Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.

And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid fucking argument bubba!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You depraved animals can show your marriage form to God when you stand before the Great White Throne judgement and holler your legality.

You're in fine company jackass....You call yourself a human being. What a fucking joke!

The late Dr. James Luther Adams, ethics professor at the Harvard Divinity school, made a powerful impression on his young student, Christopher Hedges, who went on to become a New York Times journalist and author:

Adams told us to watch closely the Christian Right's persecution of homosexuals and lesbians. Hitler, he reminded us, promised to restore moral values not long after he took power in 1933, then imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations and publications. Then came raids on the places where homosexuals gathered, culminating on May 6, 1933, with the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. (Soldier's of Christ II, Harper's, May, 2005) Homophobia

In What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part):

Their [the anti-gay marrige movement's] passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself. (New York Times, June 19, 2005)

 

[the_human_being]

You depraved animals can show your marriage form to God when you stand before the Great White Throne judgement and holler your legality.

You're in fine company jackass....You call yourself a human being. What a fucking joke!

The late Dr. James Luther Adams, ethics professor at the Harvard Divinity school, made a powerful impression on his young student, Christopher Hedges, who went on to become a New York Times journalist and author:

Adams told us to watch closely the Christian Right's persecution of homosexuals and lesbians. Hitler, he reminded us, promised to restore moral values not long after he took power in 1933, then imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations and publications. Then came raids on the places where homosexuals gathered, culminating on May 6, 1933, with the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. (Soldier's of Christ II, Harper's, May, 2005) Homophobia

In What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part):

Their [the anti-gay marrige movement's] passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself. (New York Times, June 19, 2005)

Yes, I'm a human being. I'm not a depraved brute beast like you.

 

[Skylar]

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.

Its a moot point. As even if one or two states throw such tantrums, almost no other states will. And the reciprocity clause of the constitution requires that these states honor contracts made in other states. Thus, even if say, Alabama gets out of the marriage business entirely by refusing to issue any marriage licenses.....California and Utah won't.

And Alabama still has to honor the marriage certificates from those States. Meaning that same sex marriage is defacto legal in states that refuse to issue any marriage certificates.

Rendering your entire tantrum an exercise in pouting futility.

When you run into Boss, remind him that his record of predicting future legal outcomes is essentially one of perfect failure. As he keeps replacing the actual law with whatever he wishes were true.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Skylar]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

It doesn't matter. As no other state is poised to follow. And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states. Same sex or otherwise.

Regardless of what tantrum Alabama throws......same sex marriage is still legal in Alabama.

And of course if Alabama refuses to allow same sex couples to enter the 'contract' of marriage, the high court will smack them down.

 

[Pop23]

I've never tired of discussing civil rights.

This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.

Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.

And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.

If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.

Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.

Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.

Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.

Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.

As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.

So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.

Thanks

You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.

Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.

Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage

Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.

You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.

Secondly, states don't need to look at anything in the absence of a challenge to any existing bans on incest or anything else. If there is, in fact, a challenge, then and only then will states have to justify those laws. I do not know of any such challenges in any state, but if you do, feel free to post them. Then we can all see what rational basis or compelling interest the state comes up with to justify the laws, and what the court did with it.

Please then tell me why same sex marriage was not allowed in all 50 state prior.

You love your semantics.

State do not have to modify laws because of changes on the judicial level but often do without, or to stop legal challenge.

Now, please state the compelling state interest in denying a heterosexual same sex sibling couple from the right to marry.

If you can't, admit defeat.

 

[Skylar]

If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.

Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.

Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.

Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.

Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.

As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.

So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.

Thanks

You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.

Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.

Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage

Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.

You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.

Secondly, states don't need to look at anything in the absence of a challenge to any existing bans on incest or anything else. If there is, in fact, a challenge, then and only then will states have to justify those laws. I do not know of any such challenges in any state, but if you do, feel free to post them. Then we can all see what rational basis or compelling interest the state comes up with to justify the laws, and what the court did with it.

