C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
No, the ‘whole concept’ of change is perfectly understood, including advocating for ‘change’ that is reactionary, detrimental, and predicated on fear, ignorance, and hate – ‘change’ seeking to disadvantage various classes of persons because they are incorrectly perceived to be a ‘threat.’[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?