The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

14th Amendment Says Marriage Is a "Basic Civil Right"

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
Spinkiegirl On August 18, 2018




Chicago, Illinois
#1New Post! Feb 16, 2012 @ 00:59:18
https://news.yahoo.com/loving-vs-virginia-standard-gay-marriage-not-rick-213400497.html And I agree! Let gay Americans LEGALLY marry! And this is coming from a Christian American! Do the right thing America!!
Yodogs On June 23, 2019




Sturgis, South Dakota
#2New Post! Feb 16, 2012 @ 05:05:21
Quote:

Marriage and Familial Relations

In Zablocki v. Redhail,18 importing into equal protection analysis the doctrines developed in substantive due process, the Court identified the right to marry as a “fundamental interest” that necessitates “critical examination” of governmental restrictions which “interfere directly and substantially” with the right.19 Struck down was a statute that prohibited any resident under an obligation to support minor children from marrying without a court order; such order could only be obtained upon a showing that the support obligation had been and was being complied with and that the children were not and were not likely to become public charges. The plaintiff was an indigent wishing to marry but prevented from doing so because he was not complying with a court order to pay support to an illegitimate child he had fathered, and because the child was re[p.1915]ceiving public assistance. Applying “critical examination,” the Court observed that the statutory prohibition could not be sustained unless it was justified by sufficiently important state interests and was closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.20 Two interests were offered that the Court was willing to accept as legitimate and substantial: requiring permission under the circumstances furnished an opportunity to counsel applicants on the necessity of fulfilling support obligations, and the process protected the welfare of children who needed support, either by providing an incentive to make support payments or by preventing applicants from incurring new obligations through marriage. The first interest was not served, the Court found, there being no provision for counseling and no authorization of permission to marry once counseling had taken place. The second interest was found not to be effectuated by the means. Alternative devices to collect support existed, the process simply prevented marriage without delivering any money to the children, and it singled out obligations incurred through marriage without reaching any other obligations.

Other restrictions that relate to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage were carefully distinguished by the Court as neither entitled to rigorous scrutiny nor put in jeopardy by the decision.21 For example, in Califano v. Jobst,22 a unanimous Court sustained a Social Security provision that revoked disabled dependents’ benefits of any person who married, except when the person married someone who was also entitled to receive disabled dependents’ benefits. Plaintiff, a recipient of such benefits, married someone who was also disabled but not qualified for the benefits, and his benefits were terminated. He sued, alleging that distinguishing between classes of persons who married eligible persons and who married ineligible persons infringed upon his right to marry. The Court rejected the argument, finding that benefit entitlement was not based upon need but rather upon actual dependency upon the insured wage earner; marriage, Congress could have assumed, generally terminates the dependency upon a parent–wage earner. Therefore, it was permissible as an administrative convenience to make marriage the terminating point but to make an exception[p.1916]when both marriage partners were receiving benefits, as a means of lessening hardship and recognizing that dependency was likely to continue. The marriage rule was therefore not to be strictly scrutinized or invalidated “simply because some persons who might otherwise have married were deterred by the rule or because some who did marry were burdened thereby.”23

It seems obvious, therefore, that the determination of marriage and familial relationships as fundamental will be a fruitful beginning of litigation in the equal protection area.24

Supplement: [P. 1916, add new heading and text following n.24:]

In Romer v. Evans,48 the Supreme Court struck down a state constitutional amendment which both overturned local ordinances prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals, and prohibited any state or local governmental action to either remedy discrimination or to grant preferences based on sexual orientation. The Court declined to follow the lead of the Supreme Court of Colorado, which had held that the amendment infringed on gays’ and lesbians’ fundamental right to participate in the political process.49 The Court also rejected the application of the heightened standard reserved for suspect classes, and sought only to determine whether the legislative classification had a rational relation to a legitimate end.

