuously tacked on a bit of vague, incoherent prattle about equal protection after already having decided the issue on substantive due process grounds. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his dissent, doing that flatly violates one of the Court's longstanding rules.

Obergefell has nothing whatever to do with due process or the Fourteenth Amendment. It is purely a matter of five judges undemocratically and illegitimately imposing their personal preference for homosexual marriage on majorities in thirty-nine of the fifty states. Every one of those states should feel free to ignore the decision. And if any states does, the next president should feel free to let it, just as President Lincoln declined to enforce the Dred Scott decision.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

In the vast majority of circumstances - particularly with regard to the gay community - "polyamory" refers to open relationships, not these freaky "quad" or "tri" arrangements you're talking about. That's what people are going to assume you mean when you use the word as such. At best, you were sloppy in your language. At worst, you're being dishonest here, because you really should have realized the above.

Again, in other words, you were lamenting the fact that homosexuals have had to reign their more controversial behaviors in a bit to be made publicly acceptable, because you'd much rather see heterosexuals learn to let their own "freak flags fly" instead. :roll:

i.e. You would have preferred that we basically use the LGBT movement as a trojan horse to introduce your own, subjective, ideas regarding what you feel to be best in relationships. That simply happens to include non-monogamous and non-fidelous arrangements.



Because sex cults, radical Mormons, and people like the Duggar family just don't exist, apparently? :screwy

Neither is "Polyamory," "Polyfidelity," or whatever else you want to call it. These are, generally speaking, arrangements fit only for a tiny minority of freaks and weirdos, who want to go deliberately out of their way to be different, more often than not.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some rather severe legal ramifications to trying to normalize their lifestyles under marriage law.

First off, red hair is a racial trait associated primarily with Northern Europeans of Celtic descent. It's most common where those populations are most heavily concentrated for that exactly reason. It's not exactly the same thing as homosexuality.

Secondly, by your logic, there's nothing "deviant" about things like color blindness, dwarfism, autism, congenital blindness, down syndrome, or even pedophilia either. The only reason why homosexuality is considered "harmless," where all the rest of these are rightfully considered to be disorders, is because - as a society - we've decided to redefine our notion of "harm" to be more amenable to homosexual persons.

By all rights, the simple fact that homosexuals have a pathological attraction to non-productive sex, and are almost incapable of enjoying conventional sexual endeavors, could be viewed as being a form of self-"harm." Traditionally, that was the case. There was really nothing "scientifically" wrong with that view either. Again, it is simply the culture and the value judgments which surround it that have changed, not the facts...

No, it doesn't. "Open relationship" refers to an open relationship. "Polyamory" refers to polyamory. They are different things.

And at any rate, in this context -- the one about legalities -- that mostly is what I'm referring to, since these are the types of situations people usually build homes around.

You refuse to understand the meaning of these two words, and I am the one who is sloppy with language? Oookay then.

Convenient how you deleted the paragraph in which I explain why I think this happiness difference exists, which has nothing to do with non-monogamy itself, but rather the attitude of people like you, which keeps people in unhappy arrangements. I'll take that as an admission of defeat on this point.

The legal ramifications are no more severe than those that sometimes befall a blended family that has become so by remarriage. Happens all the time. But somehow it's different simply because you think these people are "freaks."

Red hair actually exists in a variety of races. The reason it appears more in white people is actually lack of genetic diversity, relative to most other races. But your biological ignorance aside...

My argument is simply that you can't call something deviant simply because it is minority. Color blindness, dwarfism, et al each have distinct disadvantages to the individual. Homosexuality has none.

No one "redefined" harm. Harm means harm. Causes hurt, or hardship, or impairment. No matter how many ways you twist the word, there is no harm to anyone from homosexuality, the sociopathic attacks of bigots in the Abrahamic societies not withstanding.

Why would it be harmful for them to have happy and fulfilling romantic and sexual lives, with someone of the same sex? Hell, apparently they're capable of being even happier couples and even better parents than many straight couples.

There's everything scientifically wrong with your view. There is no harm. So how is it harmful?

