Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And where is the 14th amendment's prohibition of state violation of rights or unequal protection limited to 'race, color', religion, previous conditions of servitude.'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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, the issue is the historical, and legal set definition of the word marriage . Everyone has the right to contract,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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
While a minority does posses the right to contract,they do not possess the right to force a State or the people thereof to change the historical and set definition of the word marriage. The fight should be the legal right to contract a civil union, and all within be recognized by the State under the reserved constitutional right to contract.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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
Again, the issue is the historical, and legal set definition of the word marriage .
While a minority does posses the right to contract,they do not possess the right to force a State or the people thereof to change the historical and set definition of the word marriage.
Again, the issue is the historical, and legal set definition of the word marriage . Everyone has the right to contract,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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.While a minority does posses the right to contract,they do not possess the right to force a State or the people thereof to change the historical and set definition of the word marriage. The fight should be the legal right to contract a civil union, and all within be recognized by the State under the reserved constitutional right to contract.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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
Again, the issue is the historical, and legal set definition of the word marriage . Everyone has the right to contract,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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.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.
The exact same 'logic' would be just as applicable to Loving v. Virginia.
Indeed- Virginia even mentions mixed race marriage in the same category as 'age of consent laws'
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.
I wonder if the State of Alabama were to allow the redefining of the word marriage to include sodomites,
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 Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.
This is the uncomfortable fact that you bigots don't want to admit.
Every slippery slope argument strawman you throw out against homosexual marriage- if it were true- would also apply to Loving v. Virginia.
You and your wife are every much perverts to those bigots who opposed mixed race marriage as you bigots think homosexuals are.
Welcome to the slippery slope- if it is real- then your wife and you are going to be responsible for all of the 'boy lovin' that you predict.
The homosexuals perception has no credibility. Our country
What is your country- the country of bigots? Russia? Nigeria?
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
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.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
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.
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Bigot- a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Now, before you go there think first. Your group is not racial or religious and really not much of a group at all when used in this context. Are we called bigots because we don't like a group of gangs? How about groups of child molesters? How about them? Are we bigots for unfairly disliking those groups? But in case you still think someone is a bigot- again- ask yourself, how do I know he 'unfairly' dislikes me? Maybe he has a good reason etc. etc. etc.
-Geaux
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 Constitution doesn't address race directly at all.
This is the uncomfortable fact that you bigots don't want to admit.
Every slippery slope argument strawman you throw out against homosexual marriage- if it were true- would also apply to Loving v. Virginia.
You and your wife are every much perverts to those bigots who opposed mixed race marriage as you bigots think homosexuals are.
Welcome to the slippery slope- if it is real- then your wife and you are going to be responsible for all of the 'boy lovin' that you predict.
The homosexuals perception has no credibility. Our country
What is your country- the country of bigots? Russia? Nigeria?
Nope- A country of Muslims!
-Geaux
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
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.
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Bigot- a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Now, before you go there think first. Your group is not racial or religious
Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?
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.
In this case, indeed they are
-Geaux
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 fightYeah, 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.....Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?
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.
In this case, indeed they are
-Geaux
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
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
Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?Run along and support your faggot loving agenda somewhere else freak.It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.
Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.
Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.
Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.
Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.
Anyone who uses the term 'f*ggot' is no different from the racists who call blacks n*ggers or Jews k*kes or the misanthropes who call women c*nts.
Run along and join up with your bigot pals you pathetic POS.
No.
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"
Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids iYes, keep comparing sexual perversion to race. I'm sure somebody out there will believe there's a connection.
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?
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.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
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.
Not one of the Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage agrees with you.
And as I have pointed out- the very same Alabama law that prohibits 'gay marriage' prohibits 'civil unions'.
Americans have a right to marriage- we have no right to 'civil unions'
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
I have never understood why convicted felons have their right to vote taken away, nor do I understand how States can justify it.
In order to justify denying a person a right, a State must be able to provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying that right. I don't know the court cases regarding ex-felons and voting, or ex-felons and gun ownership but I suspect that the States have made a sufficient argument that there is a rational safety basis for denying ex-felons gun ownership- but voting? I can't think of any state interest that is achieved by denying ex-felons the vote.
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.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
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.
Not one of the Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage agrees with you.
And as I have pointed out- the very same Alabama law that prohibits 'gay marriage' prohibits 'civil unions'.
Americans have a right to marriage- we have no right to 'civil unions'
Where does that right come from? Article, section, and clause please. I know I have a right to free speech because I can point to it in the Constitution. I know I have a right to own guns because I can point to it in the Constitution. I'm yet to see such a right to marriage in the Constitution. Please help me find it.
