Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

you asked for an example of a Republican justice demonstrating judicial activism. I gave it to you.

Strawman, I did not ask for one justice, moron, I never said that ever.

I asked what Republican judicial activism has actually done. You pulled the single example of one judge who was nominated by a Republican but wasn't doing anything that Republicans generally support out of your flaming liberal ass.

So seriously, anyone is supposed to take you seriously with left wing courts giving us Obamacare, New London, regulating political speech going into elections, regulating intrastate commerce and so forth, but it's the same because...

One judge nominated by Nixon to a Politboro senate was involved in one of the most liberal rulings ever? So it's the same? Damn, your dog is smarter than you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

We're a democracy of judges, the majority of judges wins now...

1/3rd of our government....checks and balances. Read up on it sometime.

1/3rd of our government with a defined role, exactly. They are not 1/1 of the government with ubiquitous power as you believe. Checks and balances. read up on it sometime.

She's not political and says what you want to hear, you can live with that. But if she said she's a conservative you'd be out to destroy the bitch...

Wow- so you think that Mildred Loving is a 'bitch'.

Is it because she is black?

Or because she supports marriage equality?

Or because she married a white man?

Yet another liberal without cognitive reasoning or reading comprehension. Get someone to explain to you what I said and get back to me.

You anti-gay libertarians are as comical as a guy in sandals and socks.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

Wow...the "tradition" argument? That one failed in court too...smacked down by a Reagan appointee.

Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, hit the backers of the ban the hardest. He balked when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to “tradition” as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

“It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away,” the 75-year-old judge said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, Posner said, derives from “a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination” of homosexuals.​

 

[kaz]

You often see folks on the far right try to trot that one out: "We've always done it that way...."

It's NEVER a very compelling argument, so you know that if they are falling all the way back to THAT one, their argument is sinking fast.

How the roles have reversed. Now it's the left who having what you want in this country are saying that and it's conservatives who want change. Apparently change isn't what you wanted, it was socialism.

 

[Seawytch]

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you asked for an example of a Republican justice demonstrating judicial activism. I gave it to you.

Strawman, I did not ask for one justice, moron, I never said that ever.

Kaz: "Yet you can't think of specific examples of Republican judicial activism, you just know it happened..."

Liar.
I'm done with him.

 

[kaz]

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Actually, when it comes to civil rights in this country, it's how things have been done. What's new is shit like the House fucking suing the President instead of legislating.

Or the President suing Arizona instead of administering the law.

Oh look at you ignoring your wrongness on sodomy laws.

Oh look, me not embarassing you.

Hardwick became hostile and threatened to have officers fired for entering his home.[citation needed] Both men were placed under arrest for sodomy, which was defined in Georgia law to include both oral sex and anal sex between members of the same or opposite sex.[5] The local district attorney elected not to present the charge to the grand jury, which would have been a prerequisite to any trial or punishment for the offense. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia, in federal court for a declaration that the state's sodomy law was invalid. He charged that as an active homosexual, he was liable to eventually be prosecuted for his activities.]

You understand they were not enforced, right? The only reason they became an issue is because the fags ginned up a case they could bring. OTherwise no one cared. Fags, causing trouble and disease wherever they go.

Um, you jumped from Texas to Georgia? Texas outlawed only gay anal and oral sex, not heterosexual and yes, someone was arrested for it, hence Lawrence v Texas.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

Wow...the "tradition" argument? That one failed in court too...smacked down by a Reagan appointee.

Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, hit the backers of the ban the hardest. He balked when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to “tradition” as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

“It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away,” the 75-year-old judge said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, Posner said, derives from “a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination” of homosexuals.​

Arguments 1 and 2!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

That's either an honest mistake or a known falsehood.


You were very specific that it was Texas.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Negatory there big fella...

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So straight men could have sex? What grade is your reading level?

Literally on this one, Rabbi is correct. However, unlike man/woman marriage, sodomy laws are actually targeted at gays, it's not the same thing. But this isn't why, you have apparently no ability to give a logical reply to a point even when you are the right track.

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

They're worse. Do you ever hear of any group wanting to boycott a baker because he made wedding cakes for gay couples?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

That's either an honest mistake or a known falsehood.


You were very specific that it was Texas.


>>>>

You've been pwned here already. Give it up.

 

[Skylar]

Here is what the claim was

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period.

We are not that kind of democracy- we are arguably a Constitutional Democratic Republic- i.e. our entire system of government is determined by our Constitution, we use a Democratic process(but not direct Democracy) to elect our representatives.

But to say simply 'we are a Democracy' is at best incomplete and when arguing that the majority gets whatever it wants, is just totally false.

Pure democracies and pure republics are both oppressive forms of government for the reasons I gave. Right now the pendulum is swung too far toward republicanism. Wisconsin is a good example. The people voted to restrict public unions and the unions had it stopped in the courts. When we reach the point that the minority can have any law they don't like overturned in court, then democracy is frustrated, the people believing an oligarchy runs the country and their voice doesn't count. Democracy should have the final word unless there's a grievous breech in civil liberties. And some states allowing gay marriage while others don't doesn't fit that description.

