Texas vs Gay Sex Marriage. Are Behaviors The Same As Race?

[Syriusly]

LOL- you seem to want to believe that the only possible options are 'choice' or 'genetics'- science does not support either of those options.

The best alternative I have seen is epigenetics- but I no more care why someone is homosexual than I care why someone is left handed.

Some people are homosexuals- some people are left handed. Why they are is immaterial.

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

 

[JGalt]

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms.

The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

 

[OKTexas]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

Fuck off dickweed.

 

[Syriusly]

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms.

The Supreme Court says you can't.

So would you support the Constitution protecting my right to have sex with your dog or your kids?

Was I not precise enough for you?

Conservatives like you want to police the bedrooms of Americans and tell us what kind of consensual sex we can have in the privacy of our bedrooms.

And apparently Conservatives like you also are not clear on the difference between 'rape' and 'consensual sex'.

 

[OKTexas]

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today...

Of course, few people on this board could pass an 8th grade Civics Test from 1895. So... well... you know.

But the 1st amendment in no way disallows religion.

What the First Amendment does it to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a law that in any way effects the means of the individual to freely exercise their religion.

Which the SCOTUS just did, in SPADES.

That makes sense. But how would you explain the stories of Christian displays being removed from public buildings, as in Oklahoma today?

OK should tell the court to piss up a rope, they tried that shit in TX and TX prevailed in the supreme court.

 

[Seawytch]

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Actually, they were afraid it would lead to interracial marriage. Those bigots were right. Oh well.

Link?

Historo The Interracial Marriage Straw Man

 

[Montrovant]

In a society where all women are lesbians and all men are gay- without artificial insemination- where do the kids come from?

I am genuinely curious what those who believe that the story of Sodom is about a city full of homosexuals(hence 'sodomites') explain where their kids came from.

Children come from female eggs, but only after sperm penetrates the wall of the eggs. Ask your parents to explain it further.

I guess this topic was too complicated for you.

In a population of all homosexuals- male and female- with no artificial insemination- how are children conceived?

We can have sex...you don't HAVE TO enjoy it. (Ask straight women)

But in a population of all homosexuals- which is what Jeremiah believes Sodom consisted of(since he calls every homosexual 'a sodomite')- would any of the population choose to have sex in order to have children- with a person that they are not attracted to?

While some might- God would not have needed to destroy Sodom- within a generation or two the population would be so reduced that the nearby warring tribes would have long since taken Sodom over.

Sodomites are what you are calling homosexuals today. No difference. Same sin, same judgment. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God changes not. Neither does His Word.

Didn't his word change rather dramatically between the old and new testaments?

 

[Syriusly]

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today...

Of course, few people on this board could pass an 8th grade Civics Test from 1895. So... well... you know.

But the 1st amendment in no way disallows religion.

What the First Amendment does it to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a law that in any way effects the means of the individual to freely exercise their religion.

Which the SCOTUS just did, in SPADES.

That makes sense. But how would you explain the stories of Christian displays being removed from public buildings, as in Oklahoma today?

OK should tell the court to piss up a rope, they tried that shit in TX and TX prevailed in the supreme court.

Link?

 

[OKTexas]

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

 

[Seawytch]

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail

 

[Hossfly]

Are you a homosexual too? Then please answer this question for me: Is homosexuality genetic or is it a choice?

You don't have to be homosexual to believe this country should offer the same rights to everybody. Are you now going to ask if I'm black?

Here's the thing... Marriage is not a right, except and unless one comports themselves within the STANDARDS THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE.

For instance you can't marry your Tennis Racket, your golf clubs, your goat (No matter how much you love your goat), your Sister or your parents; and due to nature defining marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman, ya also can't marry your Home Owners association, your Kiwanis Club or your softball team. Likewise, ya can't marry your bestee from way back in the day... because he or she is the same gender as you are.

These are conditions which sustain the purpose of marriage, providing for the integrity, thus maintaining the viability of the institution.

YOU reject all of that that that's fine. Your standing on the tracks, rejecting that the approaching train can have any bearing on your physical well being is just as irrelevant to the train, as it is the laws of nature promoting your physical well being, which say that if you remain in the path of that train, you're physical well being is SCREWED!

Not sure why you would think I'm in love with my tennis racquet, but the supreme court has determined that same sex marriage is a right. You have every right to maintain your beliefs, and run your life according to them. You just no longer have the right to deny those rights to same sex marriages. Worry about your own train, and I'll worry about mine.

While you may have the right legally - you are also using your right to reject the Word of God which is going to result in your spending eternity in hell. Is it worth that to you? Really?

You seem to think yours is the only religion. I haven't tried to proselytize you. It's not proper for you to proselytize me.

You need to come to Jesus, Sonny. It's the proper thing to do.

