In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:37 PM
current federal law does not restrain any eligible american from marrying another eligible american. it is a red herring to suggest that it does. some people want to change the eligibility requirements. but the equal protection argument provides and invalid rationale for changing the eligibility requirements. that is because it accepts the concept that the government can create the eligibility requirements for state sanctioned marriage. it begs the question, so to speak.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:43 PM
Eddie's argument was the same as that in the defense in the Supreme Court case of Loving V Virginia.

At the time, a black could marry a black and a white could marry a white. Virginia argued it was the same for everyone and anyone could marry.

Now some will say that was discrimination based on race not gender.

But choosing the consenting ADULT you wish to marry is a fundamental right.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:58 PM
loving invalidated a state law, not a federal law.

marry (marriage) is the applicable and relevant word in tisldr's p[ost. marry (marriage) has never, ever meant a relationship between members of the same sex. therefore, loving, which is about marrying has nothing to do with the discussion regarding the concept of changing the definition of marriage from being about a relationship between one man and one woman to being a relationship between two members of same sex who meet the other government imposed qualifications to be eligible to marry..

loving vs virginia is completely IRRELEVANT to the discussion of whether or not the definition should be changed. loving vs virginia did not change the definition of marriage.

eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:00 PM
marry (marriage) is the applicable and relevant word in tisldr's p[ost. marry (marriage) has never, ever meant a relationship between members of the same sex. therefore, loving, which is about marrying has nothing to do with the discussion regarding the concept of changing the definition of marriage from being about a relationship between one man and one woman to being a relationship between two members of same sex who meet the other government imposed qualifications to be eligible to marry..

loving vs virginia is completely IRRELEVANT to the discussion of whether or not the definition should be changed. loving vs virginia did not change the definition of marriage.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:07 PM
Wrong.

First it was a Federal Constitutional Amendment and subsequent Federal court rulings that overturned the state laws on marriage in the Loving case.

Go read the actual case. They said in the case that allowing whites and blacks to marry would CHANGE the definition of marriage just like eddie does here.

But the court at that time ruled that choosing the consenting adult you wish to marry was a fundamental right. Again go read the case.

In several states and a few countries same sex couples get married legally. Now they are denied equal protection under the law.

I
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:07 PM
loving was about what qualifications a government could legitmately impose upon the marital relationship.

it did not address the substantive elements of the relationship. it did say that race was not a substantive element.

only the ignorant cite loving as pertinent to a discussion of whether or not the concept of marriage should be redefined from its historical and sole definition.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...