Rights exist and are protected for the sake of the minority. The majority rarely has to have its rights protected. They can act in their own interests. But the minority is where rights are truly tested, where they actually need protecting.

The idea that our republic is broken if the rights of minorities are protected is nonsense.

The only problem is when rights have no limits and begin to crowd out democracy and the right of the people to shape the government they live under. We are becoming less a government by the people and more a government by the judges. When the pendulum swings to far to republicanism, it becomes tyranny because laws are no longer decided by the democratic process, but rather by what a judge can be convinced the law should be. That's not America.

Nonsense.

The people have never had the authority to enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws that deny gay Americans equal protection of the law.

The people are at liberty to enact laws as they see fit provided they do so in good faith, and where those laws comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Laws enacted to prohibit gay Americans from entering into marriage contracts are done so in bad faith, motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples.

You keep repeating this and then cannot cite a single instance where gays cannot do something straught people can do. That's a failure.

Rabbi, you need a reason for the arbitrary restriction against same sex marriage. A rational reason, a legitimate state interest and a valid legislative end. And opponents of same sex marriage don't have any of them.

Without all three, the restriction cannot stand.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

I was not specific on Texas law. I made a generalization, and I was correct. Deal with it.
The case was a set up for the fags to get it overturned.

That's either an honest mistake or a known falsehood.


You were very specific that it was Texas.


>>>>

You've been pwned here already. Give it up.

That word is "pwned".

It takes a big man to admit they were wrong, some of us have that ability - some do not.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

False analogy

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court itself has cited Loving V. Virginia as an example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to when discussing gay marriage.

In the Romer V. Evans case, the court specifically cited Sweatt v. Painter when discussing 'Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities' related to gays. And the Sweatt case involved a black man who was denied access to a Texas lawschool. Itself was citing Shelley v. Kraemer, a USSC case only 2 years before Sweatt v. Painter, in which racial covenants on real estate were invalidated.

And when discussing laws that specifically target gays, the courts affirmed that a statute is enacted devoid of any factual context that would link it to a legitmate state interest, that law is void under the 14th amendment. And they cited the Civiil Rights Cases of the 1880s. All about racial discrimination.

You keep insisting that any citation of racial disparity as legally analogous to discrimination against gays is a 'false analogy'. But the SCOTUS has done it again and again and again.

You can ignore this and pretend it never happened. But its not like the USSC is going to ignore itself because you imagine a 'false analogy'. The arbitrary violation of rights is explicitly analogous. In fact, any arbitirary restriction is applicable. Be it from food stamp laws in Department of Agriculture v. Moreno or arbitrary residency requirements in Dunn v. Blumstein, the restrictions themselves need to pass constitutional muster.

If they can't, they're invalid. And over and over, restrictions against same sex marriage have been found to fail that standard.

 

[Skylar]

.

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

False analogy

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court itself has cited Loving V. Virginia as an example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to when discussing gay marriage.

ROFLMNAO!


No... it hasn't.

 

[Skylar]

The SCOTUS response to Alabama's request for a Writ of Cert to prevent the recognition of same sex unions per federal order in Alabama will be interesting.

Every request for cert from a case where gay marriage bans had been overturned has been denied, with the ruling overturning such bans allowed stand. Only the 6th circuit's affirmation of such bans was accepted for review by the courts.

If the Alabama request for cert is similarly denied after the 6th circuit was accepted, that's an enormous, blaring, neon sign on how the court will likely rule on same sex marriage bans in June. As stays are only granted when there is a credible chance of success for the litigant requesting it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

You are incorrect. The Texas statute made male sodomy a crime. It didnt matter if you were gay or straight. Similarly with all the other examples.

Well, how many straights were arrested and charged with that statute?

How many gays were? Virtually none.

And the ones who were wanted to be to make the point.

I don't agree with you gay sodomy laws are the same as man/woman marriage though. As I said before literally you are right. But man/woman marriage was the way it always was, gay marriage didn't occur to anyone who created government marriage. Gay sodomy laws were created with the intention of targeting gays. Be honest about that.

The statutory restrictions and state constitution amendments declaring that marriage was only one man and one woman that almost universally came after Hawaii extended civil union recognition to same sex couples were done to prevent gays from entering marriage. Be honest about that.

Yes. But that is only because nature designed marriage as the union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN and only because such is a critical function of the viability of the species.

Ya see scamp, normalizing abnormality is a function of delusion... and demanding that one's abnormality be considered normal, so that you can feel better about your poor choices... presents as SOCIOPATHY.

Now, delusion and sociopathy are what are known as MENTAL DISORDERS.

So, the would-be SCIENCE which holds that Abnormal sexuality is perfectly normal sexuality is false.

And honestly, that's all there really is to this hot mess. You people are crazier than a shit-house rat and you NEED us to agree that you're not. But... we are going to have to decline and you're going to have to shut the fuck and sit down, or we're going to toss your freaky asses back in the closet.

Now you'll call that extreme... but you'll only do so as you claim that what is demonstrably abnormal is NORMAL. And sis... that's SO BEYOND EXTREME: IT'S INSANE.