Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Redfish]

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

 

[protectionist]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

C Clayton Jones appears to tend to make up legal reality as he goes along, in accordance with however he sees (or wants to see it) to be.

 

[Skylar]

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

C Clayton Jones appears to tend to make up legal reality as he goes along, in accordance with however he sees (or wants to see it) to be.

The 'homos are not equal' line of reasoning is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have recognized that gays and lesbians are due protection under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You say otherwise. So what? In terms of constitutional rights, you define nothing. While the SCOTUS creates binding precedent. Rendering your 'legal logic' meaningless.

 

[Seawytch]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

You might argue that, but most sane people would be able to find rational arguments against pedophilia and bestiality.

There's the whole consent thing you anti gay bigots forget about in your slippery slope fallacies.

 

[protectionist]

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

C Clayton Jones appears to tend to make up legal reality as he goes along, in accordance with however he sees (or wants to see it) to be.

The 'homos are not equal' line of reasoning is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have recognized that gays and lesbians are due protection under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You say otherwise. So what? In terms of constitutional rights, you define nothing. While the SCOTUS creates binding precedent. Rendering your 'legal logic' meaningless.

In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers. The rulings that have been in their favor have been in state courts, Some other state rulings have been the queers are not equal and do NOT qualify for equal protection.
PS- the word "gays" is a euphemism which is contrary to reality. The word queer (accepted by homosexuals) is more fitting.

 

[Skylar]

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

C Clayton Jones appears to tend to make up legal reality as he goes along, in accordance with however he sees (or wants to see it) to be.

The 'homos are not equal' line of reasoning is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have recognized that gays and lesbians are due protection under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You say otherwise. So what? In terms of constitutional rights, you define nothing. While the SCOTUS creates binding precedent. Rendering your 'legal logic' meaningless.

In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers.

Says you. Now if you'd bothered to read the post you're replying to, you'd notice a ruling I quoted. Its called 'Romer v. Evans'. Its a landmark gay rights case in which the USSC recognized that the Equal Protection Clause applied to the protection of the rights of gays and lesbians.

Do try and read what you're responding to this time. I'll even help you out by posting it again:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You can pretend that Romer v. Evans doesn't exist. But the USSC isn't gonna pretend with you.

Any more pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like to offer us? Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[protectionist]

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

C Clayton Jones appears to tend to make up legal reality as he goes along, in accordance with however he sees (or wants to see it) to be.

The 'homos are not equal' line of reasoning is pseudo-legal gibberish. The courts have recognized that gays and lesbians are due protection under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You say otherwise. So what? In terms of constitutional rights, you define nothing. While the SCOTUS creates binding precedent. Rendering your 'legal logic' meaningless.

In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers.

Says you. Now if you'd bothered to read the post you're replying to, you'd notice a ruling I quoted. Its called 'Romer v. Evans'. Its a landmark gay rights case in which the USSC recognized that the Equal Protection Clause applied to the protection of the rights of gays and lesbians.

Do try and read what you're responding to this time. I'll even help you out by posting it again:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

You can pretend that Romer v. Evans doesn't exist. But the USSC isn't gonna pretend with you.

Any more pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like to offer us? Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air. The SCOTUS will get around to it eventually. IN the meantime, SSM (just one example) is still variable throughout the country from state to state, with it being accepted in some states, banned in others. Ho hum. No charge for the tutoring.

 

[Skylar]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

 

[jasonnfree]

It looks like conservatives who have no problem with corporations being given citizenship status still have a problem with certain Americans being treated as full human beings. These are the same people who would have been against freeing the slaves.

 

[protectionist]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

And when they rule against it, there goes the equal protection, doesn't it ? (despite all your wishful thinking) Is this beginning to sink in now ?

 

[protectionist]

It looks like conservatives who have no problem with corporations being given citizenship status still have a problem with certain Americans being treated as full human beings. These are the same people who would have been against freeing the slaves.

This will qualify for top 10 most idiotic posts of the year. The slaves weren't illegal invaders of the USA -nor were they pillagers of it, as illegal aliens are, as we all know (at least those of us who see more than just liberal, censored media).

 

[protectionist]

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

Putting cart before the horse ? Patience is a virtue.

 

[Skylar]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

And when they rule against it, there goes the equal protection doesn't it ? (despite all your wishful thinking) Is this beginning to sink in now ?

Laughing.....you're so hopelessly uninformed that you couldn't accurately read rulings that the Supreme Court made on gay rights almost 20 years ago.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Bizarrely and ignorantly insisting that the SCOTUS had 'not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers'. As 'queers' weren't 'equal'. And after that epic piece of pseudo-legal gibberish, where you not only made shit up on a topic you clearly didn't understand, but you literally ignored the United States Supreme Court on the position of the United States Supreme Court....

......you're gonna tell us what the court is going to rule in the future?

Whoa, there partner. You're still trying to master reading. You be might getting a little ahead of yourself trying to prophesy the future. As you still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Read Scalia's dissent on 2013's Windsor v. US. Pay close attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' on the SCOTUS' take on state gay marriage bans.

And then ask yourself why you feel compelled to babble ignorantly on topics that are simply beyond your grasp.

 

[Skylar]

It looks like conservatives who have no problem with corporations being given citizenship status still have a problem with certain Americans being treated as full human beings. These are the same people who would have been against freeing the slaves.