There is nothing "relativistic" about observing the fact that gay people being happy hurts no one. Just your own prejudice, which science neither does nor should care about.

Equally, I have also ceased the care. But your neurotic obsession with sex, spiralling from a post I made which contained no mention of it whatsoever, is noted.

 

[AGENT J]

My goodness AgentJ. You've vaporized the theory of the thread in about 50 words.

Data had nothing to do with the spread of SSM laws. It was the threat of personal/professional destruction.

Sorry nobody educated honest and objective believes that unsupportable illogical mentally inane fantasy. Its hilarious though. tell us another :lamo

What actually and FACTUALLY helped equal rights win are people that share your views makign laws AGAINST equal rights and stepping on the rights of others. Those rights violations and gross displays of inequality and bigotry gave people a legal path to take. It also helped educate people to the unjust acts that were going on so it was simple growth of education/awareness and the growing support for equal rights allowed the discrimination against SSM to end.

I personally LOVE the irony that the bigots and anti-rights people were actually played the biggest role in making thier worst nightmare come true.

The best part is that they continue to do it! Its awesome

Thank you by the way!

 

[AGENT J]

Obergefell is not an equal protection case. Anthony Kennedy disingenuously tacked on a bit of vague, incoherent prattle about equal protection after already having decided the issue on substantive due process grounds. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his dissent, doing that flatly violates one of the Court's longstanding rules.

Obergefell has nothing whatever to do with due process or the Fourteenth Amendment. It is purely a matter of five judges undemocratically and illegitimately imposing their personal preference for homosexual marriage on majorities in thirty-nine of the fifty states. Every one of those states should feel free to ignore the decision. And if any states does, the next president should feel free to let it, just as President Lincoln declined to enforce the Dred Scott decision.

Facts, precedence, laws, the constitution, rights and the ruling itself all disagree with your unsupportable opinion. But you are free to have your wrong opinion. Luckily for this great country its meaningless and equal rights won.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Obergefell is not an equal protection case. Anthony Kennedy disingenuously tacked on a bit of vague, incoherent prattle about equal protection after already having decided the issue on substantive due process grounds. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his dissent, doing that flatly violates one of the Court's longstanding rules.

Obergefell has nothing whatever to do with due process or the Fourteenth Amendment. It is purely a matter of five judges undemocratically and illegitimately imposing their personal preference for homosexual marriage on majorities in thirty-nine of the fifty states. Every one of those states should feel free to ignore the decision. And if any states does, the next president should feel free to let it, just as President Lincoln declined to enforce the Dred Scott decision.

I wasn't speaking to the court's ruling per se but to the principle of government intrusion in the individual lives of its citizenry and how that can complicate equal protection under the law. The court, in this case, clearly fabricated a right that doesn't seem to exist in and of itself, but it also at the same time seems to fabricate a right to heterosexual marriage as well and determines that they must be treated as equals. On that basis, the ruling isn't illogical - it's just not technically legal. This is what happens when governments and courts get too deep into the social weeds.

 

[matchlight]

Facts, precedence, laws, the constitution, rights and the ruling itself all disagree with your unsupportable opinion. But you are free to have your wrong opinion. Luckily for this great country its meaningless and equal rights won.

That is your opinion, and nothing more. But you are free to hold it.

 

[AGENT J]

That is your opinion, and nothing more. But you are free to hold it.

Wrong again LMAO. Facts, precedence, laws, the constitution, rights and the ruling itself all go against you
You can deny it all you want theres not one single thing you can present that factually proves otherwise.
In fact PLEASE keep denying it because its very telling and very entertaining. Maybe one day somebody honest, educated and objective will buy the irrational and dishonest theory of rouge judges (40+) and that decided 25+ cases but I doubt it

 

[Kal'Stang]

The homosexual agenda made those young people feel like outcasts from society if they didn't go along. Don't make it sound innocent...it was forced coercion.

You mean the homosexual agenda perpetrated by those that are against homosexuality? The ones that for centuries made homosexuals "hide in closets" and not reveal that they were homosexual for fear of breaking some law or getting the crap beat out of them? (which happened quite often btw) Yeah, that was coercion... among other things.

