gbaji wrote:
It says a lot of things. Care to provide a quote of that particular bit?
"Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means." Get that? It is
more than the state recognized civil status. It is not apart from that status. It is not a contract that is sort of the same thing but not fully recognized as "marriage" by the state, is explicitly includes the state recognized and accepted civil contract that says that in the eyes of the state you are legally married.
Quote:
It's been cited many times by *you* Joph.
Hahahahaha... no. Go try looking for court cases which reference it. Are you really this stupid?
Quote:
It hasn't been contested so much as argued to be somewhat irrelevant. It's not a supreme court case, so it can't be assumed to have the same weight in terms of rulings and statements, and it doesn't touch on same sex relations at all (neither of them do). So it's kinda out on two for two points, isn't it?
Wow, you really know nothing about our judicial system, huh? You realize that when a lower federal court rules on something, that's the current status of it barring it being overturned by a higher court, right? Were you
not aware of this? Did you think the lower courts didn't really count until the Supreme Court ruled on it?
Quote:
There was a SCotUS case Joph. It's the one I quoted from. And it did not find that the state issued benefits constituted a "right of marriage". You see how the lack of a case finding the way you want doesn't constitute proof that had such a case existed it would have ruled the way you think it should?
I see that you have absolutely no idea how the courts work. This will be instructive for later debates with you and explains why you're so easily confused and want to make sure we ignore any court rulings and instead debate what forum posters had to say.
Quote:
It's not like the prop8 isn't a nice challenge to be made. Whens that getting to the Supreme Court anyway?
Beats me. Soon enough I'd expect since it's expected to come down in the favor of the gay marriage folks.
Quote:
It also acknowledges that the 14th amendment allows for cases in which the law could treat people of different races differently *if* the reasons held some purpose other than to simply discriminate.
Yeah, I've said numerous times that I find it amusing that you won't just admit that you're denying homosexuals their basic civil right because you think it's justified. Instead you'll spin, spin and spin some more to deny that that right ever existed or that it really means marriage or that it doesn't mean the sort of marriage where you get benefits or...
Well, really anything to just avoid admitting that you're denying someone a basic civil right.
Quote:
Um... I'll also point out the hilarity of using rulings on racial mixing of marriages to argue that marriage benefits should be applied even to same sex couples and while insisting that it has nothing to do with procreation.
Again, you don't understand the courts. You don't understand why it's important. I get it now. Maybe you should go back to screaming "It's obvious!"