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.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.
So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!
Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.
Then the law would prohibit monogamous brothers and sisters from benefiting from the law, or fathers and daughters. Or, people who voluntarily want to be in marriages of multiples. Why shouldn't five women get tax filing benefits or death benefits if they all want to be married to the same man. It's love. Warren Jeffs didn't do anything wrong. Why is he in prison? He just loved more than one woman and took more than one woman to wife.
Even so, mainstreaming homosexual marriages into legality would not come close to causing the kind of damage that it will without the ability to punish people who do not accept that legality. Legalize same sex marriage as far as government benefits go, but allow the wedding cake baker, the photographer, the relationship counselor to say no. Allow schools the power to send homosexual children home and by all means, permit the Boy Scouts to tell the newly outed scout that he doesn't get the Eagle badge.
Then you have an argument that this is only about federal rights.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.
Next question...
You mean it is being ruled unconstitutional by a few liberal judges.
Your point?
Now you're really being an idiot. Lots of conservative judges are striking down the discrimination these days. Get with it.
Name one.
LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.
By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.
Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.
Well roe V wade is another crappy decsion, so you arent going to win points with me there.
And all you are arguing is again, tradition
and precedent.
Thanks for making my point again, and you can also go fuck yourself for the laughing balls.
Translation: You got nothing and are pissed that you're getting your penis-craving ass handed to you.
Bans on interracial marriage were against the spirit of the intent of the Civil war amendments. The purpose of which was to create a colorblind version of the consitution, in anticipation of the very Jim Crow laws that eventually occured in the south and the midwest. What the framers did not anticipate was a supreme court that would ignore the amendments, much as the courts now ingnore the intent of the consituion itself to fit whatever social agenda is the flavor of the month.
and your evidence is pretty freaking weak. A painting on a tomb from egypt? really?
If the intention of the 14th amendment was to only apply to racial matters, it would have specifically been written to specify racial matters. Kinda like how other amendments were specifically written in regards to gender matters, and age matters. But the 14th was written with a wider purpose. This much has been well established by the courts already. Once again, GET EDUCATED before you talk anymore.
By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.
No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.
You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?
No, I want the judicial system to stand by the defintioin of the word marriage
which is a union between a man and woman, period.
Two dykes, or two sodomites living together and having sex with eachother is not marriage
it's perversion and perverse and deviant behavior should not be rewarded in any civilized nation.
Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child
Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child
How about single parent adoptions? How about divorce when there are children? How about continued single parent custody subsequent to widowdom?
Here's one: What if it's a single mother in poverty who doesn't even want the child? Abortion in the first trimester?
Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.
Listen, you really need to become educated on this stuff before you bother speaking. You look more ridiculous than a black dude with an afro and bad teeth wearing a superman costume.
A suspect classification is one where the classification meets the criteria that have been determined through historical jurisprudence as suggesting that said class is probably being discriminated against. When an equal protection issue is brought up for a suspect class, law challenged receives strict scrutiny. Religion and race/national origin are suspect classes.
A "quasi-suspect" class is one that meets lesser criteria but still warrant heightened scrutiny beyond the rational basis test. Those criteria as outlined by the courts are:
A) whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.
C) whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
D) whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.
The third and fourth are not strictly necessary characteristics of the class, but they are indicative of being a quasi-suspect class and are considered by the court.
The class of "single people" meets none of these criteria. Therefore, it cannot be a quasi-suspect class. And therefore, there can be no complaint of equal protection as you have alleged.
Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child
How about single parent adoptions? How about divorce when there are children? How about continued single parent custody subsequent to widowdom?
Here's one: What if it's a single mother in poverty who doesn't even want the child? Abortion in the first trimester?
How about the fact that what he says is wrong on its face. What is in the best interest of any child is two parents that love them unconditionally. The sexual orientation of those parents is irrelevant.
My son has three best friends...not a one of them has parents that are still together. My son is the only one not from a "broken home". THAT is what matters to kids.
They are.Who is the author of this twaddle? UNless it appears in a Supreme Court decision, it's just so much horse manure. Even if it did, single people fit all the criteria mentioned. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as married people?
Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.
Listen, you really need to become educated on this stuff before you bother speaking. You look more ridiculous than a black dude with an afro and bad teeth wearing a superman costume.
A suspect classification is one where the classification meets the criteria that have been determined through historical jurisprudence as suggesting that said class is probably being discriminated against. When an equal protection issue is brought up for a suspect class, law challenged receives strict scrutiny. Religion and race/national origin are suspect classes.
A "quasi-suspect" class is one that meets lesser criteria but still warrant heightened scrutiny beyond the rational basis test. Those criteria as outlined by the courts are:
A) whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.
C) whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
D) whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.
The third and fourth are not strictly necessary characteristics of the class, but they are indicative of being a quasi-suspect class and are considered by the court.
The class of "single people" meets none of these criteria. Therefore, it cannot be a quasi-suspect class. And therefore, there can be no complaint of equal protection as you have alleged.
No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.
You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?
YOu mean you don't know those bills were voted and passed to ENFORCE rights that people were already supposed to have but were not getting due to the racist governments of the South......
I too wonder if you are a citizen of the U.S....you sure don't know much about how our system of government works.
They are.
