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

[Skylar]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

 

[James Everett]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument. You exist in apolitic

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand; something that YOUR politically charge SCOTUS= Kangaroo court refuses to acknowledge. Says the guy who is not biased by YOUR left v right blind following.

 

[Skylar]

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand;

Says you, citing yourself. The federal judiciary tested your theory and with almost universal consensus (44 of 46 cases) found that the 14th amendment did apply. And same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

Remember, you simply typing your personal opinion doesn't actually have any legal relevance nor establish any legal principle. As you're nobody.

 

[Silhouette]

The dismantling of the word "marriage" is too important of a concept for the SCOTUS to meritlessly refuse stays to preserve interim law. This forced-attrition Alabama was/is right to buck. Alabama understands that a boy needs a father to call "Dad" and a girl needs a mother to call "Mom". The Justices surely had that civil right as children. So their forcing kids to pervert the word and meaning of the word "Dad" and "Mom" to be anything other than a man or a woman presiding in that psychologically-vital role is an unfair social experiment foisted by those who would not have undergone it onto those who cannot vote to affect their own fate.

9 People cannot use shadow justice to force attrition of state laws, or to decide the crucial formative meaning of "marriage" for the most important people involved in it: children.

Bully for Alabama!

 

[Skylar]

The dismantling of the word "marriage" is too important of a concept for the SCOTUS to meritlessly refuse stays to preserve interim law.

The 'interim law' you made up doesn't actually exist. As the Windsor ruling established a firm hierarchy that contradicts your narrative:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage law

3) Federal Marriage law.

With every ruling that overturned gay marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which are perfectly consistent with the Windsor ruling.

See, you're just straight up ignoring constitutional guarantees. And then insisting that because you ignore them, that the courts have to as well.

Laughing.....no they don't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

...Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

The issue at hand isn't same-sex marriage. What is at hand is actually redefining the word "marriage". Correct. Two Justices while that question of redefinition is pending yet to be Heard, presided over gay weddings. Their act, the looming of the fed in expressed approval of that redefinition, has caused them to legally have to recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing. The US Supreme Court Found in 2009 that if any hint of bias is displayed or could be suspected reasonably from an objective person that a judge might be playing favorites, that judge/justice has to recuse him/herself.

If those two Justices preside over the redacting of the word "marriage" and by doing so, force the states to be silenced in the debate over the brand new experiment of "gay marriage" using kids involved as lab rats, then you are correct. At that point we will formally have a dictatorship.

We already have a dictatorship in the form of consolidation under a national government system and the fiction that peopel accept that there is still a "Federal government".

Making up definitions again?

Under no form of the word : dictatorship" does that word define our current government.

 

[James Everett]

Aga

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument. You exist in apolitic

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand;

Says you, citing yourself. The federal judiciary tested your theory and with almost universal consensus (44 of 46 cases) found that the 14th amendment did apply. And same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

Remember, you simply typing your personal opinion doesn't actually have any legal relevance nor establish any legal principle. As you're nobody.

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary". There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority. The people of Alabama voted against your wishes. So from your very acceptance of a fictional "Federal Judiciary" wherein it is impossible for one to exist, shows that you are willing to accept any opinion as if it is legitimate from a fictional source. Now please explain this current federal system that you claim exists. This nobody really wants to hear this explanationof yours.

 

[Syriusly]

The dismantling of the word "marriage" is too important of a concept for the SCOTUS to meritlessly refuse stays to preserve interim law. This forced-attrition Alabama was/is right to buck. Alabama understands that a boy needs a father to call "Dad" and a girl needs a mother to call "Mom". !

And how does denying gay couples marriage accomplish that Silhouette?

How does denying gay couples provide a dad to the child being raised by a single mom?

How does denying marriage to gay couples raising children, provide a mom to them?

How does denying marriage to lesbian couples raising children, provide a dad to those kids?

Enlighten us Silhouette- show us that this is about more than your bigotry towards homosexuals.

 

[danielpalos]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

So what; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. I really am bringing up valid concepts.

 

[danielpalos]

The dismantling of the word "marriage" is too important of a concept for the SCOTUS to meritlessly refuse stays to preserve interim law. This forced-attrition Alabama was/is right to buck. Alabama understands that a boy needs a father to call "Dad" and a girl needs a mother to call "Mom". The Justices surely had that civil right as children. So their forcing kids to pervert the word and meaning of the word "Dad" and "Mom" to be anything other than a man or a woman presiding in that psychologically-vital role is an unfair social experiment foisted by those who would not have undergone it onto those who cannot vote to affect their own fate.

9 People cannot use shadow justice to force attrition of state laws, or to decide the crucial formative meaning of "marriage" for the most important people involved in it: children.

Bully for Alabama!

Deacon is the Term you are referring to.

 

[Syriusly]

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a bitch.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

 

[danielpalos]

Aga

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument. You exist in apolitic

Aft

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand;

Says you, citing yourself. The federal judiciary tested your theory and with almost universal consensus (44 of 46 cases) found that the 14th amendment did apply. And same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

Remember, you simply typing your personal opinion doesn't actually have any legal relevance nor establish any legal principle. As you're nobody.

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary". There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority. The people of Alabama voted against your wishes. So from your very acceptance of a fictional "Federal Judiciary" wherein it is impossible for one to exist, shows that you are willing to accept any opinion as if it is legitimate from a fictional source. Now please explain this current federal system that you claim exists. This nobody really wants to hear this explanation of yours.

Dude and Esquires,

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the legal fact that the several and sovereign States ratified Article 4, Section 2; it is no longer a States' right, upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

 

[James Everett]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

So what; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. I really am bringing up valid concepts.

