It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage. But under the constraints of rulings such as Obergfell and Windsor, I can find no sound legal reasoning to prohibit them. Especially when sex is not a qualification to marry.

You?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

That wasn't actually an answer to the question. If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?

The State HAD the right to regulate how marriage was administrated I guess. I would also guess that they were borderline on if those couples were "too closely related". Oh, and no one can be more "too closely related" than siblings (other than the actual parent, cuz damn, they are intensely closely related).

Clear enough for the third time?

Now, have you found any reason why in Wisconsin, opposite sex cousins have to PROVE infertility to marry, but same sex cousins would not?

Or do you think that same sex cousins shouldn't have too? Seems incredibly stupid to make such an outlandish request. Then shouldn't the same rules apply to both couples?

Just another of the many paradoxes that Obergfell created.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

I do not see any reason same sex cousins should have to prove anything regarding fertility in Wisconsin to marry. In that instance procreation is clearly the greatest factor in the decision whether or not to allow marriage.

Should the same rules apply to both couples? I assume by both couples you mean opposite sex and same sex cousins. Yes, the same rules apply. Only couples who cannot have children together can marry if they are first cousins.

But the burdon of proof then is applied to only one set.

Don't you find that a bit odd?

 

[Pop23]

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

 

[Pop23]

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

Strict scrutiny

Defining protected classes: Same-sex marriage and judicial scrutiny

Get back to me after learning something

K?

 

[Faun]

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

 

[Syriusly]

It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn. Obergefell did nothing to change that. Nor did Obergefell create a new law. It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.

Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means? The court did not create something that did not exist. Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell. The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that. The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society. Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.

The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections. You disagree that such protections were being violated. Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society? If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases. Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling. Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.

All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel? Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell. How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?

Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue. Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM. Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this? Dismissed based on lack of standing? Based on what, exactly? The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married. The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality. How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created? Do you have the text of this law? I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.

Obergfell created a paradox , a vacuum as it were, without providing reasoning. Kicking the can down the road. It did not need to do so.

Says you- citing you.

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.

So you think rights are a static thing. When did this static position start?

Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.

No deflection indeed. Due to your limited ability to comprehend simple concepts, I needed to understand the context.

And, indeed it is a paradox, or your a bigot, Which?

Deflection again.

My post points out that your 'arguments' are you citing yourself- quoting yourself

And:

12 years since a similar decision in Massachusetts- and it is still illegal there for you to marry your sister.

No apparent paradox to anyone but you.

 

[Syriusly]

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

When have I every said gay couples could not marry?

So your premis is in error

When did I say that you said gay couples could not marry?

Once again- you mis-quote me.

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

 

[jillian]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Ah I see the problem here.
You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

No, you clearly DON'T see the problem here because you're a simple-minded moron. I didn't confuse a damn thing, I gave you two examples of words that mean specific things, which can't mean anything else and can't be changed to include something else.

I can give you all kinds of examples... Electrical work isn't plumbing. We don't allow plumbers to obtain a license to be an electrician. It isn't because we're discriminating against the plumber. Grand larceny isn't an an occupation... we don't redefine "occupation" to include grand larceny because that's not what IS an occupation... has nothing to do with discrimination. Cats can't compete in the Westminster Dog Show... they are not eligible and don't meet the criteria because they are cats... it's not because they are being discriminated against. If you are a man, you can never BE Miss America.. sorry... not discrimination.

Rattling off what the SCOTUS said in their lawless ruling is not what is being debated here. I have no argument regarding what they have ruled, it's public record. SCOTUS is not some kind of Supreme Authority we are bound to follow for eternity... they have a long storied history of making some awful decisions... Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu.. the list goes on and on.

given this pointless and bigoted thread, I think you calling others simple-minded probably is something you shouldn't do.

 

[Syriusly]

You see, this is exactly why I say you're an abject idiot. There's no compelling reason to ban same-sex people from getting married. There are compelling reasons for why siblings can't get married regardless of their gender or sexuality. You've been shown this 100 times and you still don't get it. You never will. Why? Because you're an object idiot.

And I've demonstrated how all those that have been brought forth meet the rational basis test, not the strict scrutiny test.

If you would like we could discuss that further.

But I think you know better and will default back to the "because it's icky" defense.

You've demonstrated nothing other than you're an abject idiot and a troll who fantasizes of nothing except brothers marrying each other.

Meanwhile, you've been shown compelling reasons why states are rightfully denying marriage to immediate family members. Comically, you think if you don't agree with those reasons, they don't exist. But regrettably for your senility, not only do they still exist, but states still rely only on them to maintain bans on marriages between immediate family members.

And "icky" isn't a compelling reason. You only keep throwing that strawman out there because you got yourself seriously bitch-slapped when you tried using that reason to deny same-sex marriage. No one here resorts to that as a compelling reason to deny marriage to immediate family members.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

This thread has been 'dead' since the OP.

However, you and Boss keep repeating the same old bullshit- regardless of the response you are given- despite the 'example' you ask for being provided.

You and Boss are allowed to ignore the facts and keep posting even thought the thread is indeed dead.

