The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive. That some couples may not produce offspring does not invalidate the requirement for opposite genders. Homosexual unions can not - by their very nature - produce offspring.
Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not. Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage. The USSC has arrogated to itself the authority to alter the definition of marriage.
Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage is nonsense.
You keep missing the point. We are not discussing whether the Supreme Court was right-- the issue is did they have jurisdiction to decide the case. They obviously did have jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the decision, IMHO, was wrong.
[[Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not. Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage. The USSC has arrogated to itself the authority to alter the definition of marriage.]]
Ray, that was the point I was trying to make-
[[What federal law?
There is no federal marriage law, marriage laws have always been within the purview of the States.]]
exactly- The SC’s decision (which illegally became law) is an assault on state sovereignty inthat states passed laws against immoral acts, banning them from marrying, based on natural law and the laws of God.
[[There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.]]
And here is the crux of the matter- the supreme court can’t just decide that there is when there isn’t- As you point out no one’s true rights have been violated, therefore there was no need for the supreme court to hear the case to begin with- IF equal protection of homosexuals had been violated, then it can be said equal protection of ALL deviant sexual practices had been violated- but no one In their right mind would think a bestiality practitioner’s ‘rights and desires to marry animals’ has been violated because heterosexuals are allowed, under the law, to be married.
You know more about these things than I- so I’ll let you discuss it further with Lurking Libertarian as it was going down a wrong road on my part concerning jurisdiction- but you seem to have rescued it a bit by stating the SC doesn’t have the jurisdiction to interfere with a states laws that do Not violate a person’s rights to begin with- I’m just out of my league trying to discuss these harder legal issues-
Just one more quick thought though
[[Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage.]]
Right- and it was pretty obvious to all that it was wrong to ban marriage based on color, and so the courts had an obligation to decide the case because it was a clear case of discrimination
Gay groups claim discrimination based on sexual orientation, but their claim is no more valid than the bestiality practitioner claiming discrimination, because both are subject to well established moral laws that do NOT violate rights, but rather consider the immoral acts themselves as the basis for denying marriage- IF we are to all of a sudden consider the one not immoral, when in reality it is still immoral, and still a deviancy of natural and God’s laws, then we must afford every immoral deviancy the same ‘equal protection’, and we can no longer ban any of them from marrying- (Except perhaps the ones that hurt others against their will)
Meh- too tired to think further-