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.
If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?
If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?
Its interesting how opponents of equal protection rights keep coming back to this failed argument.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage or siblings marrying are Constitutional because theyre applied to everyone equally, no rights are being repressed.
That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?
godless Secularism wants to undermine marriage, the family, and religion plus our whole society by forcing everybody to accept sodomy and homosexuality as being normal....they want to place the State in control of all morality.....this of course will lead to further abominations....such as fatherless or motherless children becoming a 'choice'....engineered children will be next....
as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?
Its interesting how opponents of equal protection rights keep coming back to this failed argument.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage or siblings marrying are Constitutional because theyre applied to everyone equally, no rights are being repressed.
That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
godless Secularism wants to undermine marriage, the family, and religion plus our whole society by forcing everybody to accept sodomy and homosexuality as being normal....they want to place the State in control of all morality.....this of course will lead to further abominations....such as fatherless or motherless children becoming a 'choice'....engineered children will be next....
Bolded: The point at which this post became idiotic.
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
Its interesting how opponents of equal protection rights keep coming back to this failed argument.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage or siblings marrying are Constitutional because theyre applied to everyone equally, no rights are being repressed.
That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
Because they dont allow same-sex couples to marry.
They are not applied to everyone equally because they single-out same-sex couples for exclusion, they further no legitimate governmental interest, and are motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage, for example, would be un-Constitutional if they disallowed Hispanics only from plural marriage; but because anti-polygamy laws apply to all races, ethnic groups, genders, and sexual orientations equally, they are Constitutional.
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
All laws on the matter are written in terms of gender. Gender is an immutable characteristic like skin color.
Please show us any law pertaining to Civil Marriage written in terms of sexual orientation.
******************************
Of course the laws discriminate by the gender composition of the couple, just as anti-interracial Civil Marriage laws discriminated based on the racial composition of the couple.
You realize that both Mr. Loving and Miss. Jeter could get married as individuals, just not to each other right? Virginia made the claim that there was no discrimination there either since the individuals were treated the same.
How did that claim work out for them?
>>>>
as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
Because they dont allow same-sex couples to marry.
They are not applied to everyone equally because they single-out same-sex couples for exclusion, they further no legitimate governmental interest, and are motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage, for example, would be un-Constitutional if they disallowed Hispanics only from plural marriage; but because anti-polygamy laws apply to all races, ethnic groups, genders, and sexual orientations equally, they are Constitutional.
where in the Constitution do you find the right of same sex couples to marry....?
first of all there is no discrimination against gays as a special class...you have your right to privacy to engage in whatever as two consenting adults...
the motivation is not animus toward homosexuals.....the motivation is preservation of traditional marriage with the compelling state interest to care for children...
i agree with the laws prohibiting plural marriage as they don't discriminate.....same as the marriage laws don't discriminate....
Because they don’t allow same-sex couples to marry.
They are not applied to everyone equally because they single-out same-sex couples for exclusion, they further no legitimate governmental interest, and are motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.
Laws prohibiting plural marriage, for example, would be un-Constitutional if they disallowed Hispanics only from plural marriage; but because anti-polygamy laws apply to all races, ethnic groups, genders, and sexual orientations equally, they are Constitutional.
where in the Constitution do you find the right of same sex couples to marry....?
first of all there is no discrimination against gays as a special class...you have your right to privacy to engage in whatever as two consenting adults...
the motivation is not animus toward homosexuals.....the motivation is preservation of traditional marriage with the compelling state interest to care for children...
i agree with the laws prohibiting plural marriage as they don't discriminate.....same as the marriage laws don't discriminate....
Where does the Constitution mention marriage at all?
The government has no requirement or desire to link procreation to marriage. Allowing gay marriage does nothing to reduce the ability of heterosexuals to procreate
then vote for civil marriage in your state....neither traditional marriage or civil unions discriminate....a state has the right to legislate how it wants to treat marriage/unions....
that's a good question that i'd like to see the Supremes answer....isn't marriage a state's right....?
then vote for civil marriage in your state....neither traditional marriage or civil unions discriminate....a state has the right to legislate how it wants to treat marriage/unions....
When it comes to Constitutional issues, Loving v. Virginia proves you wrong. Virginia legislated how it wanted to treat marriages, the SCOTUS found it unconstitutional.
>>>>
where in the Constitution do you find the right of same sex couples to marry....?
first of all there is no discrimination against gays as a special class...you have your right to privacy to engage in whatever as two consenting adults...
the motivation is not animus toward homosexuals.....the motivation is preservation of traditional marriage with the compelling state interest to care for children...
i agree with the laws prohibiting plural marriage as they don't discriminate.....same as the marriage laws don't discriminate....
Where does the Constitution mention marriage at all?
The government has no requirement or desire to link procreation to marriage. Allowing gay marriage does nothing to reduce the ability of heterosexuals to procreate
that's a good question that i'd like to see the Supremes answer....isn't marriage a state's right....?
then vote for civil marriage in your state....neither traditional marriage or civil unions discriminate....a state has the right to legislate how it wants to treat marriage/unions....
When it comes to Constitutional issues, Loving v. Virginia proves you wrong. Virginia legislated how it wanted to treat marriages, the SCOTUS found it unconstitutional.
>>>>
Loving v Virginia struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriage....what does that have to do with sexual orientation....?
then vote for civil marriage in your state....neither traditional marriage or civil unions discriminate....a state has the right to legislate how it wants to treat marriage/unions....
When it comes to Constitutional issues, Loving v. Virginia proves you wrong. Virginia legislated how it wanted to treat marriages, the SCOTUS found it unconstitutional.
>>>>
Loving v Virginia struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriage....what does that have to do with sexual orientation....?
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....as i've said before if you can apply gender differently you can apply numbers differently....
we now have 41 states with laws that define marriage as one man one woman...how are those marriage laws unConstitutional.....they also are applied to everyone equally....no rights are being 'repressed'....
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same argument, that the laws were applied equally to everyone when they segregated Civil Marriage based on race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it then either.
Same applies to segregation by gender.
>>>>
discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...
Yes it is but it's not as cut and dried as skin color. That's why you're having a hard time figuring this whole thing out.