The Court found that the amendment failed even this restrained review. Animus against a class of persons was not considered by the Court as a legitimate goal of government: “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” 50 The Court then rejected arguments that the amendment protected the freedom of association rights of landlords and employers, or that it would conserve resources in fighting discrimination against other groups. The Court found that the scope of the law was unnecessarily broad to achieve these stated purposes, and that no other legitimate rationale existed for such a restriction.



Fourteenth Amendment.
Spinkiegirl On August 18, 2018




Chicago, Illinois
#3New Post! Feb 16, 2012 @ 20:50:14



What? I quoted the article in the link.
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#4New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 17:21:43
can two gay people have a child without adopting. I think not as far as American christian choose one or other
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#5New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 17:31:48
@madcitizen Said

can two gay people have a child without adopting. I think not as far as American christian choose one or other



What is your point?
Cpat92 On November 13, 2019
It's all or nothing





Lauderhill, Florida
#6New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 19:13:26
@madcitizen Said

can two gay people have a child without adopting. I think not as far as American christian choose one or other


Technically speaking, yes. Yes they can.

@chaski Said

What is your point?



Not sure, but it's not going to get far.
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#7New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 20:43:39
americans believe in America hot dogz apple pie and Chevrolet christens in Christ technically what ahole babies no that just sh/t
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 21:04:46
@madcitizen Said

americans believe in America hot dogz apple pie and Chevrolet christens in Christ technically what ahole babies no that just sh/t



I'm American...

I prefer kielbasa, pecan pie, Toyota and believe that America is a deeply divided country.

As to "christianity": Christians love their own sect, while disliking or even hating other christian sects. As to Christ, most christians follow the teaching of Paul, not the teachings of Jesus.

Also... you seem a bit fixated on the anus...
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#9New Post! Jan 20, 2019 @ 21:26:30
just making a point. I like womenzzz actually love em
Cpat92 On November 13, 2019
It's all or nothing





Lauderhill, Florida
#10New Post! Jan 21, 2019 @ 04:01:05
@madcitizen Said

just making a point. I like womenzzz actually love em



Not much of what you're saying is making sense.
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#11New Post! Jan 21, 2019 @ 14:04:42
in this world what does
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#12New Post! Jan 21, 2019 @ 14:11:10
like Washington DC isn't it suppose to be Washington usa or is it a part of the Dominican republic you buy a house pay it off but yet you still pay taxes heck you even have to get a permit to dig a pit to burn wood on your own property
gakINGKONG On about 4 hours ago




, Florida
#13New Post! Jan 21, 2019 @ 14:14:05
@Spinkiegirl Said

https://news.yahoo.com/loving-vs-virginia-standard-gay-marriage-not-rick-213400497.html And I agree! Let gay Americans LEGALLY marry! And this is coming from a Christian American! Do the right thing America!!



I used the "Ctrl + F" to search the word marriage from the language within the Fourteenth Amendment.

I didn't see it.

So, in 2015 5 to 4 Scotus says marriage is somehow tucked into the Equal Protection Clause.

RBG needs to take vitamins or Impeach Trump needs a little more traction. Strict constructionists won't wear the googly-eyed spectacles the left uses.
madcitizen On January 31, 2019




Bakersfield,
#14New Post! Jan 21, 2019 @ 14:29:18
what about that so called millina kid .killed 4 drunk driving jumped bail helped by his mother to get to mexico got caught and is now free .I thought aiding a person evade the law was a crime. in its self does that make sense
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#15New Post! Jan 22, 2019 @ 13:25:12
These are all words in this thread. And mostly, they're in English. And yet...
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Jan 22, 2019 @ 21:42
53 3472
New posts   Homosexuality
Sun Nov 09, 2008 @ 04:29
10 1092
New posts   US Elections
Sun Jan 03, 2016 @ 00:43
9 3498
New posts   Politics
Mon Jan 21, 2019 @ 01:26
13 2350
New posts   Politics
Fri Nov 12, 2004 @ 19:49
22 2416