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.
EXACTLY!That's a tax issue not marriage issue.
Subsidize?Why TF should people have to subsidize buttfucking?
Fairyphiles Started Out As Feralphiles"States rights" is shorthand for oppressing black folks. And now its also about oppressing Gays folk.
The federal government provides a bunch of cash and prizes to married couples, the federal government certainly does have jurisdiction over the matter.There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over marriage which is a state law matter.
The Constitutional provision is the 14th amendment which dictates "equal protection of the laws".Unless you can point to some US Constitutional provision that commands that gays must have the same right to marry a member of their own sex, then it isn’t a Federally guaranteed right. I suppose that was what Justice Thomas was suggesting.
I don’t really agree with Justice Thomas on that one. But I have to admit I’m not able to identify any Constitutional provision on point.
Interracial will have no problems if it goes back to the states, where it belongs. 30+ states amended their constitutions to say marriage was between a man and a woman. That supercedes any issues of race, it's a non-starter. Not so for queers.EXACTLY!
You're aaaaallllllmost there.
The fight over gay marriage is a fight over the cash and prizes given to married couples. And it is waaaaaay more than just tax breaks.
There are about a thousand, no exaggeration, cash and prizes extended to married couples by the government.
Gays and interracial couples are just asking for equal protection of those laws.
That's. It.
The arguments by bigots against gay marriage are identical to the ones made by bigots against interracial marriage half a century ago.Interracial will have no problems if it goes back to the states, where it belongs. 30+ states amended their constitutions to say marriage was between a man and a woman. That supercedes any issues of race, it's a non-starter. Not so for queers.
Not really. If you don't get the difference by now you never will.The arguments by bigots against gay marriage are identical to the ones made by bigots against interracial marriage half a century ago.
And just as with the Loving decision, there is no rational reason to deny gay marriage equal protection of the laws.
You do realize you’re simply babbling now, don’t you?Well I was just stating facts. We never thought of it as a civil ceremony or anything else. We just got married and that was it.
If folk want a church wedding then good for them. But it doesnt invalidate ny other form of marriage.
Ive been to a lot of different types of wedding and I never left any of them thinking the couple werent married.
My wife wanted a Vegas wedding but I did have my doubts about that at the time.
Worth pointing out that it was the GOP hoping to ignite this issue that led to this topic. They must be full of themselves to think they can take this right away from loving couples. Shocking.
I actually see the analog on your attempt at analogy. Nonetheless, racial discrimination is why the Loving decision was a valid exercise of the SCOTUS review power. It may be unfortunate, but there doesn’t seem to be an equally valid claim with regard to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.The arguments by bigots against gay marriage are identical to the ones made by bigots against interracial marriage half a century ago.
And just as with the Loving decision, there is no rational reason to deny gay marriage equal protection of the laws.
How do you suppose the black community would feel if Americans voted to change MLK celebration day to a day where we do the opposite and demonizing him for his womanizing and domestic violence instead?No one is stealing anything.
How does a gay couple getting married in Oregon adversely affect a straight couple getting married in Georgia?
"Marriage" can be a religio0us ceremony, but it's not always a religious ceremony. Those who believe that it is are free to believe and practice as they choose. But when their religious beliefs start dictating what someone else does, that's wrong, and it should not be allowed in any way, shape or form...
It's only understandable if you believe people of faith should have dominion over those, like you, who practice no faith. If you were to marry, would you be perfectly fine with a Christian demanding you celebrate, and would you bow to their demands and have, a Christian wedding?
How do you suppose the black community would feel if Americans voted to change MLK celebration day to a day where we do the opposite and demonizing him for his womanizing and domestic violence instead?
Gender discrimination. You are saying they have to be opposite genders.I actually see the analog on your attempt at analogy. Nonetheless, racial discrimination is why the Loving decision was a valid exercise of the SCOTUS review power. It may be unfortunate, but there doesn’t seem to be an equally valid claim with regard to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Maybe you can point to it.
Again, the government bestows cash and prizes on married couples.You do realize you’re simply babbling now, don’t you?
Racist public policies are always to be condemned. So what? That one was.
But none of you’re most recent gibberish has anything to do with whether the US Federal government has any valid say in the state law issue of marriage itself. Over racial discrimination? Yes. Over the institution of marriage? No.
Why do you care if gays marry? So what?It's a matter for the state to decide. It is not a federal issue and the Supreme Court, mostly that traitor Kennedy, betrayed their oaths of office to appease a bunch of queers. Pathetic. It will be overturned for the horrendous miscarriage of justice it was and returned to the states, over which 30 of them have already amended their constitutions to ban that foul and disgusting abomination.
I’m asking you a simpler question. Try to follow along. I can point you directly to the Constitutional provisions which the different race marriage prohibition laws violate. Can YOU please point me (or anyone else) to a similar provision about the definition of what constitutes a “marriage?” Which Constitutional prohibition is implicated?Gender discrimination. You are saying they have to be opposite genders.
I'll take a guess at it. I would say the thought of sticking your penis into another man's septic tank makes me and most men dry heave
SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do thwww.politifact.com
This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.
What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.
And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, the "equal protection of the laws" provision of the 14th Amendment.I’m asking you a simpler question. Try to follow along. I can point you directly to the Constitutional provisions which the different race marriage prohibition laws violate. Can YOU please point me (or anyone else) to a similar provision about the definition of what constitutes a “marriage?” Which Constitutional prohibition is implicated?
Don’t misunderstand me. I have exactly zero issue with same sex marriages. My question is much more pointed. What Constitutional provision does a law about same sex marriage prohibitions violate?
Nope. When you say “the” government, you need to be more precise? Which government? The Feds? No dice. They can’t obtain jurisdiction by bootstrapping.Again, the government bestows cash and prizes on married couples.
A state cannot violate the "equal protection of the laws" provision of the US Constitution.
Discrimination is discrimination.You do realize you’re simply babbling now, don’t you?
Racist public policies are always to be condemned. So what? That one was.
But none of you’re most recent gibberish has anything to do with whether the US Federal government has any valid say in the state law issue of marriage itself. Over racial discrimination? Yes. Over the institution of marriage? No.