This will qualify for top 10 most idiotic posts of the year. The slaves weren't illegal invaders of the USA -nor were they pillagers of it, as illegal aliens are, as we all know (at least those of us who see more than just liberal, censored media).

Illegal immigrants? Who the fuck is talking about illegal immigrants? Did you even read the post you're responding to?

 

[protectionist]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

And when they rule against it, there goes the equal protection doesn't it ? (despite all your wishful thinking) Is this beginning to sink in now ?

Laughing.....you're so hopelessly uninformed that you couldn't accurately read rulings that the Supreme Court made on gay rights almost 20 years ago.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Bizarrely and ignorantly insisting that the SCOTUS had 'not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers'. As 'queers' weren't 'equal'. And after that epic piece of pseudo-legal gibberish, where you not only made shit up on a topic you clearly didn't understand, but you literally ignored the United States Supreme Court on the position of the United States Supreme Court....

......you're gonna tell us what the court is going to rule in the future?

Whoa, there partner. You're still trying to master reading. You be might getting a little ahead of yourself trying to prophesy the future. As you still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Read Scalia's dissent on 2013's Windsor v. US. Pay close attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' on the SCOTUS' take on state gay marriage bans.

And then ask yourself why you feel compelled to babble ignorantly on topics that are simply beyond your grasp.

What I said before holds true. You can babble on all you like. Queers cannot be accorded equal protection of the law. Sex perverts aren't equal to normal people.

 

[Redfish]

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

You might argue that, but most sane people would be able to find rational arguments against pedophilia and bestiality.

There's the whole consent thing you anti gay bigots forget about in your slippery slope fallacies.

why do you assume that the members of a polygamous or multiple partner marriage would not all consent to it?

the slippery slope is real, gay marriage WILL lead to the legalization of all forms of marriage. Its just another left wing step towards the destruction of our culture.

Wytch, its not about your sexual orientation, you are but a pawn in this. This is but one part of a left wing plan to bring the USA to its knees by destroying our culture, our economy, and our future.

 

[Redfish]

nope. the 2nd is clear on gun rights, the 14th is not clear on gay marriage.

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

 

[bodecea]

The things I said in Post # 445 are 100% correct. The status of same sex marriage and other so-called gay rights notions are still up in the air.

I believe your exact words were:

"In case you never got the memo, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers."

Protectionist

With your argument being that 'queers aren't equal', so the equal protection clause doesn't apply to them. The USSC clearly contradicts your ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish:

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Once again, you're clueless. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently. And your argument is meaningless noise void of reason, explicitly contradicted by the courts. The rights of gays and lesbians are protected. And they fall clearly under the Equal Protection Clause.

Get used to the idea.

As for when the courts are getting around to the issue of gay marriage, that would be next month. With their ruling coming in June.

And when they rule against it, there goes the equal protection doesn't it ? (despite all your wishful thinking) Is this beginning to sink in now ?

Laughing.....you're so hopelessly uninformed that you couldn't accurately read rulings that the Supreme Court made on gay rights almost 20 years ago.

"The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution."

Justice Kennedy
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Bizarrely and ignorantly insisting that the SCOTUS had 'not yet ruled on equal protection applied to queers'. As 'queers' weren't 'equal'. And after that epic piece of pseudo-legal gibberish, where you not only made shit up on a topic you clearly didn't understand, but you literally ignored the United States Supreme Court on the position of the United States Supreme Court....

......you're gonna tell us what the court is going to rule in the future?

Whoa, there partner. You're still trying to master reading. You be might getting a little ahead of yourself trying to prophesy the future. As you still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Read Scalia's dissent on 2013's Windsor v. US. Pay close attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' on the SCOTUS' take on state gay marriage bans.

And then ask yourself why you feel compelled to babble ignorantly on topics that are simply beyond your grasp.

What I said before holds true. You can babble on all you like. Queers cannot be accorded equal protection of the law. Sex perverts aren't equal to normal people.

Allow me to clarify your position...you are asserting that gay citizens are not deserving of equal standing when it comes to citizens' rights?

 

[bodecea]

How clear is the 2nd on auto weapons? Tanks? Ammo? Licensing?

"right to bear arms" is clear. the word "marriage" appears nowhere in the 14th

Incorrect.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, just as the Constitution protects the right to marry.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

NO, its a very valid argument, based on a literal reading of the constitution. Making racial and religious protections applicable to sexual abnormality is NOT a valid interpretation of the constitution. If it was then you would have to argue in favor of pedifilia and beastiality, because a small % of the populations considers those aberations to be normal.

Wrong.

Your argument is inconsistent – you and others on the right can't have it both ways.

Articles III and VI authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the intent of the Framing generation and the Framers of the Amendments.

If the Court has correctly determined that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – although nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find reference to an 'individual right' or 'self-defense' – then the Supreme Court has also correctly determined that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying gay Americans due process and equal protection of the law, and that marriage is a right afforded to all persons.

Constitutional case law is not a 'cafeteria plan,' you can't pick the rulings you like and ignore those you don't.

then by that exact same reasoning, multiple person marriages, mother/daughter, father/son, and sibling marriages must also be sanctioned by the government.

Sorry, but you cannot include one minority view without including all minority views.

Feel free to work on that.