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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. What Loving v Virginia was plainly stating was the law had to have a rational basis for excluding certain groups from marrying.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.
Or not.
None of you bigots have ever provided a rational basis for excluding gay marriage from equal protection of the laws, and I can guarantee you the Supreme Court is going to say the same thing when it finally makes a decision.
If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
race and sex are not analogous
Gender
There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -
Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
There is no rational basis for either.
That is your opinion.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.
But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
As usual - he hasn't got a friggin clue - just chimes in with half assed and poorly thought out commentary that is way off topicThe law didn't exclude any group from marrying. Do you even know what the case was about?
Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
NOW you want civil unions?They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
Yes, it is. Sorry about that!
They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."
Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.
a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
We tried to get that and it was the Right who shot that option down in many states where it came up. Now it's too late. Marriage it is.
Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
It IS funny that he thinks language is static.So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time? What a dumbass you are.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
Yes, it is. Sorry about that!
They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."
Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.
a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
Indeed. stmike is an absolute liar. Koshergrl loves repeating this nonsense.The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.
A completely bogus claim.
You have no clue as to what you just said - you heard somebody else say it and thought it sounded intelligent - STFU Fish BreathIt IS funny that he thinks language is static.So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time? What a dumbass you are.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
Yes, it is. Sorry about that!
They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."
Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.
a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
Sanger on Blacks ...
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
.... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
Sanger on Blacks ...
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
.... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices laughed out loud.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.
Or not.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
Sanger on Blacks ...
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
.... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
That last one was Sanger expressing concern that some people would mistake her efforts to help the black community for something nefarious. She was not advocating their extermination, you stupid fuck.
You are parroting bullshit you copied and pasted from hacks. You never went and looked up the source.
Google b4u actYes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past. It's called "Tying the Knot".The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
race and sex are not analogous
Gender
There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -
Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices laughed out loud.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia. The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people. Now you know.
Or not.
Oh...you might find this interesting:
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
Sound familiar?
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.
No different than being told what race you have to marry.
Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
race and sex are not analogous
Gender
There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -
Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
Ergo....Male and Female, Female and Female, and Male and Male all have civil rights, no?