 

[Syriusly]

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

The Court
reaffirmed that holding in
Zablocki
v.
Redhail
, 434 U. S.
374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was bur
-
dened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on
child support from marrying. The Court again applied
this principle in
Turner
v.
Safley
, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987),
which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations
limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry.

Failure to provide child support
Being in prison

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences

those are two precedents.

Now there are three.

 

[RKMBrown]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

I see so only missionary with a girl when getting her prego is moral right?

 

[RKMBrown]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

Fuck you.

 

[OKTexas]

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail

That first one is a real hoot, they say a prisoner can't be denied marriage because of the liberty clause of due process. Really, isn't the very reason the shithead is in prison because he is being denied liberty with due process? Talk about another schizophrenic court ruling.

The second one is kind of funny also, today every State denies all kinds of crap based on someone owing child support. The only part I say could have been reasonably struck down was the requirement for the court order to get a license. In TX right now you can't get a marriage license if you owe child support, or a drivers license, professional license, register a vehicle and you can go to jail for 6 months.

 

[OKTexas]

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

The Court
reaffirmed that holding in
Zablocki
v.
Redhail
, 434 U. S.
374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was bur
-
dened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on
child support from marrying. The Court again applied
this principle in
Turner
v.
Safley
, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987),
which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations
limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry.

Failure to provide child support
Being in prison

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences

those are two precedents.

Now there are three.

See post #275

 

[Syriusly]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail

That first one is a real hoot, they say a prisoner can't be denied marriage because of the liberty clause of due process. Really, isn't the very reason the shithead is in prison because he is being denied liberty with due process? Talk about another schizophrenic court ruling.

The second one is kind of funny also, today every State denies all kinds of crap based on someone owing child support. The only part I say could have been reasonably struck down was the requirement for the court order to get a license. In TX right now you can't get a marriage license if you owe child support, or a drivers license, professional license, register a vehicle and you can go to jail for 6 months.

So in conclusion- you asked us to show you one precedent that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics- and I showed you two.

The words you were searching for were "Thank you"

 

[Syriusly]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

The Court
reaffirmed that holding in
Zablocki
v.
Redhail
, 434 U. S.
374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was bur
-
dened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on
child support from marrying. The Court again applied
this principle in
Turner
v.
Safley
, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987),
which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations
limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry.

Failure to provide child support
Being in prison

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences

those are two precedents.

Now there are three.

See post #275

See post 277

 

[OKTexas]

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail

That first one is a real hoot, they say a prisoner can't be denied marriage because of the liberty clause of due process. Really, isn't the very reason the shithead is in prison because he is being denied liberty with due process? Talk about another schizophrenic court ruling.

The second one is kind of funny also, today every State denies all kinds of crap based on someone owing child support. The only part I say could have been reasonably struck down was the requirement for the court order to get a license. In TX right now you can't get a marriage license if you owe child support, or a drivers license, professional license, register a vehicle and you can go to jail for 6 months.

So in conclusion- you asked us to show you one precedent that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics- and I showed you two.

The words you were searching for were "Thank you"

Right, the first was a case where a person liberty was taken through due process, then the court says they can't be deprived marriage because of the liberty clause of due process, people have no liberty in prison, they are wards of the state. How freaking ridiculous can a court be, never mind, they just reached a new height in ridiculousness, didn't they.

The second one, States are doing the same things with people who are delinquent with child support today.

However both cases dealt, with opposite sex marriage. Did you read the concurring opinions in Zablocki, two of the judges said there is no fundamental right to marry. Also the states have a right to determine regulations on marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me one precedent on marriage, cited by the majority, that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics.

Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail

That first one is a real hoot, they say a prisoner can't be denied marriage because of the liberty clause of due process. Really, isn't the very reason the shithead is in prison because he is being denied liberty with due process? Talk about another schizophrenic court ruling.

The second one is kind of funny also, today every State denies all kinds of crap based on someone owing child support. The only part I say could have been reasonably struck down was the requirement for the court order to get a license. In TX right now you can't get a marriage license if you owe child support, or a drivers license, professional license, register a vehicle and you can go to jail for 6 months.

So in conclusion- you asked us to show you one precedent that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics- and I showed you two.

The words you were searching for were "Thank you"

Right, the first was a case where a person liberty was taken through due process, then the court says they can't be deprived marriage because of the liberty clause of due process, people have no liberty in prison, they are wards of the state. How freaking ridiculous can a court be, never mind, they just reached a new height in ridiculousness, didn't they.

The second one, States are doing the same things with people who are delinquent with child support today.

However both cases dealt, with opposite sex marriage. Did you read the concurring opinions in Zablocki, two of the judges said there is no fundamental right to marry. Also the states have a right to determine regulations on marriage.

So in conclusion- you asked us to show you one precedent that dealt solely with acts and preferences and not genetics- and I showed you two.

The words you were searching for were "Thank you"