Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[Seawytch]

And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.

Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?

'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

 

[OKTexas]

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

Do you always just pout when I ask you questions you can't possibly answer?

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage?

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

And of course your 'behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights' is just pseudo-legal horseshit. All sorts of rights, enumerated and unenumerated, are behaviors.

Keep running.

Answer my questions, this is not a one way street.

 

[OKTexas]

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

 

[Skylar]

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

Do you always just pout when I ask you questions you can't possibly answer?

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage?

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

And of course your 'behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights' is just pseudo-legal horseshit. All sorts of rights, enumerated and unenumerated, are behaviors.

Keep running.

Answer my questions, this is not a one way street.

I did answer your questions: Your foundation assumption that behaviors are not an objective criteria for determine rights was horseshit. Any question that is based on that assumption is thus horseshit.

And by your abandonment of your 'biological reality' nonsense, even you aren't going to polish that turd.

What else have you got? Because I've got the Supreme Court of the United States, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, the 14th amendment, the Windsor ruling, the Lawerence v. Texas ruling, the Loving V. Virginia ruling.... and 50 of 50 states performing same sex marriages.

Including Texas.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.

Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?

'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Marriage is a union between two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a contract recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate based solely on who they are is un-Constitutional.

Consequently, neither the law nor Constitution have been 'rewritten.'

The Constitutional case law used to invalidate state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage is the same case law used to invalidate state measures that criminalized homosexuality, or state measures that sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, and state measures which sought to deny interracial couples access to marriage law.

The marriage law in all 50 states are the same now as before Obergefell, laws neither rewritten nor changed, and marriage in no way 'redefined.'

 

[Silhouette]

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

What does an inborn race have to do with just some but not other (polygamy, incest) sexual orientation behaviors the majority object to for marriage?

How is there marriage equality when some objectionable sexual orientation behaviors can marry and others cannot? The only reasons you can cite are arbitrary and discriminatory. You can't cite the 14th Amendment to promote one sexual orientation over all others. That type of interpretation is forbidden by the very nature and intent of the 14th Amendment.

It's beyond ironic. It's mega-ironic, hypocritical and legally impossible.

 

[OKTexas]

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

Do you always just pout when I ask you questions you can't possibly answer?

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage?

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

And of course your 'behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights' is just pseudo-legal horseshit. All sorts of rights, enumerated and unenumerated, are behaviors.

Keep running.

Answer my questions, this is not a one way street.

I did answer your questions: Your foundation assumption that behaviors are not an objective criteria for determine rights was horseshit. Any question that is based on that assumption is thus horseshit.

And by your abandonment of your 'biological reality' nonsense, even you aren't going to polish that turd.

What else have you got? Because I've got the Supreme Court of the United States, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, the 14th amendment, the Windsor ruling, the Lawerence v. Texas ruling, the Loving V. Virginia ruling.... and 50 of 50 states performing same sex marriages.

Including Texas.

Nothing is Windsor, Loving or Lawrence legalized faghadist marriage, nothing in the Constitution has changed, so where is the legal justification to make it legal now? Other than 5 judges decided to apply the Constitution in a manner it's never been applied before.

 

[OKTexas]

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Marriage is a union between two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a contract recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate based solely on who they are is un-Constitutional.

Consequently, neither the law nor Constitution have been 'rewritten.'

The Constitutional case law used to invalidate state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage is the same case law used to invalidate state measures that criminalized homosexuality, or state measures that sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, and state measures which sought to deny interracial couples access to marriage law.

The marriage law in all 50 states are the same now as before Obergefell, laws neither rewritten nor changed, and marriage in no way 'redefined.'

So you refuse to address Scalia's dissent? And yes, many States defined, in their Constitutions that marriage was between one man and one woman. Their laws reflected that definition, so yes, laws and the definition of marriage was changed. Also nothing in case law recognized same sex marriage, all case law reflected the traditional definition. All it boils down to is 5 justices decided to apply case law and the Constitution in a manner that was unprecedented. They took it upon themselves to change the very historical tradition of marriage and declared in a very self serving manner that they knew better than anyone what marriage is.

 

[Skylar]

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

Do you always just pout when I ask you questions you can't possibly answer?

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage?

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

And of course your 'behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights' is just pseudo-legal horseshit. All sorts of rights, enumerated and unenumerated, are behaviors.

Keep running.

Answer my questions, this is not a one way street.

