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.
I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.
You say marriage isn't a right.
The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.
Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
You say marriage isn't a right.
The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.
Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
You say marriage isn't a right.
The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.
Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
We've already established your view is when the SCOTUS says the liberal view it's end of discussion and when they don't you don't give a shit, so stop pretending you view them as the final say because that would mean you follow them when you don't agree, not just when they do. They are just a means to an end for you
You say marriage isn't a right.
The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.
Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
We can take away an incarcerated individuals right to own a gun or to vote...but not to marry and still morons want to declare marriage is not a right. (and then want to call you stupid for insisting it is) Life stranger than fiction...
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
You obviously didn't read all the rulings. You stopped after the first one didn't you?
Zablocki v WI: Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
We've already established that you or anyone else are as free to challenge what they believe to be unjust laws and that we must all live with the consequences. While I might disagree with a ruling...say Citizens United...I and other Americans like you must live with that ruling until a subsequent ruling comes along.You say marriage isn't a right.
The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.
Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
We've already established your view is when the SCOTUS says the liberal view it's end of discussion and when they don't you don't give a shit, so stop pretending you view them as the final say because that would mean you follow them when you don't agree, not just when they do. They are just a means to an end for you
to deny that those rulings exist in the first place...well, that's just silly isn't it?
No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't
So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?
The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't
Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender. The discrimination and the denial of the fundamental right to marry is the same.
to deny that those rulings exist in the first place...well, that's just silly isn't it?
That would be, but no one did that, airhead
Predfan: No those aren't rulings nit wit.
You like him because he calls me names too, right?
"Hey wanna' suk mah dink? I just stuck it in that guys azz".
Who would think that's disgusting or wrong?
to deny that those rulings exist in the first place...well, that's just silly isn't it?
That would be, but no one did that, airhead
Predfan: No those aren't rulings nit wit.
You like him because he calls me names too, right?
I called you a bitch when you were gong on about piss and goats and I called you an airhead when you said it was stupid to ignore supreme court rulings exist, when no one did that
You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't
Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender. The discrimination and the denial of the fundamental right to marry is the same.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't. You can't word parse your way out of that and that's what the 14th amendment says. It's not a Constitutional issue, it's a legislative issue
to deny that those rulings exist in the first place...well, that's just silly isn't it?
That would be, but no one did that, airhead
Predfan: No those aren't rulings nit wit.
You like him because he calls me names too, right?
I called you a bitch when you were gong on about piss and goats and I called you an airhead when you said it was stupid to ignore supreme court rulings exist, when no one did that
That would be "pissed" (read angry) and the goat was "billy goat" in reference to the folktale the Three Billy Goats Gruff. A conversation taking place in your trolling thread. If you're going to bring an unrelated thread into this one, at least quote it accurately, please.
Predfan is denying that the Supreme Court declared marriage a fundamental right. I gave you a direct quote.
Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:
If two people:
- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone
Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?
Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?
These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?
Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]
The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]
Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]
The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]
In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]
We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.
No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't
Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender. The discrimination and the denial of the fundamental right to marry is the same.
Being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't. You can't word parse your way out of that and that's what the 14th amendment says. It's not a Constitutional issue, it's a legislative issue
The hearings scheduled for Tuesday disagree with your opinion.
Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:
If two people:
- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone
Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?
Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?
God or our concept of him evolves as we do. Use to call him Zeus right? Old uneducated homophobic men wrote our current religions thousands of years ago. They're becoming outdated and need updating.
What's your point?Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:
If two people:
- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone
Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?
Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?
God or our concept of him evolves as we do. Use to call him Zeus right? Old uneducated homophobic men wrote our current religions thousands of years ago. They're becoming outdated and need updating.
Our parents change as we get older as well. They recognize when we were 1 we needed our butts wiped and we needed to just stay away from the stove. When we were 10 we could go out in the neighborhood by ourselves, when we were 16 we could drive a car. It wasn't them who changed to decide to let us to do that, we did
