[TheRealVille]

I've seen where they have made rulings on marital issues because the individual states recognize marriage. But, I've never seen a SCOTUS ruling decreeing that marriage is a right.

http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-suprem...-marriage/

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/...reme-court

[Hoot Gibson]

It's as much marriage as yours is.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-suprem...-marriage/

Legally, it is not. Morally, it never will be. The word "marriage" has a meaning and it does not include relationships between people of the same sex.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

SO by TRV's views since the high court ruled that we have the RTKBA I can go buy a apache helicopter with a full military loadout?

[TheRealVille]

Legally, it is not. Morally, it never will be. The word "marriage" has a meaning and it does not include relationships between people of the same sex.

We shall see this week.

[Hoot Gibson]

I've seen where they have made rulings on marital issues because the individual states recognize marriage. But, I've never seen a SCOTUS ruling decreeing that marriage is a right.

You have never seen one because no such thing exists. RV is just blowing smoke again to obscure the truth and waste your time.

[TheRealThing]

:biglmao: Ok. All of the "recorded history" facts only go back 4000 years. At least be consistent man.

So, you're saying that God's account of forming the first man from the dust with his own hands is not a historical record? Jews today can recite the generations of their family line all the way back to Abraham. Bible scholar that you are, you understand that predates even the days of Moses by thousands of years.

[Hoot Gibson]

SO by TRV's views since the high court ruled that we have the RTKBA I can go buy a apache helicopter with a full military loadout?

That conclusion would be much more logical than the one that RV is trying to jump to. :biggrin:

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

That conclusion would be much more logical than the one that RV is trying to jump to. :biggrin:

Id settle for getting a box of 9mm without selling my kidneys right now lol.

[TheRealVille]

SO by TRV's views since the high court ruled that we have the RTKBA I can go buy a apache helicopter with a full military loadout?

Don't ask me, go search the high court's view. I bet one thing for sure, they don't care what some Johnson County homer thinks.

[TheRealVille]

So, you're saying that God's account of forming the first man from the dust with his own hands is not a historical record? Jews today can recite the generations of their family line all the way back to Abraham. Bible scholar that you are, you understand that predates even the days of Moses by thousands of years.

:biglmao: Go ahead, you are doing fine. Everything is in BGR print.

[TheRealVille]

You have never seen one because no such thing exists. RV is just blowing smoke again to obscure the truth and waste your time.

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “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.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Don't ask me, go search the high court's view. I bet one thing for sure, they don't care what some Johnson County homer thinks.

Any of those specifically about gay marriage? Or just marriage in general.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “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.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

The Supreme Court has not redefined the word "marriage," so these rulings cannot be applied to persons of the same sex seeking legal status for their "marriage." If the Court ever redefines marriage, then previous rulings involving marriage may apply. Until then, citing these rulings to support gay marriage is just plain silly.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

And the better question is if they feel that way why haven't they invalidated the defense of marriage act?

[TheRealThing]

:biglmao: Go ahead, you are doing fine. Everything is in BGR print.

Put it up then. I singed the hair off you when you dropped the gauntlet.

[TheRealVille]

Any of those specifically about gay marriage? Or just marriage in general.

Marriage in general, but surely you can make the leap. They will rule this week on marriage rights of gay people vs straight people. If marriage is consider a right, it is considered a right of all citizens.

[TheRealVille]

Put it up then. I singed the hair off you when you dropped the gauntlet.

No, in one thread you say recorded history goes back 4000 years, and now you say recorded history goes back 6000 years. I called you out, and singed you if anybody got singed. Don't blame me if you can't remember what you post in other threads.:biggrin: :Clap:

[TheRealThing]

The Supreme Court has not redefined the word "marriage," so these rulings cannot be applied to persons of the same sex seeking legal status for their "marriage." If the Court ever redefines marriage, then previous rulings involving marriage may apply. Until then, citing these rulings to support gay marriage is just plain silly.

Especially in view of how many of these rulings cited "procreation" and "having children"

[TheRealVille]

Especially in view of how many of these rulings cited "procreation" and "having children"

So, marriage isn't legal between someone in prison that has a life sentence, and someone on the "outside"? I think the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

[Hoot Gibson]

Marriage in general, but surely you can make the leap. They will rule this week on marriage rights of gay people vs straight people. If marriage is consider a right, it is considered a right of all citizens.

The Supreme Court is not ruling on this issue this week. Where do you get your misinformation?

