Marriage is a constitutional right and not for the purpose of procreation

[Sexyeccentric1]

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20120510/OPINION03/305100027/Marriage-right-under-U-S-Constitution?odyssey=nav|head

On Wednesday, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to say he supported same-sex marriage.
In an interview with ABC News, Obama was clear that he wasn’t just talking about civil unions. (He already said he supported such unions as a means of granting gay and lesbian couples many of the rights and privileges extended automatically to heterosexual married couples.)
But Obama, unfortunately, was equally clear that he was speaking from his own personal conviction and that he still believes the broader policy/political question is best left for the individual states to answer.
We’re glad the president, after completing his personal “evolution” on this question, has come to the conclusion that gay and lesbian citizens deserve the right to marry rather than be forced to settle for some second-class, civil union status. But we disagree with Obama’s conclusion that the question of such a basic civil right is best left to the states to decide individually.


After all, none of the main arguments against marriage equality can pass constitutional muster.


• Argument No. 1:
“Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron because “marriage” is by definition a relationship between one man and one woman. Besides belittling the main issues at the heart of case, such a semantic trick also ignores the history of sexual and gender discrimination faced by same-sex couples and their children.
• Argument No. 2:
It’s in the government’s interest to ensure that children are raised in the healthiest environment possible, i.e. a dual-gender, two-parent household. Even if state or federal governments could prove that a dual-gender, two-parent household is the most ideal environment for raising a child, such a fact doesn’t make a case against denying same-sex parents the right to marry.
• Argument No. 3:
If the government were to recognize same-sex marriage, it would undermine “procreation” as being the central component of what defines marriage. Such a statement seems far more culturally than constitutionally based. And, as such, it’s time to recognize that we as a society have come to the conclusion that the basis of marriage is not procreation, but the relationship between the couple seeking to be married. It is that relationship that some couples want to develop and grow by having children — either through biological means, adoption or artificial insemination. But there are many couples — dual-gender and same-sex — who, for a number of reasons, decide to marry despite the fact that they will never procreate.


We’re glad that, three years ago, the Iowa Supreme Court saw through the weakness of such arguments and ruled that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act violated the equal protection and due process features of the Iowa Constitution. That ruling extended our state’s long tradition of recognizing the rights and freedoms of its citizens. (And we opined Wednesday that the three former justices ousted as a result of that decision fully deserved their recent John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Awards.)


But that state supreme court ruling could be overturned, of course, if two consecutive General Assemblies and a majority of Iowans voted to amend the state constitution.

Like state bans on interracial marriages in the past, this is an issue that eventually needs to be settled on the federal level.

We’re glad the nation’s first multi-racial president has completed his personal “evolution” on this issue. And we’re proud that Iowa has proven ahead of the curve when it comes to recognizing civil rights for its gay and lesbian citizens.


But we’ll be even prouder when marriage equality is recognized as a basic civil right throughout the nation.

[joe bloe]

Yea right, I'm sure the founding fathers wanted men to be able to marry other men. That sounds like original intent to me. It's right in there with the "right" of women to kill their babies in the womb (or the birth canal); I'm sure the founders would have thought that was great idea too.

[Whirlaway]

It is NOT a semantic trick to define Marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The semantic trick is your use of the phrase "samantic trick" as some kind of proof to your point.

[Whirlaway]

Here we go; Obama said "leave it up to the States" but the G&L lobby won't be satisified until there is Federal action on their beloved destruction of marriage agenda.

[JD Barleycorn]

Apparently you don't understand by what a "right" is. You have a right to life (unless you haven't been officially born yet) but that does force anyone else to subsidize it. You have a right to free speech which does not force anyone to listen to it. You have a lot of rights but they don't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Gay marriage (which is an oxymoron) doesn't exist without violating the rules. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the laws of common sense. You can call someone tall all you want but if they only stand 5' 8" then it doesn't matter.

We are not talking civil rights either. Civil rights apply to everyone equally. A gay person can get married within the understanding of what marriage is. They can't marry someone of the same sex, an animal, or a sibling. They have the exact same freedom that a straight person has. What do we mean by straight anyway? We are NORMAL and the rest is deviance.

Care to show me where it is in the Constitution?

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes, I don't think there is a constitutional right to marry.

Marriage was designed to effectuate the transfer of property between generations. Since same sex couples can't produce offspring, it wasn't necessary for them to be able to marry.

But I don't care if they want to marry. Why should they be allowed to avoid the misery, er, I mean, why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the blessings of matrimony?

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, I don't think there is a constitutional right to marry.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?


Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

[i'va biggen]

I'll give you something to jump my shit for.

I am against gay's marrying,but support civil unions.
They should receive same bennies as married couples.

[Guest123018-4]

Who cares, not an issue, next.

[CuteOldGuy]

Oh, brother. Let them get married. It really won't make any difference.

[Guest123018-4]

I really dont give a fuck like I said it really isnt an issue except for the Democrats that sorely need something to deflect from the mess Obama has made.
Does anyone know if he is in country on vacation or out of country on vacation.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I really dont give a fuck like I said it really isnt an issue except for the Democrats that sorely need something to deflect from the mess Obama has made.
Does anyone know if he is in country on vacation or out of country on vacation.

Do you, T2DogknotLicking, mean how he screwed up fixing Bush's mess, starting with the Cheney-Haliburton-Brown&Root war deficit and continuing on through making it possible for the auto industry and surrounding businesses survive and thrive? Deflection? Hardly. It's pretty hard sometimes to be heard over all the noise you TPunks make covering up Cheney/Bush shit. It's amazing how much noise you Miss Kitty's make in the litter box.

[CuteOldGuy]

Boy, if Bush were running, you'd have a hell of an issue. But he's NOT! Get a clue, willya?

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Boy, if Bush were running, you'd have a hell of an issue. But he's NOT! Get a clue, willya?

Idiot, it's an issue regardless of who's running, especially since the Bush caused problems are now, somehow, the next guy's.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah. Go with that. You clowns are determined to keep Romney from losing.