Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[Correll]

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

 

[OldLady]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?

I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around. All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

 

[Correll]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?

I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around. All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.

Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?


if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?


I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.

 

[Correll]

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

 

[toobfreak]

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read. ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.

A few years ago??

Tell us, fudge-packer, how many years do YOU think it has been? HERE, let me help you:

First state, uber-liberal Massachusetts, who would sanction marriage between a horse and a goat if they thought it would get them votes! They found the definition of marriage that has existed as self-evident since the dawn of civilization, to be "unconstitutional." Mass law does not supersede federal law nor the US Code, All you gaybos are living in civil unions, they just tortured the law into allowing to call it "marriage" to shut all of you the fuck up and so they could continue the attacks on religion, morality and Christianity!

Aside from the fact that you've made an ass of yourself by claiming 9 years ago wasn't a few years ago in the history of human civilization, what's your next thing to champion, child pedophilia as the next frontier for legalization? I bet you would love that!

 

[G.T.]

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read. ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.

A few years ago??

Tell us, fudge-packer, how many years do YOU think it has been? HERE, let me help you:


View attachment 271761

First state, uber-liberal Massachusetts, who would sanction marriage between a horse and a goat if they thought it would get them votes! They found the definition of marriage that has existed as self-evident since the dawn of civilization, to be "unconstitutional." Mass law does not supersede federal law nor the US Code, All you gaybos are living in civil unions, they just tortured the law into allowing to call it "marriage" to shut all of you the fuck up and so they could continue the attacks on religion, morality and Christianity!

Aside from the fact that you've made an ass of yourself by claiming 9 years ago wasn't a few years ago in the history of human civilization, what's your next thing to champion, child pedophilia as the next frontier for legalization? I bet you would love that!

Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with. You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable

You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it

And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

 

[toobfreak]

Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with.

Yet it is you who seems obsessed with marriage, spewing all ignorance and hate.

You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable

I don't ask anyone their orientation. How would I know unless they make a showcase of it? I don't walk around with a sign saying: HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable? Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.

You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples

​

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

That is for at least 98.875% of the known recorded history of marriage. Liberal fucks like you then forced a change in some state laws out of political greed and fear to not only secularize the institution, but to devalue the roles of husband and wife, mother and father. Now you are raising a bunch of poor kids in some godless, confused world where mommy is a daddy and daddy is a mommy.

We've gone from a wholesome normal society

to THIS:

Hope you're happy.

 

[Cosmos]

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The ruling is as clear an example of judicial activism as we’ve had in a generation. Nothing in the Constitution justified the redefinition of marriage by judges. The Court simply imposed its judgment about a policy matter that the Constitution left to the American people and their elected representatives. In doing so, it got marriage and the Constitution wrong, just as it had gotten abortion and the Constitution wrong in Roe v. Wade.

Marriage and the Constitution: What the Court Said and Why It Got It Wrong | RealClearPolitics


The Court had no right to overturn thousands of years of cultural development and impose their own vile and filthy definition of marriage. The decision should be overturned.

 

[G.T.]

Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with.

Yet it is you who seems obsessed with marriage, spewing all ignorance and hate.

You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable

I don't ask anyone their orientation. How would I know unless they make a showcase of it? I don't walk around with a sign saying: HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable? Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.

You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

View attachment 271768

And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples

​

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

That is for at least 98.875% of the known recorded history of marriage. Liberal fucks like you then forced a change in some state laws out of political greed and fear to not only secularize the institution, but to devalue the roles of husband and wife, mother and father. Now you are raising a bunch of poor kids in some godless, confused world where mommy is a daddy and daddy is a mommy.

We've gone from a wholesome normal society

View attachment 271771


to THIS:


View attachment 271772

Hope you're happy.

Im happy. Gay marriage has had no effect on my ability to Marry and raise kids...or, my happiness. Sounds like a you problem, to me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't ask anyone their orientation. How would I know unless they make a showcase of it? I don't walk around with a sign saying: HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable? Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.

Hey, all I know is that you are angry and miserable.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

 

[toobfreak]

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.

I'm all for interracial marriage. My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German. We also had one black and one white cat. I'm even for equality of the felines. They both ate the same cat food. Neither had to eat from the back of the can.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.

I'm all for interracial marriage. My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German. We also had one black and one white cat. I'm even for equality of the felines. They both ate the same cat food. Neither had to eat from the back of the can.

I see so you think that the issue of interracial marriage was a big fucking joke too.
OK

 

[toobfreak]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?