Do I need to expand further? When women got the right to vote, men got nothing. Something was added only to one side of the scale….
I must be missing your point.
Without the right to marry, gays don't have a weight on the scale like straights do. By giving gays the right to marry, it balances the scale.
Hetero marriage stays the same..
Never ending referendums?
So you believe that Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote?
Mostly fine. For reasons I have stated in abundance in other threads, I do not believe sanctioning gay marriage is the right remedy, but, at first glance, I have no reason to question its constitutionality. Whether it is a good law will be seen over time.For all of the debaters who said the court system was the wrong way to this, now it is done the way you wanted it.
Are you fine with it?
I disagree with it "not being a civil rights" issue. Gays may not be an ethnic or racial minority, they are a different class of minority whose rights have been trampled on for centuries. You do not choose to be gay. It is not a lifestyle choice.
They should not be denied any of the rights enjoyed by others.
Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.
How did it change?
Loving vs. Virginia does deem marriage a right however. And that was a SCOTUS case.
Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.
lol, no, it has not. That's just absurd.
I'm trying to make a point. Even if you disagree with my point I need you to demonstrate that you understand what I'm saying so that I will then listen to what you have to say. While your posts are your own, communication between us is a team effort and I need your cooperation. Right now you're trying to make a point while I'm trying to make a point. I feel like you're basically interrupting and speaking while I'm speaking, and what I would like is to be understood and understand you in return. I would be more than happy to read your own analogy when I'm finished, but right now it's my turn.
***
My point on this thread concerns only the law, and nothing else. Heteros got the same civil right to marry someone of the same gender as gays did.
The scale being the 14th amendment and each wait being the actual civil right given to each side, neither side got anything more than the other side, legally. Each side got the same thing, so if marriage is equal now, it was equal then; if gay marriage was unequal then, it is unequal now.
I think you and I are beginning at very different places. I appears to me that you begin where there are distinctions between gay/striate, whereas I begin where there are only citizens per-se.
Wate...there are still 2 seporate institutions?
What did I mis?
?
How is a heterosexual marriage changed by virtue of gays being allowed to marry?
And 5 years later, the court held in Baker v. Nelson that Loving did not apply to gay marriage.
lol, no, it has not. That's just absurd.
There are certainly distinctions between gay/straight on an emotional and love level;..
Who's talking about "a heterosexual marriage"?
Not me.
We're talking about the legal institution of civil marriage, not any given marriage specifically.
Heteros can now marry someone of the same gender, that's the change I mentioned.
When you tell me that I'm wrong, you are saying that heteros can not marry someone of the same gender.
Baker v. Nelson was never heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, the Court has not actually "held" anything related to gay marriage. Because they denied hearing the case, it is a precedent for all other lower courts to follow.
There is evidence, though, that with the current make up of the Court, same-sex marriage will be approved. That was in Lawrence v. Texas and that occurred more recently than Baker v. Nelson.
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.
What in Lawrence makes you think the court will get involved, much less approve of it?.
I agree that the institution of marriage itself is different, but you said "Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed."
No. In California, the legislature, not only once, but twice passed gay marriage legislation, only to have it vetoed by our Republican Governor (who incidentally said the issue should be decided by the California Supreme Court).
Again, I don't see anything in the majority that indicates they think the same rationale would apply to marriage. O'Connor's concurrence was actually the broadest opinion in terms of application to a marriage case, and even she suggested that it would be possible for states to limit it.
I've argued with you about this before, and your position isn't that hard to understand. You've been saying for a long time that things are equal now because everyone (gay and straight) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, while nobody (gay or straight) has the right to marry someone of the same gender. It sounds logical and has a nice ring to it, but all you do is repeat it ad-nauseum. I've never seen you defend this argument when it comes under scrutiny.Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.
Exactly, O'Connor was the only one to sign onto that concurrence. The remaining 5 justices in the majority did not. They did, however, signed the majority that stated, "The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."
That could be evidence of what will happen if and when this Court is confronted with the issue.
But that opinion also indicated that it could not be used as a justification for forcing states to recognize gay marriage, because it explicitly distinguished it. O'Connors opinion looked at it on equal protection grounds, not due process, which is what gay rights advocates wished the majority had based their case on.
As of now, there are no justices on the court who have indicated that they would apply equal protection to this scenario, which is the only way it could happen.
Yes, the ruling cannot be used to force same-sex marriage on the States, but only because the ruling was not directly related to that issue.
As far as the majority explicitly distinguishing it, I'll need to see that. I do not remember anyone but O'Connor distinguishing the ruling from same-sex marriage. That concurring opinion was not part of what the other 5 justices signed on, suggesting that they did not agree.
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?