Please then tell me why same sex marriage was not allowed in all 50 state prior.

You love your semantics.

State do not have to modify laws because of changes on the judicial level but often do without, or to stop legal challenge.

Now, please state the compelling state interest in denying a heterosexual same sex sibling couple from the right to marry.

If you can't, admit defeat.

If you have an argument to make for sibling same sex marriage....make it. Tell us why you want it. Instead, you're laughably insisting that WE make your argument for you, telling you why we should have sibling marriage.

You want it. You make the argument. If you can't, admit defeat, Troll.

 

[Boss]

Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated above.

No, you've not "demonstrated" anything in this thread, you've only blown pro-gay-agenda smoke and acted like a jackass. You're not interested in a debate, you're interested in hurling feces.

Apropos for the amoral subspecies you've become.

 

[Boss]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

 

[Montrovant]

You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. THEY ARE! You are shown that is untrue, NO IT'S NOT.

Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages. Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand. Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.

And let me repeat, no they won't. If we need to go through this again, we can.

The elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage of any kind. They're not recognizing it, endorsing it or sanctioning it. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine with me, you won't have a problem with Alabama's new law.

Explain which part of this, the opening of the proposed bill, removes state sanctioned marriage?

To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.

There would still be 'a statutory contract for marriage'. Marriage would be 'entered into by contract'. A judge would 'record each contract of marriage'. It would 'provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage'. It would 'confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama'. Where is state sanctioned marriage ended by any of this?

You say the elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage, but the text of the bill contradicts that, multiple times.

 

[Boss]

It doesn't matter. As no other state is poised to follow.

Several states are, as a matter of fact. Eventually they all will. Welcome to the 21st Century where government doesn't sanction marriages. But thanks for confirming that you feel this doesn't matter... so far, that seems to be the consensus among the pro-gay activists here and that's good! It will make this all so much easier to accept.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated above.

No, you've not "demonstrated" anything in this thread, you've only blown pro-gay-agenda smoke and acted like a jackass. You're not interested in a debate, you're interested in hurling feces.

Apropos for the amoral subspecies you've become.

Thank you for confirming the fact that you can only run from facts and logic, and can't support or defend you positions whatsoever. I graciously accept your capitulation

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Read Obergefell dude!!

 

[Boss]

You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. THEY ARE! You are shown that is untrue, NO IT'S NOT.

Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages. Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand. Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.

And let me repeat, no they won't. If we need to go through this again, we can.

The elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage of any kind. They're not recognizing it, endorsing it or sanctioning it. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine with me, you won't have a problem with Alabama's new law.

Explain which part of this, the opening of the proposed bill, removes state sanctioned marriage?

To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.

There would still be 'a statutory contract for marriage'. Marriage would be 'entered into by contract'. A judge would 'record each contract of marriage'. It would 'provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage'. It would 'confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama'. Where is state sanctioned marriage ended by any of this?

You say the elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage, but the text of the bill contradicts that, multiple times.

I am not going to argue statutory requirements and rules of law, that's public record. It seems to me it clearly states that marriage licenses will no longer be issued by the probate judge. Therefore, there is no more state sanctioning of marriages. Matters of contract between parties is not marriage, it's contracts between parties. The State is not sanctioning, endorsing or recognizing any aspect of any private contract intent. That is between the parties not the State. The text of the bill doesn't contradict this at all, it's essentially what it establishes.

What is happening is, you have tried to twist my OP around and make it appear that I have argued the State removing itself from endorsing gay marriages is an end to gay marriage. That is not what my OP says or my argument. If that is what you believe my argument is, you need to go and read the OP again because you've misinterpreted me.

People can arrange contracts for virtually anything they want to, they always have been able to do this. Gay couples have been doing this for longer than "Gay Marriage" has been around. So no matter what is done on Gay Marriage, people will still always have that option just as it has always been. Nothing is going to change that. Even a Constitutional Amendment that marriage is between a man and woman, would not stop private two-party contractual agreements in America... they would still exist and gay couples would still have that option.

