Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Silhouette]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

When a premise is flawed as you point out, the entire rest of the argument falls flat on its face. Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids involved in very predictable ways and really, this matter is a done deal....just not in the way that the cult of LGBT is so cock-sure it is.

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

We also have a Ninth Amendment and its State equivalents under our Constitutional form of government.

Not regarding lifestyles repugnant to the majority around kids we don't...

The 9th Amendment applies to all Americans- including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons and homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

 

[Syriusly]

Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.

Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.

Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.

Except courts are finding that it is also a right between a man and a man and a woman in a woman. The definition of marriage itself has not changed, just who can enter into it. Voting was not changed when blacks and women could do it. Gays have been marrying each other in Vermont and Massachusetts for over a decade. No harm has befallen those states or society as a whole.

You cannot demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry someone of the same gender. This is why you anti gay bigots are losing.

I am not against civil unions, and all people reserve the right to contract, that such as a civil union.....
Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Therefore, I have no problem with civil unions: What I do have a problem with, is a minority forcing the set legal definition of a marriage to fit that which they wish, by claiming that somehow the definition is discriminatory, and using the court system to facilitate this lie. A civil union falls within that unlimited right to contract, and is enforceable. That is the fight that should be occurring, NOT the forced change of the definition of a word under false pretence. I am NOT anti gay, I enjoy seeing people happy, but then gay simply means happy and has nothing to do with a man desiring another man, or a woman desiring another woman. You see, you are already accepting a fictional definition of the word "Gay".

Hell yeah, that's right! The definition of marriage is one white man and one white woman. That's the definition, nobody can change it! If you think it's discrimination then go back to Africa you damn monkey people!

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman..

That is your definition.

Not the definition.

 

[Skylar]

I just stated that YOUR CONstitution is supreme ONLY within the powers granted to it by the State governments which were party to its creation.

And protecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens, while guaranteeing equal protection under the law is a power granted the federal government under the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Any State law that violates either is void. You keep making up these imaginary restrictions and caveats that limit what rights the judiciary can protect, or what violations of the 14th amendment the judiciary can overturn.

None of your imaginary caveats exist. The 14th amendment includes no such restrictions.

Enforcing its Jurisdiction in a matter that is reserved by the State of Alabama is NOT CONTRARY to "Federal law" which no longer exists, as there remains within YOUR government NO residual aspect of federalism.

When the States violate the 14th amendment, the federal government has the power and the duty to step in and prevent it. You keep insisting the judiciary can't do this. History keeps proving you laughably, comically wrong.

State powers do NOT trump constitutional guarantees. Get used to the idea.

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837)

That's a Pre-14th amendment ruling. And thus irrelevant to a discussion of the application of the 14th amendment or the federal government's authority to protect the rights of US citzens from the violation by State laws.

You're citing pre-14th amendment rulings for a reason. Because the relationship of the States and Federal government changed after the 14th.

And we both know it

 

[Skylar]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, also the joining of same sex couples. By June, that's likely to be 50 of 50 States.

 

[Syriusly]

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.

Pedophiles everywhere are glad to hear you're fighting for their right to marry a ten year old. .

Look- I know you are used to lying- and I know it doesn't bother you to lie, nor does it bother you to be seen a blatant liar.

But that is all you have- you lie because you are unable to actually address the post. Your lies show you to be incapable of responding to the actual substance of Sea's post.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

When a premise is flawed as you point out, the entire rest of the argument falls flat on its face. Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids involved in very predictable ways and really, this matter is a done deal....just not in the way that the cult of LGBT is so cock-sure it is.

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust Study you cite in that thread doesn't say anything you just did.

So the rest of your argument falls flat on its face.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

You'll never get an answer from Silo. As there is none.

Children are only valuable to Silo if they can't be used to hurt gays. If they can't be used to that end, Silo could care less about them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

 

[Skylar]

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[danielpalos]

We also have a Ninth Amendment and its State equivalents under our Constitutional form of government.

Not regarding lifestyles repugnant to the majority around kids we don't...

You say that, but how many abstinence and just say "no" programs are there for the moral turpitude of practicing the abomination of hypocrisy, around kids?

When is the right going to get really really serious about a really really serious relationship with morals, and start creating open interest in morals testing companies on a for-profit basis since drug testing companies are useless for that?