Please, please, explain this fictional federal system that you claim currently exists. If you can't then this kangaroo court in which you rely is a fiction as well. Point being, you grant your consent to an illegitimate source, and accept that which is illegitimate as if it is legitimate. If the claimed authority to take the life of every 1st born child, you would accept such as legitimate as coming from a "federal judiciary" . But let us not get side tract; I really really do want to hear this explanation of this federal system you claim still exists.

 

[danielpalos]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

So what; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. I really am bringing up valid concepts.

Please, please, explain this fictional federal system that you claim currently exists. If you can't then this kangaroo court in which you rely is a fiction as well. Point being, you grant your consent to an illegitimate source, and accept that which is illegitimate as if it is legitimate. If the claimed authority to take the life of every 1st born child, you would accept such as legitimate as coming from a "federal judiciary" . But let us not get side tract; I really really do want to hear this explanation of this federal system you claim still exists.

What are you referring to? Our federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[James Everett]

Aga

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument. You exist in apolitic

Aft
After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..

Says the guy that ignores the 14th amendment entirely because it is inconvenient to his argument.

Says the guy who has shown that YOUR 14th amendment doesn't apply to the case at hand;

Says you, citing yourself. The federal judiciary tested your theory and with almost universal consensus (44 of 46 cases) found that the 14th amendment did apply. And same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

Remember, you simply typing your personal opinion doesn't actually have any legal relevance nor establish any legal principle. As you're nobody.

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary". There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority. The people of Alabama voted against your wishes. So from your very acceptance of a fictional "Federal Judiciary" wherein it is impossible for one to exist, shows that you are willing to accept any opinion as if it is legitimate from a fictional source. Now please explain this current federal system that you claim exists. This nobody really wants to hear this explanation of yours.

Dude and Esquires,

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the legal fact that the several and sovereign States ratified Article 4, Section 2; it is no longer a States' right, upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.

Oh, but Sir, thirteen of those States legally and lawfully seceded from the former union of States, via the tenth amendment which reserved that power to each State individually, hence Alabama being one of those thirteen States, existing under the occupation of YOUR national government is in reality, no longer party to YOUR CONstitution, hence anything since 1865 is the result of the occupation, and as per Alabama's declaration of Secession, Article IV section2 was nullified. One must return to the poison fruit of the illegal act that was the destruction of the union via the war made on the States and subsequent destruction of the federal portion of YOUR U.S. CONstitution, for any proper correction in law.

 

[Skylar]

Again, you show your own simple indoctrination into fiction by your reference to "the Federal judiciary".

More accurately, I show that I don't recognize your personal opinion as having any legal relevance to the application of the 14th amendment. As your basis that the 14th doesn't apply...is just you saying the 14th doesn't apply.

The Begging the Question fallacy. And fallacies of logic isn't evidence of anything but your inability to support your claims logically and factually.

There must be a federal system for a federal judiciary to exist. You see Sir, you hold a fiction as a legitimate authority, when even the father of Your own CONstitution stated that the people in an individual State are the highest authority.

A statement that was made BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed. You see Sir, in the age of the founders the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The States were the supreme authority on the rights of the people of that State. And the Federal government had no jurisdiction if a State were to violate the rights of individual citizens.....as the States sometimes did;

"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

This is the era from which you exclusive pull your citations. But that era ended with the passage of the 14th amendment which explicitly extended federal authority to the States if they violate the privileges and immunities of US Citizens:

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 to the Constitution of the United States

This fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government, allowing the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the States and to prevent the States from violating of those rights.

You pretend this never happened. You pretend the States are still free to violate the rights of US citizens. You pretend that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the States nor the ability to prevent the violation of rights by the States.

I'm not obligated to pretend with you. And the courts certainly aren't. Just because you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

You Sir, simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

The 'interim law' you made up doesn't actually exist. As the Windsor ruling established a firm hierarchy that contradicts your narrative:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage law

3) Federal Marriage law.
.

Agreed and the only constitutional guarantee Found on the merits in Windsor was states' rights retroactive to the founding of the country to define marriage.

So your list for interim law looks like this:

1) Constitutional (state choice to define marriage, avered 56 times in the Windsor Opinion) guarantees.

2) State marriage law

3) No such thing. Windsor Found that the fed must listen to the states when they say "such and such means marriage".

THAT is precisely what Windsor Found, nothing more, nothing less. Imaginary "findings" on imaginary "merits" that weren't discussed at the time do not count in your imaginary interpretation of Windsor.

 

[Conservative65]

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a bitch.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

 

[Skylar]

The 'interim law' you made up doesn't actually exist. As the Windsor ruling established a firm hierarchy that contradicts your narrative:

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage law

3) Federal Marriage law.
.

Agreed and the only constitutional guarantee Found on the merits in Windsor was states' rights retroactive to the founding of the country to define marriage.

That's what you say. This is what the Windsor ruling says:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

With the example of constitutional guarantees given being the Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967. A ruling where the court OVERTURNED state marriage laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Exactly the opposite of what you claim the court meant.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And while you may ignore constitutional guarantees, the courts won't. Get used to the idea.

 

[Syriusly]

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

And that helps the children being raised by their gay parents exactly how?

Other than telling those kids that bigots like yourself don't approve- what is accomplished by preventing their parents from marrying?

What is accomplished is that those kids learn two males/two females being attracted is abnormal. While you may not agree, that isn't a requirement for it to be true.

While you may think that promoting your bigotry is an accomplishment- doesn't make it true.