[TheRealThing]

No, in one thread you say recorded history goes back 4000 years, and now you say recorded history goes back 6000 years. I called you out, and singed you if anybody got singed. Don't blame me if you can't remember what you post in other threads.:biggrin: :Clap:

Secular writings do go back about 4,000 years. God's sacred texts start at 0 hour. Only somebody who's as desperate as you are to get back in the game would try to say my posts conflict. Put up the post. I guarantee you won't do it because you know your argument is thinner even than that weak defense you just tried to mount.

[TheRealThing]

The Supreme Court is not ruling on this issue this week. Where do you get your misinformation?

Ooh, ooh, I know, :howdy: I know. RV has an uplink to the Mars rover. :biggrin:

[TheRealVille]

Secular writings do go back about 4,000 years. God's sacred texts start at 0 hour. Only somebody who's as desperate as you are to get back in the game would try to say my posts conflict. Put up the post. I guarantee you won't do it because you know your argument is thinner even than that weak defense you just tried to mount.

OK TRT you win. Vundy33(he commented on it) and me remember what you posted, but I won't look it up. I'm sure you remember what you posted. Any theologian knows that the first recordings of god's word were mouth to ear, then written down later. Maybe god's text starts at 13.81 billion years? That's what the scientist came up with recently as to the age of the universe.

[TheRealThing]

OK TRT you win. Vundy33(he commented on it) and me remember what you posted, but I won't look it up. I'm sure you remember what you posted. Any theologian knows that the first recordings of god's word were mouth to ear, then written down later. Maybe god's text starts at 13.81 billion years? That's what the scientist came up with recently as to the age of the universe.

Maybe, but as you point out. We're talking man's recorded history here.

Didn't that same guy say that 14 Billion years ago the chemical forerunners of amino acids were trying to hitch a ride on particles, that were destined to become the comets which, seeded life here on earth while whizzing through the unimaginable cold void of space, at impossible speeds resultant from the Big Bang?

[TheRealVille]

Maybe, but as you point out. We're talking man's recorded history here.

Didn't that same guy say that 14 Billion years ago the chemical forerunners of amino acids were trying to hitch a ride on particles, that were destined to become the comets which, seeded life here on earth while whizzing through the unimaginable cold void of space, at impossible speeds resultant from the Big Bang?

Right, man's recorded history starts at 4000 years ago.


I don't have a clue. I'm not a scientist. All I know is that real scientists(not you) have found the Higgs boson, the missing link they were looking for. Plus, they have proved the big bang theory was right. Don't waste your breath, I'll always take their word over yours.

[Hoot Gibson]

The Supreme Court is not ruling on this issue this week. Where do you get your misinformation?

No response, RV? I don't blame you. You have made more than your share of mistakes this evenings. We can't expect you to admit to all of them.

FYI, the decision in this case will be made at some time in the next couple of months and will probably be announced in June. Oral arguments are made before the Supreme Court begins considering the facts of the case. Sometimes the decision is made quickly, sometimes deliberations drag out for weeks or months as the justices lobby each other to support their positions, but important decisions are always announced near the end of the session.

[TheRealVille]

No response, RV? I don't blame you. You have made more than your share of mistakes this evenings. We can't expect you to admit to all of them.

FYI, the decision in this case will be made at some time in the next couple of months and will probably be announced in June. Oral arguments are made before the Supreme Court begins considering the facts of the case. Sometimes the decision is made quickly, sometimes deliberations drag out for weeks or months as the justices lobby each other to support their positions, but important decisions are always announced near the end of the session.

Yes, they are looking at both cases this week. They might not rule this week, but they are looking at the cases and ruling on them.

[TheRealVille]

^ Are we pecker measuring,..... again?

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes, they are looking at both cases this week. They might not rule this week, but they are looking at the cases and ruling on them.

That's not what you said. Once again, you misstated a simple fact and are refusing to simply acknowledge your mistake.

Unless you are a member of the Supreme Court or a clerk sworn to secrecy, you will have no idea how either case will be decided until June.

We shall see this week.

[TheRealVille]

That's not what you said. Once again, you misstated a simple fact and are refusing to simply acknowledge your mistake.

Unless you are a member of the Supreme Court or a clerk sworn to secrecy, you will have no idea how either case will be decided until June.

If we are measuring over a mis-stamement of "looking at" vs "ruling on", this week, you win. You got me. :biglmao: