Please read further in the thread. Perhaps then you can explain what you’re trying to accomplish by banging on about fundamental rights.
Legally and morally irrelevant. See also “separate but equal.”
What an odd thing to say. Anyway when you’ve read a few more posts, let me know what you’re on about.
Sure.
Really?
I would certainly appreciate it if you’d review the thread and note how many times various posters have denigrated me.
They claim I cannot properly use the language, that I am incoherent and so forth.
jsgoddess and Marley are the main people to do this.
Antinor and Not Really All That Bright are the only two presently participating that for sure are not doing this.
Marley continues to talk about my qualifications, with no problem, but I can’t in turn say he is uneducated in the subject?
jsgodess thinks it is a debating tool to say my posts are worthless.
Please also rebuke these posters, as I have done no more than they.
You did not mention either of these cases in your responses to me.
Jones exactly matches my remarks regarding Baker: it was a challenge issued to then current law that was set aside before society, as a whole, had given any consideration to the possibility of marriage conveying a same sex meaning.
Anonymous v Anonymous is set prior to even Baker, but is complicated by its involvement of fraud and transgender issues. It actually comes closest to what you have claimed, although it still falls far short of the “lots of” citations you claimed to have available.
Your cites will be about some reporter’s opinion. Polls do not make law. You need to cite also how any of that would matter. The one things that matters is whether the people will allow it. Since they won’t your citation is nothing.
Nothing more than attempts to get our opinions to change, I am not swayed by your citation of propaganda.
You have claimed that a fundamental right comes from the EP clause, and until you acknowledge you were wrong, I believe you should be ignored as well. You have amply proven you cannot back up what you say and then dance around denying you made claims.
U have no point in “Huh-uh vs Uh-huh” one of the few correct things TomnDebb has said.
You have nothing if the meaning of marriage has not shifted in the voting booth but an empty claim.
No. What you are doing is pretending that the change of meaning of a word that has occurred across the entire spectrum of the English speaking world has no relevance. You are also deliberately mischaracterizing the views of a majority of U.S. citizens as indicated by Gallup, Pew, and others as “a handful of opinions.”
I have not claimed that U.S. law has changed. I have not appealed to New Zealand court cases. I have noted that one argument employed by the courts in Anonymous, Baker, and Jones has been undermined by the way that language has changed. I made no claim that the laws have changed, but claiming that “marriage is defined as one man and one woman” is no longer a valid argument since that is no longer a true statement.
In the same post I proferred Baker, I did.
it is high time that you confess you’re not reading carefully enough to attribute failure to me.
Go ahead and admit it–you were wrong about “one case.”
See my post # 128
Nope.
You were told that opinions about marriage are changing. Nothing could be more obvious, but you asked for a cite. These polls are a useful citation for that claim. Now you appear to have forgotten what we were talking about. I’m having a lot of trouble taking this at face value.
You’re appealing to New Zealand public opinion.
It does not matter what a national view is. marriage is a state by state matter and accordingly, “whose opinion’” that the meaning of marriage has changed is state by state. The opinions of people in Massachusetts are not relevant to the opinions of people in Missouri.
Ignored until you play fair by admitting you made a claim that the 14th amendment creates a fundamental right to SSM and are wrong.
It does, and the courts are in the process of recognizing it. You’re not going to escape that by failing to engage. However this will allow me to win the argument without having to read your posts, and most of the other people in this thread aren’t so lucky.
The Equal Protection Clause commands that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision creates no substantive rights.San Antonio Independent School Dist.v.Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1, 33 (1973);id., at 59 Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S.
793, (1997).
“The lesson of these cases in addressing the question now before the Court is plain. It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. Thus, the key to discovering whether education is “fundamental” is not to be found in comparisons of the relative societal significance of education, as opposed to subsistence or housing. Nor is it to be found by weighing whether education is as important as the right to travel. Rather, the answer lies in assessing whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.[p34]Eisenstadt v. Baird,405 U.S. 438(1972);[n73]Dunn v. Blumstein,405 U.S 330(1972);[n74]Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley,408 U.S. 92 (197) ; [n75] Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U.S. 535(1942).[n76][p35]” San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez,411 U. S. 1,411 U. S. 33(1973)
You’re right because you didn’t read my posts?
What a joke.
You’ve already copied and pasted that opinion. No new rights are required here, so it’s irrelevant.
Nope. I mentioned New Zealand because you singled them out to huff that we don’t base our law on other countries’ laws.
My references to opinions changing encompass the entire breadth of the English speaking world (with a fair number of non-English speaking lands).
Not really. In Law each state may decide the application of language for itself. I explicitly said that l did not think that U.S. law had changed.
What I noted was that the English language is currently changing in that regard and decisions similar to Anonymous, Baker, and Jones would not be able to rely on what was commonly understood because what is commonly understood has changed.
You may stick your head in the sand and pretend that the word marriage has some unalterable meaning that will be the same in 2114 that it was in 1914, but you will be wrong if you do. You may also pretend that the meaning that is understood in society is determined by the courts, in which case you might want to move to France where they actually have the (very unsuccessful) L’Académie française. Yes, the courts will define how a word is used in Law, but if a term comes to have a new meaning in society, I doubt that the justices are going to refuse to recognize the change.
And if you think that the meaning of “marriage” in society is not changing, (with ever growing speed), then you are simply not paying attention.
You said that the right came from the 14th amendment.
It’s already been asked and you’ve already answered. That answer was wrong.
So what is your new contention for a source of this right?
You proffered the Oregon case to prove there is a fundamental right, too, and that failed your claim.
next you’ll say the right comes from somewhere else. and then when I prove that wrong, too, you will point to your wiggly language and say you didn’t say that, and it’s really something else.
Fact is, you’re desperately searching to support your opinion, and cannot do it.
As to Marriage in Missouri, no public opinion is relevant except Missouri’s, or tell me why people in the entire English speaking world get to tell Missouri what to do for an area that is exclusively Missouri’s province? I get that you are denying having said this–but what then is the relevance? Missouri doesn’t have its own dictionaries?
And what is to keep public opinion from shifting back?
There was enough popular support for prohibition to make a constitutional amendment, but then they changed their minds. Will that matter?
I do not doubt that there is a change going on. My points are about why the opinions of those in New York matter to Nebraska law.
Or are you claiming that the right is created because the dictionary changed definitions?
Nor do I care if some article writer says opinions have changed. Polls, yes, can prove that–but do your polls break it down state by state?
I don’t think this is going to help, but David42 saying something is wrong does not mean it’s wrong (for the rest of the world).
This is ironic given the frantic tapdancing you are doing about the public opinion question.
No, you’re trying to tell us Marley is right and the Supreme Court is wrong. This is called denial.
And you go back and forth on it. First you claim that the EP clause created it, then you told us it didn’t because it’s not a new right to be created, then you tell us that I’m wrong after all, even though I showed I am standing on the Supreme Court’s opinion, and not mine.
Why don’t you fully explain your position, as to the source of the right and why I’m wrong, and not wrong because you have no respect for anything I show you?
It’s actually called a difference of opinion. However it will be fun for everybody to bookmark this post and look back it if the court overturns state bans on same-sex marriage in a couple of years.