 

[Syriusly]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....

Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.

Actually the 'right to marry' is based upon the Supreme Court's multiple interpretation of rights that predate the Constitution- and the Constitution


Loving v Virginia

"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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.

Pedophiles everywhere are glad to hear you're fighting for their right to marry a ten year old. .

Look- I know you are used to lying- and I know it doesn't bother you to lie, nor does it bother you to be seen a blatant liar.

But that is all you have- you lie because you are unable to actually address the post. Your lies show you to be incapable of responding to the actual substance of Sea's post.

Oooh, calling me a liar 5 times, I must have hit a nerve! I'm not lying, I'm just ahead of the curve. Boy lovers will use your playbook and may even give you a little credit for their own judicial victories. And you get the satisfaction of knowing you paved the way for child lovers to pursue marriage with children still in their Osh Kosh B'Goshes. Congratulations.

 

[Skylar]

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.

Pedophiles everywhere are glad to hear you're fighting for their right to marry a ten year old. .

Look- I know you are used to lying- and I know it doesn't bother you to lie, nor does it bother you to be seen a blatant liar.

But that is all you have- you lie because you are unable to actually address the post. Your lies show you to be incapable of responding to the actual substance of Sea's post.

Oooh, calling me a liar 5 times, I must have hit a nerve! I'm not lying, I'm just ahead of the curve. Boy lovers will use your playbook and may even give you a little credit for their own judicial victories. And you get the satisfaction of knowing you paved the way for child lovers to pursue marriage with children still in their Osh Kosh B'Goshes. Congratulations.

Ah, the slipper slope fallacy. A classic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to double down on a fallacy of logic.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....

Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.

Actually the 'right to marry' is based upon the Supreme Court's multiple interpretation of rights that predate the Constitution- and the Constitution


Loving v Virginia

"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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"

How are you refuting my devastatingly accurate observation that the "right to marry" is based on other Supreme Court opinions, not on the Constitution?

That's right. You aren't.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.

You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.

No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.

I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.

You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.

No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.

I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Yeah, and Boston Massachusetts thought they were fighting the good fight when long after schools in Alabama were desegregated Boston was still fighting to prevent it there, Beating black children , spitting on them and throwing bricks through the school bus windows screaming GO HOME NI%$#R.....

Well thanks for that information about Boston.

Meanwhile:

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

I keep comparing bigotry to bigotry- and like I said- Alabama has a proud history

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.

Pedophiles everywhere are glad to hear you're fighting for their right to marry a ten year old. .

Look- I know you are used to lying- and I know it doesn't bother you to lie, nor does it bother you to be seen a blatant liar.

But that is all you have- you lie because you are unable to actually address the post. Your lies show you to be incapable of responding to the actual substance of Sea's post.

Oooh, calling me a liar 5 times, I must have hit a nerve! I'm not lying, I'm just ahead of the curve. Boy lovers will use your playbook and may even give you a little credit for their own judicial victories. And you get the satisfaction of knowing you paved the way for child lovers to pursue marriage with children still in their Osh Kosh B'Goshes. Congratulations.

Ah, the slipper slope fallacy. A classic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to double down on a fallacy of logic.

Yes, saying "slippery slope fallacy" proves that it is.

There is no such thing as a "slippery slope fallacy" because it isn't a fallacy. It's an observable, documentable, and predictable course of regression that has ample historical precident to such an extent it can be considered a science.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Yeah, and Boston Massachusetts thought they were fighting the good fight when long after schools in Alabama were desegregated Boston was still fighting to prevent it there, Beating black children , spitting on them and throwing bricks through the school bus windows screaming GO HOME NI%$#R.....

Well thanks for that information about Boston.

Meanwhile:

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Yes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.

I keep comparing bigotry to bigotry- and like I said- Alabama has a proud history

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

Judging people for the way they choose to live is not bigotry.

Now you know.

 

[Syriusly]

Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.

That's your definition.

Race, nor color have anything to do with it

You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.

Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.

Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....

Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.

Actually the 'right to marry' is based upon the Supreme Court's multiple interpretation of rights that predate the Constitution- and the Constitution


Loving v Virginia

"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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"

How are you refuting my devastatingly accurate observation that the "right to marry" is based on other Supreme Court opinions, not on the Constitution?

That's right. You aren't.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- hint: the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"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"