If on the other hand you're talking about the "homosexual agenda" to let people know that homosexual couples have the same type of love and commitment as any heterosexual couple then I see nothing wrong or coercive about telling the truth.

 

[ocean515]

Sorry nobody educated honest and objective believes that unsupportable illogical mentally inane fantasy. Its hilarious though. tell us another :lamo

What actually and FACTUALLY helped equal rights win are people that share your views makign laws AGAINST equal rights and stepping on the rights of others. Those rights violations and gross displays of inequality and bigotry gave people a legal path to take. It also helped educate people to the unjust acts that were going on so it was simple growth of education/awareness and the growing support for equal rights allowed the discrimination against SSM to end.

I personally LOVE the irony that the bigots and anti-rights people were actually played the biggest role in making thier worst nightmare come true.

The best part is that they continue to do it! Its awesome

Thank you by the way!

:applaud

Please prove the point more. Not that it is necessary, but proof is proof.

 

[AGENT J]

:applaud

Please prove the point more. Not that it is necessary, but proof is proof.

Translation: you got nothing and your post gets destroyed and fails again LMAO
thanks!

 

[Gathomas88]

No, it doesn't. "Open relationship" refers to an open relationship. "Polyamory" refers to polyamory. They are different things.

"Open relationship" is not a technical term. You of all people should realize that.

"Open relationships" are classified as polyamory, and the most common form of it at that. The whole purpose of the word is to denote being in "love" (or, at the very least, having sex) with multiple persons, without specifying what, if anything, that means in terms of commitment. Usually, that's because there really is no such commitment to talk about.

And at any rate, in this context -- the one about legalities -- that mostly is what I'm referring to, since these are the types of situations people usually build homes around.

Which doesn't make any damn sense, as I already pointed out. The kind of "polyamory" the gay community is most known for has nothing to do with "group marriage" which could further the legal cause you're talking about. It is, rather, more akin to "swinging." Greater acceptance of that would be a socio-cultural change, not a legal one.

Convenient how you deleted the paragraph in which I explain why I think this happiness difference exists, which has nothing to do with non-monogamy itself, but rather the attitude of people like you, which keeps people in unhappy arrangements. I'll take that as an admission of defeat on this point.

A) I was over the character limit.

B) Again, I don't think it's any sort of coincidence that so much of the cultural Left's view of both what's supposedly "wrong" with society, and the best manner in which to "fix" it, almost always goes back to the idea that "people need to be having more sex," or "more people need to be having sex in the deviant way I support," while simultaneously tearing down the idea of monogamy or sexual restraint being in any way desirable or beneficial. That element of ideological thought was absolutely present in your post, and has been present in a great many of your other posts on this board.

I simply thought it was interesting because you were basically admitting to something which most Left Wing posters vehemently try to deny.

The legal ramifications are no more severe than those that sometimes befall a blended family that has become so by remarriage. Happens all the time. But somehow it's different simply because you think these people are "freaks."

A lot of them are rather freaky, thank you very much.

Secondly, as I already pointed out, you'd simply be leaving the door wide open for even worse freaks to exploit the system.

Red hair actually exists in a variety of races. The reason it appears more in white people is actually lack of genetic diversity, relative to most other races. But your biological ignorance aside...

Red hair, like blonde hair, is virtually unknown outside of Northern/Western Europe and the surrounding area, or where Northern/Western European peoples have settled and mixed with the natives. Again, it's an ethnic trait, hence why it is far, far more common in some populations, all concentrated in the same area, than in others.

That's not the same thing as homosexuality, which is pretty much always an anomalous minority condition which tends to remain around the same size in all civilized populations.

My argument is simply that you can't call something deviant simply because it is minority. Color blindness, dwarfism, et al each have distinct disadvantages to the individual. Homosexuality has none.

Which is again, subjective. By your logic, one could just as easily argue that there is no inherent "harm" to colorblindness, and that the difficulties faced by colorblind persons are due only to the "discrimination" of a society which insists on depicting things and writing signs in colors which this minority group will struggle to differentiate.

Going back to pedophilia, the only reason that's considered to be "harmful" isn't even related to the individual, but the persons they interact with.

I'm sorry, but this whole way of looking at the issue is simply ass backwards. All of these things should be considered to be negative simply because they deviate from the human norm in anomalous and non-beneficial ways that clearly derive more from random chance or genetic misfires than from any productive purpose. The way we're doing things now is tantamount to just arbitrarily picking and choosing based on our own cultural preferences.

Equally, I have also ceased the care.

Bet you still respond. lol

 

[nota bene]

I hadn't realized that membership in DP came with a requirement to provide tutorials to those who don't comprehend simple English.

Your post above is a clear enunciation of your liberal philosophy. You're welcome to it. The fact you consider anyone who doesn't carry your same philosophical values is wrong, further embeds you in liberal ideology.

To help, and for the last time, I'll try to make it clear and simple.

1. There's no constitutional right to be married.

2. There is no need for government to sanction marriage.

3. Government sanctions marriage for the purpose of picking winners and losers in the realm of taxation and provision of benefits.

4. There is a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law.

5. As a result of government intrusion into marriage, government must sanction all forms of marriage in order to treat citizens equally under the law. Without the intrusion, there's no inequality.

6. Two people living together and raising a child or children are treated one way by government via taxation and provision of benefits if they acquire the government sanctioned piece of paper, a marriage license, and another way if they fail to acquire that piece of paper yet each can and do provide the same to society. That's the government picking winners and losers by intruding into the daily lives of citizens.

My point, in conclusion, is that if the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage there would be no government unequal treatment under the law. I have stated that since government indulges in that intrusion, SSM must be sanctioned by that same government. However, that doesn't make marriage, of and by itself a right, constitutional or otherwise.

Thanks for this thoughtful post. I hadn't thought about the notion of government picking and choosing winners and losers, and it's something to think about.

 

[matchlight]

I wasn't speaking to the court's ruling per se but to the principle of government intrusion in the individual lives of its citizenry and how that can complicate equal protection under the law. The court, in this case, clearly fabricated a right that doesn't seem to exist in and of itself, but it also at the same time seems to fabricate a right to heterosexual marriage as well and determines that they must be treated as equals. On that basis, the ruling isn't illogical - it's just not technically legal. This is what happens when governments and courts get too deep into the social weeds.

Certainly the Court concocted a "right." And certainly it is not the business of courts to make policy. But the majority in Obergefell in no way fabricated the right of one man and one woman to marry each other. The Court has made clear at least since the 1920's that that right is one of a select group of rights it recognizes as fundamental. Some rights are so basic that the Court assumes most people at the time of the founding would have taken them for granted, and therefore seen no need to mention them in the Constitution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "illogical" and "legal" here, but the majority's decree in Obergefell is not based on legal reasoning. It is an undemocratic abuse of power, and because it is arbitrary and irrational, it is not legitimate--not law at all. I hope the next president will make it a nullity by declining to enforce it.

Anyone who imagines that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to guarantee the right of homosexuals to marry each other is willfully blind. Justice Thomas' dissent brilliantly analyzes what due process has meant, from its origins in Magna Carta to the Fifth Amendment in 1791 to the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It makes absolutely clear--in a way that is all the more devastating for being so civil and understated--that the majority decision is a concocted farce. Substantive due process is a notorious doctrine that the Court itself has openly regretted applying so often in the early 1900's. And yet the Court saw fit to rely on it in both Roe and Obergefell, just as it had in Lochner in 1905.

 

[matchlight]

Wrong again LMAO. Facts, precedence, laws, the constitution, rights and the ruling itself all go against you
You can deny it all you want theres not one single thing you can present that factually proves otherwise.
In fact PLEASE keep denying it because its very telling and very entertaining. Maybe one day somebody honest, educated and objective will buy the irrational and dishonest theory of rouge judges (40+) and that decided 25+ cases but I doubt it

I see you are hiding behind vagueness again. You are afraid to try to debate the issues of constitutional law with me in detail, and you have good reason to be.

