BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Marener]

No, because the ban was about race.

If you can't figure out the difference between race and sexuality, that's on you.

The ban affected both races equally. Did it not?

 

[martybegan]

The ban affected both races equally. Did it not?

the ban was unconstitutional after the 14th amendment based on race being something to consider under equal protection, as marriage was never primarily about race but about a contract between a man and a woman. race has nothing to do with it, and as race is just an inherent trait, not an action such as sexuality, equal protection applies.

 

[Marener]

the ban was unconstitutional after the 14th amendment based on race being something to consider under equal protection, as marriage was never primarily about race but about a contract between a man and a woman. race has nothing to do with it, and as race is just an inherent trait, not an action such as sexuality, equal protection applies.

You're avoiding the question as to whether the ban affected both races equally.

 

[martybegan]

You're avoiding the question as to whether the ban affected both races equally.

I'm not avoiding anything because I already said race and sexuality are different. I don't consider gender to be an issue in this, so any attempts at a gotcha fail on the merits.

If you enjoy going around in circles, please continue. I've made my point, and I understand yours.

 

[Marener]

I'm not avoiding anything because I already said race and sexuality are different. I don't consider gender to be an issue in this, so any attempts at a gotcha fail on the merits.

If you enjoy going around in circles, please continue. I've made my point, and I understand yours.

There's no answer to the question I asked in that response.

I'm just asking if the interracial marriage ban affected both races equally. You are freaking out because you know this because you're cornered.

I got an idea. Let's look at the text of the ban that Obergfell sought to overturn. Do you think the text of this law references sexuality or do you think the text of this law references gender?

 

[martybegan]

There's no answer to the question I asked in that response.

I'm just asking if the interracial marriage ban affected both races equally. You are freaking out because you know this because you're cornered.

I got an idea. Let's look at the text of the ban that Obergfell sought to overturn. Do you think the text of this law references sexuality or do you think the text of this law references gender?

I gave you my answer, and even if the decision references gender, it's about sexuality.


You are just one of those self-centered narcissistic SJW twats that can't fathom someone thinking differently from them.

 

[Marener]

I gave you my answer, and even if the decision references gender, it's about sexuality.


You are just one of those self-centered narcissistic SJW twats that can't fathom someone thinking differently from them.

Fantastic double-think.

The law references gender but gender has nothing to do with it. The law says nothing about sexuality but it’s all about sexuality.

That’s what you’re going to go with?

 

[martybegan]

Fantastic double-think.

The law references gender but gender has nothing to do with it. The law says nothing about sexuality but it’s all about sexuality.

That’s what you’re going to go with?

Have you ever read the titles of most laws? They have nothing to do with the actual law in question.

the law is about sexuality, even if it references gender. you have to reference gender when talking about sexuality, even if the law isn't actually about it.

 

[Marener]

Have you ever read the titles of most laws? They have nothing to do with the actual law in question.

the law is about sexuality, even if it references gender. you have to reference gender when talking about sexuality, even if the law isn't actually about it.

I'm not talking about the title. I'm talking about the actual text. You know, the thing that actually determines what the law is about.

You have to reference gender when talking about sexuality, huh. But you still think that gender has nothing to do with it? How can gender have nothing to do with it if you have to reference it?

 

[martybegan]

I'm not talking about the title. I'm talking about the actual text. You know, the thing that actually determines what the law is about.

You have to reference gender when talking about sexuality, huh. But you still think that gender has nothing to do with it? How can gender have nothing to do with it if you have to reference it?

The 800 pages filled with blather and federal code legalese?

Sexuality isn't gender, and this is about Sexuality.

 

[schmidlap]

It's unfortunate that you are unable to articulate your disagreement.

I support the forces of law and order enforcing law and order.

"Patients being kept from entering a clinic, being verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted," clearly demands that police do their duty and arrest the miscreants.

 

[Marener]

The 800 pages filled with blather and federal code legalese?

Sexuality isn't gender, and this is about Sexuality.

The law says it's about gender:

Section 3101.01 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov

(A) Except as provided in section 3101.02 of the Revised Code, only male persons of the age of eighteen years, and only female persons of the age of eighteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.

You already admitted that you can't talk about sexuality without talking about gender. That's true. You've also said that you can discriminate on the basis of sexuality without also discriminating on the basis of gender. That's false. There is no way to do so and you've failed to describe how that can be done.

 

[martybegan]

The law says it's about gender:

Section 3101.01 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov

(A) Except as provided in section 3101.02 of the Revised Code, only male persons of the age of eighteen years, and only female persons of the age of eighteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.

You already admitted that you can't talk about sexuality without talking about gender. That's true. You've also said that you can discriminate on the basis of sexuality without also discriminating on the basis of gender. That's false. There is no way to do so and you've failed to describe how that can be done.

And that only discriminates based on a person's sexuality, not gender.

 

[Marener]

And that only discriminates based on a person's sexuality, not gender.

When they ask you to fill out the marriage certificate, do they ask if your gender or sexuality?

The law does not mention sexuality. It says gender all over the place.

 

[martybegan]

When they ask you to fill out the marriage certificate, do they ask if your gender or sexuality?

The law does not mention sexuality. It says gender all over the place.

Well before sexuality wasn't a concern because SSM didn't exist as a concept.

it uses gender to explain sexuality, specifically the sexuality of the unions now possible, but partially unconstitutionally so.

 

[Marener]

Well before sexuality wasn't a concern because SSM didn't exist as a concept.

it uses gender to explain sexuality, specifically the sexuality of the unions now possible, but partially unconstitutionally so.

The law is completely silent on sexuality.

The law only stipulates what genders can be in a marriage. It does not say what their sexuality can be.

 

[martybegan]

The law is completely silent on sexuality.

The law only stipulates what genders can be in a marriage. It does not say what their sexuality can be.

It deals with sexuality. I never said gender wasn't needed to discuss the topic, just that it is irrelevant to the overall concept of applying equal protection to SSM.

 

[Marener]

It deals with sexuality. I never said gender wasn't needed to discuss the topic, just that it is irrelevant to the overall concept of applying equal protection to SSM.

The law doesn't really prevent marriage based on sexuality. In fact, if a gay man wanted to marry a gay woman, they could. That's perfectly legal.

Their sexuality isn't relevant.

The relevant factor in what the state will allow is there in black and white. Their gender.

 

[martybegan]

The law doesn't really prevent marriage based on sexuality. In fact, if a gay man wanted to marry a gay woman, they could. That's perfectly legal.

Their sexuality isn't relevant.

The relevant factor in what the state will allow is there in black and white. Their gender.

But that's not their sexuality, it would be false.

their gender is what is listed, but the reason for their wanting what they want is their sexuality.

 

[Marener]

But that's not their sexuality, it would be false.

their gender is what is listed, but the reason for their wanting what they want is their sexuality.

What's false? They're gay. They're getting married. The law doesn't ban gay people from getting married. The law doesn't care what your sexuality is.

We both know what the law cares about. Their gender. That's what makes it gender discrimination.