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.
Well now, since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman, please give a specific example today wherein a man and woman have been denied the right to enter into a marriage contract based on discrimination.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
Well now, since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman, please give a specific example today wherein a man and woman have been denied the right to enter into a marriage contract based on discrimination.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
Because truth remains truth no matter how much fiction one may pole on top of it. Once it was said that the Black man had a smaller brain, and slavery existed, and YOUR SCOTUS went along with that fiction unordered that slavery continue, yet that fiction has been debunked therefore fiction may exist buried under a pile if BS for a time, but the truth maintained by those who know it will in the end by brought out.Since you have lost, and are about to lose nationally, why do you bother?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;
Barron v. Baltimore (1833) said:"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.
You pretend that the 14th amendment gives the federal government power over something that the Constitution does not give it.
Ah, but marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. And the courts absolutely have the authority to protect the rights of citizens. Not simply the authority, but the obligation to do so.
And the States can't apply their law unequally to US citizens. If the States do, they courts again have the authority to prevent it and the obligation to do so.
However, you ignore the 10th amendment which says those powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.
Read the 9th amendment. Reserve rights still exist even if they aren't enumerated.
Rights trump powers, no matter how much this fact may infuriate conservatives.
Free speech, freedom of religion, and owning guns are recognized constitutional rights because they are specifically in the Constitution. Certain interpretations say marriage is one. However, I'm yet to see it listed like I do speech, religion, and gun ownership. Read the 10th Amendment. It trumps what you think you have a right to do faggot whether you like it or not.
Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
Well now, since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman, please give a specific example today wherein a man and woman have been denied the right to enter into a marriage contract based on discrimination.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.
Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.
F
First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.
Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States
Skylar,Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.
You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?
Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?
F
First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.
Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.
Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.
Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.
So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States
The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.
Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.
There was NO right retained by the people to redefine the definition of marriage.F
First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.JAMES EVERETT SAID:
“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”
Incorrect.
As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.
Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.
Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.
Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.
So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States
The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.
Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.
You do not understand the law.....CONSERVATIVE65 SAID:
“Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages.”
Wrong.
Those who understand the law understand that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where to deny them that access violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Marriage contract law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons marrying, or siblings marrying, consequently there are no civil rights 'violations,' one cannot be 'denied access' to a law that doesn't exist.
The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive that marriage is somehow being 'changed' to accommodate same-sex couples, when in fact nothing is being 'changed.'
For example, when Florida's measure denying same-sex couples access to marriage law was invalidated, and same-sex couples were allowed to marry in accordance with the 14th Amendment, the marriage contract law they began to enter into early last January is the same law opposite-sex couples enter into, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'
This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.Skylar,Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.
You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?
Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.
Yes, it is; especially when Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States and is no longer retained as a States' right, upon appeal to the general government and that body of laws.This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.Skylar,Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.
The Federal system exists- it is.
Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.
And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.
And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.
You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?
Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.