 

[AGENT J]

I see you are hiding behind vagueness again. You are afraid to try to debate the issues of constitutional law with me in detail, and you have good reason to be.

Translation:you got nothing but deflections, Thats what I thought LOL

 

[CanadaJohn]

Certainly the Court concocted a "right." And certainly it is not the business of courts to make policy. But the majority in Obergefell in no way fabricated the right of one man and one woman to marry each other. The Court has made clear at least since the 1920's that that right is one of a select group of rights it recognizes as fundamental. Some rights are so basic that the Court assumes most people at the time of the founding would have taken them for granted, and therefore seen no need to mention them in the Constitution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "illogical" and "legal" here, but the majority's decree in Obergefell is not based on legal reasoning. It is an undemocratic abuse of power, and because it is arbitrary and irrational, it is not legitimate--not law at all. I hope the next president will make it a nullity by declining to enforce it.

Anyone who imagines that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to guarantee the right of homosexuals to marry each other is willfully blind. Justice Thomas' dissent brilliantly analyzes what due process has meant, from its origins in Magna Carta to the Fifth Amendment in 1791 to the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It makes absolutely clear--in a way that is all the more devastating for being so civil and understated--that the majority decision is a concocted farce. Substantive due process is a notorious doctrine that the Court itself has openly regretted applying so often in the early 1900's. And yet the Court saw fit to rely on it in both Roe and Obergefell, just as it had in Lochner in 1905.

My point is, even if the court previously identified the marriage of one man and one woman as a right, that was a fabrication at that time and not a natural right or one established under the constitution. It is illogical to claim that a man has a right to marry a woman and/or vice versa. They may have a right to have their agreed upon marriage contract be acknowledged and accepted by the government and the courts, but the ability to marry is not a right. It becomes a right that needs to be upheld and expanded because government bases laws and programs on the basis of a piece of paper they issue. Had they not established such laws and programs, the courts would not have had to consider SSM as a right.

 

[Absentglare]

I hadn't realized that membership in DP came with a requirement to provide tutorials to those who don't comprehend simple English.

Your post above is a clear enunciation of your liberal philosophy. You're welcome to it. The fact you consider anyone who doesn't carry your same philosophical values is wrong, further embeds you in liberal ideology.

To help, and for the last time, I'll try to make it clear and simple.

1. There's no constitutional right to be married.

2. There is no need for government to sanction marriage.

3. Government sanctions marriage for the purpose of picking winners and losers in the realm of taxation and provision of benefits.

4. There is a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law.

5. As a result of government intrusion into marriage, government must sanction all forms of marriage in order to treat citizens equally under the law. Without the intrusion, there's no inequality.

6. Two people living together and raising a child or children are treated one way by government via taxation and provision of benefits if they acquire the government sanctioned piece of paper, a marriage license, and another way if they fail to acquire that piece of paper yet each can and do provide the same to society. That's the government picking winners and losers by intruding into the daily lives of citizens.

My point, in conclusion, is that if the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage there would be no government unequal treatment under the law. I have stated that since government indulges in that intrusion, SSM must be sanctioned by that same government. However, that doesn't make marriage, of and by itself a right, constitutional or otherwise.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

1. There is a constitutional right to not be discriminated against due to gender. See the SCOTUS decision.

2. Yes there is. See the SCOTUS decision.

3. No it doesn't. It needs to recognize the relationship for all kinds of things like power of attorney. Over 1,000 federal statutes take into account marital status.

4. Yes.

5. That doesn't make sense. Any pairing of consenting adults is valid. That's equality.

6. That doesn't make sense. The government uses the tax code to incentivize good behavior. You can't say that that's generally good nor generally bad, it depends on the specific aspect.

The idea that marriage shouldn't be acknowledged by the government doesn't make sense. What about your estate when you die ? What about end of life decisions when your family wants to keep you alive but your spouse wants to pull the plug ? Fact is, government MUST be able to acknowledge marriage. Things like social security and immigration absolutely must recognize marriage.