STATE Supreme Courts have made rulings...not THEE Supreme Court...

Which means it has no effect on the federal Constitutionality...

States like Massechusetts say one thing...States like Washington State say another...

May I remind you that in 2004 11 states had gay marriage on the ballot and every one of them failed...

If it was a civil right there could be no votes on it...It would already be inalienable...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

first, don't be absurd.

freedom is an inalienable right - and slavery was perfectly legal

secondly, SCOTUS declared in Loving vs. VA that marriage was an inalienable right

This same reply would be valid for opponents of miscegenation laws as well by people with a lacking of the fundamentals of the constitutional law.

The 14th amendment does not prohibit ANY form of discrimination.
It prohibits discrimination which does not have a legitimate state interest basis for the discrimination.

There is no intelligible and consistent "legitimate state interest" that is against gay marriage. Prejudice and religious reasoning is not a "legitimate state interest".
"Incest"? Preventing incest marriage is in the interests of protecting the children. Incestuous relationships often result in mentally or physically handicapped children.
"Polygamy"? The legal complications of such a scenario provide an absurd level of entanglement and the loss of rights for existing "wive(s)" when a new wife comes into the picture. If a man marries a second wife, the first wife's "portion" is suddenly reduced from 1/2 to 1/3. Suppose the second wife makes more than the husband, and the first wife gets out of the marriage. Does the first wife have the right to sue the second wife for alimony?
The misogyny of polygamy, and mistreatment of the children is another issue. Google "lost boys" and "polygamy" to see some of the horror stories of male children kicked out of the home in order to help maintain a "polygamous" environment.


Actually, "THEE" supreme court has made that ruling.
Repeatedly.
Loving v Virginia being one notable example.


And our country previously went through a stage of state after state passing unconstitutional miscenegation laws.
The 14th amendment, enacted about 100 years before Loving v Virginia, was the corner stone for Loving v Virginia which revoked miscegenation laws from every state.


Such a logic would have applied to miscegenation laws as well.
You would really do well to try to LEARN about the subject instead of just trying to make up misinformation which helps your cause.

I see now...

It's attempt to EQUATE "race" and "sexual orientation" as the same thing...

Steal from a law that says nothing abot gays and making everyone believe so...

So where's SCOTUS's ruling?...Oh yeah...there ain't one...

If there was, the 11 states that voted in 2004 on gay marriages would be null and void right now...

Ummmm...

They're not...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

gee

you don't read so well, do you?

Loving vs VA stated that marriage is an inalienable right. It didn't state that heterosexual marriage was an inalienable right. That WAS a SCOTUS ruling.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of those laws yet.

foundit's right - you DO just make up shit

Try again...

The only thing you can catch me on is that when I said "t's not a civil right" I didn't specifically say "It's not a civil right when it comes to sexual orientation"...

Which is the topic of the thread, I believe...

If this thread was about baseball, and I said "An offensive player can't touch the ball while it's in play.", please don't show me a photo of a football game...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Maybe I should just respond with "much ado about nothing"...

Seems to be in vogue...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

1) Nice attempt to change the subject.
You claimed that the Supreme Court had not ruled that marriage was an inalienable right.
It has.

2) Nobody is trying to say "race" and "sexual orientation" are the same thing.
What we ARE doing is using precedent the way people use precedent in constitutional law application.

Suppose somebody came along and tried to pass a law that said people had to be of the same religion in order to get married. Akin to the law that required people to be of the same race.
Do you think that Loving v Virginia would have no application, just because "race" and "religion" are not the same thing?
Do you think that if somebody tried to mention "Loving v Virginia" during a legal discussion on a law requiring same religion marriages, that somebody would stand up and say "NO! Race and religion are DIFFERENT!"???
Or do you think that if somebody tried to do that, the EXACT SAME WAY THAT LOVING V VIRGINIA QUOTED NUMEROUS OTHER COURT RULINGS that had nothing to do with race, that it would be just citing legal precedent?
(If you need a hint, it's the latter...)

Loving v Virginia establishes a fact that does not change. Marriage is an inalienable right. Period.
As I pointed out, but you refused to address, that doesn't mean NO discrimination can occur.
What it DOES mean is that you have to give a consistent legitimate state interest in order to discriminate.


Misrepresent other people's arguments, and then pretend you've proven a point against something nobody actually said in the first place...
< end sarcasm >

Nobody said that Loving v Virginia said anything about gays.
What it DOES do is establish that marriage is a right.
A fact that does not change no matter what the subject is.


As I previously pointed out, but again you avoided even acknowledging, the 14th amendment was the corner stone for Loving v Virginia, the court ruling which invalidated miscegenation laws.
But it took 100 years before the Supreme Court actually ruled on the implications of Loving v Virginia, invalidating all miscegenation laws.

The existence of "11 states voting" doesn't negate legal reality.
A LOT MORE states voted into reality miscegenation laws, and they were on the books for a LOT LONGER than 2004 to current date before SCOTUS got around to negating them.

Part of the problem appears to be that you don't realize that it's a civil right. Period.

Doesn't matter if it's race, religion, sexual orientation, ...
... but when it is a civil right, that does not guarantee that it can never be discriminated against.
It can, IF and ONLY IF the government can show a consistent legitimate state interest for doing so.


Talk about a false analogy.
If there was a law governing ALL SPORTS that involve a ball, THEN your analogy would be apt.
If we were talking about a constitution for Oregon, and talking about applying it in Washington, THEN your analogy would be apt.

But since we're talking about the FEDERAL constitutional recognition of an existing right, which is applied to ALL states via the 14th amendment, requiring ALL states to show a legitimate state interest when they discriminate against rights, your analogy is meaningless.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.

Can anybody show me where the 14th amendment says this?
(Hint: You can't. It specifies nothing about race and rights, or race and marriage.)

It's talking about a SPECIFIC application of protection of rights against invidious discrimination.
The 14th amendment has been used to protect the rights against invidious discrimination based on RACE, RELIGION, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ...

ALL of those have been applied.