Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Syriusly]

the state can pass laws regarding status.... but those laws cannot violate equal protection laws.

And what Constitutional protections do deviant sex addicts have? Zero, that's right. .

Yep- that is right.

Silhouette believes that homosexuals in America have no Constitutional protections.

That the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to homosexuals.

That is how sick her hatred of homosexuals is.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

When framing any legal argument for a change proposed as monumental as stripping children legally of the right to either a mother or father for life as their implicit share in the marriage contract since time immemorial, one should pay attention to such a fundamental premise.

You realize that entire paragraph is entirely you fantasy creation- and has nothing to do with any actual legal argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in there about fag "marriage".

 

[mdk]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep- that is right.

Silhouette believes that homosexuals in America have no Constitutional protections.

That the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to homosexuals.

People doing homosexual stuff have all sorts of protections. If they are of a certain religion, or gender, or country of origin or race, they absolutely deserve protections. Just not for their deviant behaviors which the majority objects to "as married". There we draw the line because there is not one whit of protection for them doing that, nor even a vague insinuation of protection for them doing that in the US Constitution.

Behaviors DO NOT enjoy the legal equivalent to race, gender, religion or country of origin. Sorry. If you want that changed you need to consult your elected representative of the LEGISLATIVE branch of government. The Judicial DOES NOT get to insert BRAND NEW PROTECTIONS into the Constitution outside their limit of power.

 

[mdk]

If children were an implicit partner in a marriage contract, they could veto the divorce of their parents or veto any new marriage that the child didn't want. Good thing this legal right only exists in the head of Sil and is not based in any reality.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

If children were an implicit partner in a marriage contract, they could veto the divorce of their parents or veto any new marriage that the child didn't want. Good thing this legal right only exists in the head of Sil and is not based in any reality.

What a faggot....

 

[mdk]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

 

[mdk]

If children were an implicit partner in a marriage contract, they could veto the divorce of their parents or veto any new marriage that the child didn't want. Good thing this legal right only exists in the head of Sil and is not based in any reality.

What a faggot....

Thank you! Lesser faggots orbit me.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

 

[mdk]

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

No, that is still an opinion. Indeed, marriage did exist before government. I always considered myself married before we made official with the government. At the end of the day, you still can't do shit about it, but piss and moan.

 

[Silhouette]

Children were the reason marriage was invented; The anticipation of children being fatherless or motherless was something a tribe or community could not tolerate. They watched and saw enough miscreants created this way that the institution of marriage was invented as a remedy for the fatherless/motherless home.

Enter Obergefell which fundamentally reversed that contractual enjoyment children used to have.

As to mdk's assertion that "if something doesn't exist then it cannot be an implicit part of a contract", let me say this, children not being born yet, but anticipated by the society that sets up marriage parameters is the same as profits not yet in existence from a contract signed between budding business partners. Those profits anticipated are in fact part of that contract. So are children anticipated to come statistically from marriage.

It is that very anticipation and not wanting a tribe full of miscreants that led states to incentivize marriage with benefits in the first place. Now they are "legally" (not) required to incentivize THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CREATION OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

Thanks to five unelected lawyers in DC in 2015.

 

[jillian]

the state can pass laws regarding status.... but those laws cannot violate equal protection laws.

And what Constitutional protections do deviant sex addicts have? Zero, that's right. .

Yep- that is right.

Silhouette believes that homosexuals in America have no Constitutional protections.

That the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to homosexuals.

That is how sick her hatred of homosexuals is.

we can't help it if braindead bigoted pond scum hate the country and the constitution.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

....and another fact is that allowing gay people to marry causes you no harm whatsoever.

Wouldn't your wrath be better spent on those matters that do?

 

[jillian]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

that is false... marriage was a creation of rulers....

that is why people performing weddings say things like "by the power vested in me by the state of _____".

there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that are attached to the marriage contract which only are enforceable by the state.

I hope that helps you.

 

[jillian]

Breaking news: Gays can still legally marry today and all ya'll can do is whine about it. I take great solace in that fact.

They are not married, they are playing a glorified game of house.

That is your opinion and they will continued to be married regardless of that opinion.

No that is a fact. Marriage existed before government. Dogs get licenses from the government too.

....and another fact is that allowing gay people to marry causes you no harm whatsoever.

Wouldn't your wrath be better spent on those matters that do?

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

......and a product of attitudes learned but never questioned.

 

[jillian]

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

......and a product of attitudes learned but never questioned.

there is no question that hate is taught