Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is no equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
It is a right between a man and a woman as has been ruled by the SCOTUS. .
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.
the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is no equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.
The laws before loving didn't prevent black people from getting married.
>>>>
Big freaking deal
our Society is now made up of killing off you own offspring by abortions and watching two men marry each other.
what a thing to proud of
The first Amendment .What??! Seriously??no legal reason not invoking religion to forbid homosexual marriages.
Name it.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterWhy do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Big freaking deal
our Society is now made up of killing off you own offspring by abortions and watching two men marry each other.
what a thing to proud of
Our society now allows women to control her own body and allows two people who love each other to marry.
I am very proud.
Big freaking deal
our Society is now made up of killing off you own offspring by abortions and watching two men marry each other.
what a thing to proud of
Our society now allows women to control her own body and allows two people who love each other to marry.
I am very proud.
And for those people to ruin a baker who doesn't bake a cake for them.
Proud of that one too?
How is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
IF marriage is entirely a state's right- as you claim- then you logically would object to Loving v.Virginia- as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's marriage law.
But if you support the courts decision in Loving but suddenly have a passion for state's marriage rights when it comes to 'gay' marriage- then your concern is only 'gay' thick.
the equal rights amendment made Loving the correct decision. And no, I don't have to believe anything just because you said so. The issue of Loving was if laws were justified against a person because they are black, which there is no equivalence to being gay. Gay marriage is a whole new ballgame.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?It will be interesting to hear the convoluted logic that the SCOTUS will use when the interfere with what is clearly a states right. I am sure that once again they will tell us something doesn't mean what it says they will tell us what it means in context, their context.
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
States have always set marriage laws not the federal government. In all of the SCOTUS decisions do not state that marriage was to whomever. Every one that I read was a decision between a man and women. Anything else, until recently, was never even considered. 10 years ago who would have thought we would be having such discussions?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those? But not to worry you will get the decision you desire and the country will continue its fall. Funny liberals they brag about winning all the battles, except the 2014 mid-terms, yet decry the decay of the country as the fault of the rightwing. Takes a whole lot of denial to do so.
Big freaking deal
our Society is now made up of killing off you own offspring by abortions and watching two men marry each other.
what a thing to proud of
Our society now allows women to control her own body and allows two people who love each other to marry.
I am very proud.
And for those people to ruin a baker who doesn't bake a cake for them.
Proud of that one too?
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
They never considered marriage would be extended to same sex couples and you know it.
The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matterHow is it clearly a states right? Did you read my OP? Do you think that Loving was a bad decision too?
Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.
Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?
If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.
Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.
What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.
You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.
