In response to:

Why We Are Losing Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage

Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:29 AM
marriage isn't a privilege: its a right. I consider your beliefs to be a cross between neanderthal and loony, but I have no interest in limiting any of your rights.
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:57 PM
Rich, she's talking about you.
Rich D. Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:18 PM
Barb, he doesn't know what he is saying - he is all over the map and illogical. Going back to first principals would be discussing the tax and inheritance laws in the first place, and then what sovereignty of the states means.
Barbara1247 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:12 PM
Are you saying that everything that is not explicitly permitted under the Constitution is forbidden?

I would think that the right to marriage is subsumed under the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:09 PM
Rich, the word you want is "enumerated". However, the Constitution clearly allows for the recognition of fundamental rights which are NOT enumerated. Or does that amendment not count?

If marriage is a right, then two things flow from that determination. One is that the right exists whether it is a benefit to the culture or not. Such considerations are irrelevant. The second outcome is that there is a well established principle that a right may not be infringed up unless the state has an over-riding interest in doing so. The burden of proof is on those who contend the state does have an over-riding interest.
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:03 PM
Rich and Kenneth, In response to a post by Lepanto, I argued that the failure to discuss this issue logically is largely a fault of the right wing. Your responses are examples of that. The decision in Loving v. Va established the right to marry. Period. Whether that applies to SSM is the question before SCOTUS. If the answer were determined, then the case would not have been accepted and the lower courts would not have ruled differently. You can't win the argument by just claiming you have won the argument.
Rich D. Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:43 AM
Typical ad hominem. Marriage is NOT a granted right. The Congress defined the term to be used on federal tax forms so that that box would have meaning, and passed laws protecting traditional families giving special treatment to insure that children of issue or adoption would be protected, as social scientists (and anthropologists) recognized that intact families containing one adult of each sex were best for rearing children. By the way, there is still a marriage penalty in terms of tax treatment.

It's up to you to defend same-sex unions along with polygamy.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:43 AM
You continue to assert this point, basing it on Loving v. Virginia which found that we could not exclude a man and a woman from marriage. I can't follow your reasoning from that position to the right of same-sex couples to marry.
There are two major problems with simply changing the definition by court order, on the basis you claim. 1) polygamy, short-term marriage contracts, etc. will immediately be entitled to marriage, and the legal "equal protection" right to spousal and survivor benefits, and 2) the Supreme Court will have found another "right" somewhere in the "emanations of the penumbra" of our Constitution. There is no right such as the one you are claiming today.
Rock Strongo Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:42 AM
Except maybe the right to defend yourself with more than 7 bullets; the right to keep what you earn and not be forced to subsidize parasites; the right to use incandescent light bulbs and 3 gallon toilets; the right to plan for your own retirement without nanny government intervening; the right to pass your accumulated wealth on to your children; the right to drink a 20 oz. soft drink; the right to hire someone at less than the mandated minimum wage.
EducationSuperStar Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:40 AM
Marriage is a right? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides. That's because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle -- the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.

Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court imposing its will on matters better left up to the...