 

[Syriusly]

Your masters must love you

But since we are talking about constitutional civil rights, let's try to stay on track, shall we?

When can the government tell a black male when he can or can't be black?

When can the government tell a female when it is acceptable to vote?

You understand that the restrictions you mentioned earlier fall under the "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy".

Why are you conversing with yourself?

Will you answer yourself also?

I think you got the drift, you obviously don't like the questions and the answer to your questions contained within it. That's what haters do, they deflect.

When have you ever actually answered any question?

10 x more than your side combined.

Can't you count?

Clearly I can count better than Pops- who still can't count any 'examples' except for the one he has provided.

 

[Syriusly]

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage.

As you note- you are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

So I'm the ultimate arbiter?

Cool, I also have the winning powerball numbers.

Nope, not telling you!

Another nutball deflection from you.

As you note- you are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

 

[Syriusly]

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

My position has been clear from the beginning.

I oppose same sex sibling marriage. I oppose any family marriage. But under the constraints of rulings such as Obergfell and Windsor, I can find no sound legal reasoning to prohibit them. Especially when sex is not a qualification to marry.

You?

What sound legal reasoning existed to prohibit sibling marriage before Obergefell and Windsor which does not exist now? Keep in mind that if you argue procreation and the danger of genetic defect, it does not make sense that infertile siblings were also prevented from marrying.

You understand equal protection, Right? The 14th amendment and such?

Was this the societal safe guard that Syriously's Judge Crabb spoke of?

By Joe, I think it was.

Pity that safeguard has been lessened

That wasn't actually an answer to the question. If you are trying to say that procreation is the answer and the reason infertile siblings were prevented from marrying is in order to have them treated equally to fertile siblings, why then are there laws preventing fertile cousins from marrying but allowing infertile ones to do so, as linked to by Syriusly?

The State HAD the right to regulate how marriage was administrated I guess. I would also guess that they were borderline on if those couples were "too closely related". Oh, and no one can be more "too closely related" than siblings (other than the actual parent, cuz damn, they are intensely closely related)..

'had to'?

The State decided to 'regulate' marriage by not allowing any siblings to marry- regardless of fertility- and allow First cousins to marry- but only if they were infertile.

Since fertility is clearly not the reason why Wisconsin prohibits siblings from marrying- why does "too closely related" matter for siblings- but not First cousins?

 

[Syriusly]

You've demonstrated nothing other than you're an abject idiot and a troll who fantasizes of nothing except brothers marrying each other.

Meanwhile, you've been shown compelling reasons why states are rightfully denying marriage to immediate family members. Comically, you think if you don't agree with those reasons, they don't exist. But regrettably for your senility, not only do they still exist, but states still rely only on them to maintain bans on marriages between immediate family members.

And "icky" isn't a compelling reason. You only keep throwing that strawman out there because you got yourself seriously bitch-slapped when you tried using that reason to deny same-sex marriage. No one here resorts to that as a compelling reason to deny marriage to immediate family members.

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Poor silly Pops

He thinks anyone who refutes his posts is a racist.

Apparently he thinks his idiocy is because of his race- whatever that is.

 

[Boss]

given this pointless and bigoted thread, I think you calling others simple-minded probably is something you shouldn't do.

What the fuck are you gonna do about it? Use the 14th Amendment and get your liberal activist court to pass a new law against my freedom of speech rights? I don't give two shits what you think I should or shouldn't do... I didn't ask you.

 

[Pop23]

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

Same sex siblings. That's who

And when have I denied 'same sex siblings' anything?

You are the one who specifically wants to deny marriage to all siblings- as you want to deny marriage to gay couples.

So other than for trolling purposes- why do you keep claiming I am denying anyone anything?

When have I every said gay couples could not marry?

So your premis is in error

When did I say that you said gay couples could not marry?

Once again- you mis-quote me.

When did I say you said what you think I said.

 

[Pop23]

And you can't state one?

Kinda whiny today, aintcha?

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Poor silly Pops

He thinks anyone who refutes his posts is a racist.

Apparently he thinks his idiocy is because of his race- whatever that is.

Nah, it's how you argue against equality that makes you a racist you silly bigotted goose

 

[Pop23]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.

 

[Pop23]

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

 

[Syriusly]

It's cute how you put that out there as if you haven't been given examples dozens of times.

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

Strict scrutiny

Defining protected classes: Same-sex marriage and judicial scrutiny

Get back to me after learning something

K?

I am proud of Pops. He actually posted a citation- actually 2 citations.

Of course they don't actually address the issue directly- since of course he doesn't quote Obergefell.

 

[Pop23]

If what you stated held water this thread would be dead. Obviously it's not.

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

Strict scrutiny

Defining protected classes: Same-sex marriage and judicial scrutiny

Get back to me after learning something

K?

I am proud of Pops. He actually posted a citation- actually 2 citations.

Of course they don't actually address the issue directly- since of course he doesn't quote Obergefell.

I also didn't quack like a duck while posting a link to how civil rights cases are determined. Although, my ability to do duck call is simply amazing.