The State is not compelled to recognize the nature of any domestic partnership. There is no requirement of them to do so and the Constitution doesn't say they have to. And this is what you are now going to see happening. States are going to get out of the marrying business.

I happen to think that is Step 1 in killing gay marriage. Once the State no longer sanctions it, no longer affords any benefit to it or for it... the motivation to do it becomes unimportant. Contract law will cover the bases, there is no need for "marriage" per say. We will see fewer and fewer gay couples bothering with the formalities. In 20 years it will be a curiosity.

 

[Boss]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Read Obergefell dude!!

I've read it... doesn't say the State is obligated to acknowledge marriages.

If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages. If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.

 

[Skylar]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them as the reciprocity clause of the constitution and the USSC mandates. Remember, just because you ignore the portion of the Obergefell decision that requires States to recognize same sex marriages performed in other States doesn't mean that the USSC ruling magically changes to match.

Remember....the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

And it doesn't matter if Alabama calls marriage a 'contract' or an 'agreement' or a 'license', 'compact' or a turkey sandwich. Whatever they call it gays are afforded the same terms. Says who? Says the USSC:

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Making Alabama's entire little tantrum gloriously irrelevant. As any terms they set for marriage must include both gays and straights.

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Says you, citing what you wish the law actually said. Alas, your imagination has no real relevance to the actual law or the actual rulings. As Obergefell demonstrates elegantly:

"These cases also present the question whether the Con stitution requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. As made clear by the case of Obergefell and Arthur, and by that of DeKoe and Kostura, the recognition bans inflict substantial and continuing harm on same-sex couples....

....It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. "

When you see Boss, tell him he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. And rarely if ever does.

 

[Skylar]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Read Obergefell dude!!

I've read it... doesn't say the State is obligated to acknowledge marriages.

Actually, that's exactly what it says.

It follows that the Court also must hold—and it
now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Remember, we're talking about the ACTUAL ruling. Not the silly imaginary version of the ruling that you've made up.

If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages. If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.

It doesn't matter if they sanction any marriage. They still have to recognzie marriages performed in other States. And of course Alabama is merely renaming marriage a 'contract'. It doesn't matter what they call it. The terms for marriage afforded straight couples must also apply to gays.

Says who? Says the USSC.

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."

Obergefell V. Hodges

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. It tends to hamper your legal arguments.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Read Obergefell dude!!

I've read it... doesn't say the State is obligated to acknowledge marriages.

If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages. If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.

Oh Christ! Yes it actually does.... as has been pointed out to you. In addition, the fact is that they have been all along-honoring marriages between people of opposite sex and for that reason alone must honor same sex marriages. No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you. It's abundantly clear that you are not a rational or reasonable person and that you are blinded to reality by your irrational and pathological desire to thwart state recognition of same sex marriage.

 

[Skylar]

And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.

Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something?

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.

Read Obergefell dude!!

I've read it... doesn't say the State is obligated to acknowledge marriages.

If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages. If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.

Oh Christ! Yes it actually does.... as has been pointed out to you. In addition, the fact is that they have been all along-honoring marriages between people of opposite sex and for that reason alone must honor same sex marriages. No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you. It's abundantly clear that you are not a rational or reasonable person and that you are blinded to reality by your irrational and pathological desire to thwart state recognition of same sex marriage.

Boss simply believes that his personal opinion IS the law. And that his personal opinion IS history. Thus, whatever he imagines is legal precedent must be legal precedent. And history magically morphs to match.

Ask him about Lincoln running on an abolitionist platform. He actually believes it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.

And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid fucking argument bubba!

No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage.
If you would climb out of your 1960's bunker and ditch your backwards democrattle mindset you'd realize what has been going on over the past fifty years.