I did answer your questions: Your foundation assumption that behaviors are not an objective criteria for determine rights was horseshit. Any question that is based on that assumption is thus horseshit.

And by your abandonment of your 'biological reality' nonsense, even you aren't going to polish that turd.

What else have you got? Because I've got the Supreme Court of the United States, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, the 14th amendment, the Windsor ruling, the Lawerence v. Texas ruling, the Loving V. Virginia ruling.... and 50 of 50 states performing same sex marriages.

Including Texas.

Nothing is Windsor, Loving or Lawrence legalized faghadist marriage, nothing in the Constitution has changed, so where is the legal justification to make it legal now? Other than 5 judges decided to apply the Constitution in a manner it's never been applied before.

As you've never read any of those rulings you have no idea what you're talking about. Windsor establishes that state marriage laws were subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Loving establishes what those constitutional guarantees are: the right to marry established by the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection Clause. And Lawrence recognizes that private relations are beyond the State's capacity to regulate.

Remember, just because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about doesn't mean that the Supreme Court rulings magically disappear.

And lets test your theory the authority of the '5 judges'. Are same sex marriages recognized and performed in Texas?

Smiling...we both know the answer. I just want you to say it.

 

[Syriusly]

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.

Good. It was foolish nonsense.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.

 

[Syriusly]

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Marriage is a union between two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a contract recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate based solely on who they are is un-Constitutional.

Consequently, neither the law nor Constitution have been 'rewritten.'

The Constitutional case law used to invalidate state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage is the same case law used to invalidate state measures that criminalized homosexuality, or state measures that sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, and state measures which sought to deny interracial couples access to marriage law.

The marriage law in all 50 states are the same now as before Obergefell, laws neither rewritten nor changed, and marriage in no way 'redefined.'

So you refuse to address Scalia's dissent? And yes, many States defined, in their Constitutions that marriage was between one man and one woman. Their laws reflected that definition, so yes, laws and the definition of marriage was changed. Also nothing in case law recognized same sex marriage, all case law reflected the traditional definition. All it boils down to is 5 justices decided to apply case law and the Constitution in a manner that was unprecedented. They took it upon themselves to change the very historical tradition of marriage and declared in a very self serving manner that they knew better than anyone what marriage is.

Not unprecedented at all.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same gender marriage violated Massachusetts own constitution over 10 years ago. Dozens of state and federal judges ruled that State bans on same gender marriage were unconstitutional.

Compared to Loving v. Virginia- where the Supreme Court actually was ahead of the opinion of the American people(who by a large majority opposed mixed race marriages), the Supreme Court in Obergefell was catching up with the opinion of Americans- who now by a majority approve of same gender marriages.

But stamp your feet, threaten to hold your breath- meanwhile- happy couples in love are getting married.

 

[Silhouette]

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same gender marriage violated Massachusetts own constitution over 10 years ago. Dozens of state and federal judges ruled that State bans on same gender marriage were unconstitutional.

So Massachusetts found that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Great. Will the Browns polygamy family be going there to get married now that it's legal for them in Massachusetts?

 

[OKTexas]

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.

 

[Skylar]

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same gender marriage violated Massachusetts own constitution over 10 years ago. Dozens of state and federal judges ruled that State bans on same gender marriage were unconstitutional.

So Massachusetts found that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Great.

Nope. They found that same sex couples have the same right to marry as opposite sex ones. There's no requirement in Massechussets or any other state that same sex couples be gay. Or that opposite sex couples be straight.

Sexual orientation is not the basis of the right to marry. You made that up.

Will the Browns polygamy family be going there to get married now that it's legal for them in Massachusetts?

Nope. As polygamy is neither a 'sexual orientation', nor legal in Massachusetts.

Or any other State.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.

Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.

And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.

Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.

Get used to the idea.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.

Good. It was foolish nonsense.

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.

Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.

Good. It was foolish nonsense.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.

Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex.

'Biological compatibility' has never been a requirement of marriage.

Infertile couples can marry just as easily as fertile ones. Nor does any State (including the Great State of Texas) require anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have kids.

Making 'biological compatibility' irrelevant to marriage....long before Obergefell.

 

[OKTexas]

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.

Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.

And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.

Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.

Get used to the idea.

Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.

 

[Skylar]

Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?

And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?

It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.

What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.

In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.

Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.

And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.

Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.

Get used to the idea.

Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.

If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:


Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.

And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.