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

[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.

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

That's your definition.

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.

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

It may come as a shock to you, but the constitution never says that a right must be enumerated to exist. Quite the contrary: the constitution makes explicit mention of reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

And the USSC is the body that is designated to interpret the constitution.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

It may come as a shock to you, but the constitution never says that a right must be enumerated to exist. Quite the contrary: the constitution makes explicit mention of reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

And the USSC is the body that is designated to interpret the constitution.

It says a power must be enumerated to exist. Federal regulation of marriage, via DOMA, homo marriage, or anything else is not a power granted to the federal government.

Now you know.

 

[danielpalos]

In any Case, Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws in our republic.

 

[Skylar]

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

It may come as a shock to you, but the constitution never says that a right must be enumerated to exist. Quite the contrary: the constitution makes explicit mention of reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

And the USSC is the body that is designated to interpret the constitution.

It says a power must be enumerated to exist. Federal regulation of marriage, via DOMA, homo marriage, or anything else is not a power granted to the federal government.

And a power to prevent states from violating the priveledges and immunities of US citizens and prevent unequal protection under the law is an enumated power:

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 of the Constitution of the United States

With every ruling overturning same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of rights or unequal protection.

Though I am curious......Loving v. Virginia overtured state interracial marriage bans. Are you saying that this ruling was beyond the USSC's authority as well?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well then show us the science.

 

[Syriusly]

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 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.

Bigotry is bigotry. You judge people based upon who they are sexually attracted to. Virginians and Alabamans judged people by the race they were sexually attracted to.

Alabama prohibited a white man from marrying a black woman.
Alabama prohibits a man from marrying a man.

Neither has anything to do with 'how they choose to live'- it has to do with whom they chose to love.

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

 

[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?

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......

Wow- that is so much like the argument the State of Virginia made as to why banning mixed race marriage was to protect the children.


Text writers and judicial writers agree that the state has a natural, direct, and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not. It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

......And that the interracial marriages bequeath to the progeny of those marriages more psychological problems than parents have a right to bequeath to them. As I say, this book has been widely accepted and it was published in 1964 as being the definitive book on intermarriage in North America that exists.

Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly, there is scientific evidence available that this is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the victims of intermarried parents and as the martyrs of intermarried parents.


Be proud.

You are making the same argument that the State of Virginia made to support its ban on mixed race marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

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. They understand what the homo militia clearly does not, that you can't insert yourselves into 14th Amendment "civil rights" and then lock the door behind you. You're doing all the hard work for child lovers and I'm sure they will find ways to express their appreciation.

So eerily similar the bigots are...

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine Virginia assistant attorney general

 

[Syriusly]

That's your definition.

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.

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

LOL.....this may come as a shock to you- but the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Dred Scott was a terrible ruling- but it was the legal interpretation that the U.S. government was bound to until we passed a Constitutional amendment to fix that problem.

You can whine as much as you want- but the Supreme Court recognizes marriage as a right- a right based both upon rights that predate the Constitution and based upon the Constitution itself.

What sucks to be you is that these are the precedents that the Supreme Court will be looking to for guidance when it considers the issue of gay marriage- no matter how much you whine 'the Supreme Court is not 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"

 

[Syriusly]

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. They understand what the homo militia clearly does not, that you can't insert yourselves into 14th Amendment "civil rights" and then lock the door behind you. You're doing all the hard work for child lovers and I'm sure they will find ways to express their appreciation.

So eerily similar the bigots are...

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine Virginia assistant attorney general

Not a shock though is it? The same kind of people that casually use the term 'f*ggot' are the same kind of people that would be casually using the term 'n*gger' in 1967.

the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine Virginia assistant attorney general

 

[Skylar]

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. They understand what the homo militia clearly does not, that you can't insert yourselves into 14th Amendment "civil rights" and then lock the door behind you. You're doing all the hard work for child lovers and I'm sure they will find ways to express their appreciation.

So eerily similar the bigots are...

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine Virginia assistant attorney general

The argument against gay marriage is the argument against interrracial marriage with a few vocabulary words swapped out.

Demonstrating the wisdom of the USSC citing race based cases in their defense of gay rights. As bigotry is bigotry.

 

[Seawytch]

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......

So tell us, bigot, what you'd like to do about the over a million kids being raised in same sex homes? If you had your anti gay way, would you outlaw gays having children, bigot?

 

[Syriusly]

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. They understand what the homo militia clearly does not, that you can't insert yourselves into 14th Amendment "civil rights" and then lock the door behind you. You're doing all the hard work for child lovers and I'm sure they will find ways to express their appreciation.

So eerily similar the bigots are...

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine Virginia assistant attorney general

The argument against gay marriage is the argument against interrracial marriage with a few vocabulary words swapped out.

Demonstrating the wisdom of the USSC citing race based cases in their defense of gay rights. As bigotry is bigotry.

With so much of the same vocabulary- 'protecting the children' 'polygamy' 'incest' and of course our favorite- 'but they can still marry who they want so long as they marry [insert approved category here]'.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Why do you believe that allowing consenting adult gays to marry each other will lead to an abolishment of age of consent laws? What goes on in a brain that automatically goes someplace like that? (Beyond unreasonable hatred, of course).

 

[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.

Why do you believe that allowing consenting adult gays to marry each other will lead to an abolishment of age of consent laws? What goes on in a brain that automatically goes someplace like that? (Beyond unreasonable hatred, of course).

Because you made it a civil rights issue, silly goose! If it's a civil right, then an arbitrary rule like the age of consent will be swept out of the way because it's a discriminatory law.

No hate, just devastating logic.

 

[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......

So tell us, bigot, what you'd like to do about the over a million kids being raised in same sex homes? If you had your anti gay way, would you outlaw gays having children, bigot?

Bigot twice in one sentence. Now replace with "sir" and make me a sir sandwich then we can have a polite conversation? Did you forget the PM I sent you? There's no reason for the hate.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

If it's so "predictable" then why hasn't it happened in countries that have been recognizing gay legal unions for decades? In which country has your slope slipped? VT & MA have been marrying gays for over a decade. Has anything you claim will happen happened?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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"

This may come as a shock to you, but the Supreme Court is not the Constitution and is itself an institution subject to the Constitution, not the other way around. You think slavery is wrong? The Supreme Court disagreed with you. Don't like Jim Crow laws? The Supreme Court said they're just dandy. See how that works?

It may come as a shock to you, but the constitution never says that a right must be enumerated to exist. Quite the contrary: the constitution makes explicit mention of reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

And the USSC is the body that is designated to interpret the constitution.

It says a power must be enumerated to exist. Federal regulation of marriage, via DOMA, homo marriage, or anything else is not a power granted to the federal government.

And a power to prevent states from violating the priveledges and immunities of US citizens and prevent unequal protection under the law is an enumated power:

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 of the Constitution of the United States

With every ruling overturning same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of rights or unequal protection.

Though I am curious......Loving v. Virginia overtured state interracial marriage bans. Are you saying that this ruling was beyond the USSC's authority as well?

On specific criteria. Race, color, religion, previous condition of servitude, etc. Not just anything you want and certainly not for living a perverted lifestyle.

 

[Seawytch]

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......

So tell us, bigot, what you'd like to do about the over a million kids being raised in same sex homes? If you had your anti gay way, would you outlaw gays having children, bigot?

Bigot twice in one sentence. Now replace with "sir" and make me a sir sandwich then we can have a polite conversation? Did you forget the PM I sent you? There's no reason for the hate.

Says the bigot indiscriminately using the word "homo" in a derogatory manner...and inferring gays are pedophiles.?