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.
And here we see the aforementioned identical argument used by bigots of the past to deny interracial marriage.Nope. When you say ātheā government, you need to be more precise? Which government? The Feds? No dice. They canāt obtain jurisdiction by bootstrapping.
The respective states? Maybe. If a state does bestow certain benefits to married couples, but the definition of married couples requires one man and one woman, how does that deny anybody equal protection? Answer: it doesnāt.
Nope. Empty words absent a clear explanation of how equal protection is being denied. You canāt deny a white man the right to marry a black woman because thatās explicitly prohibited racial discrimination by the state. So far, so good.And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, the "equal protection of the laws" provision of the 14th Amendment.
But most congressmen do not oppose gay marriage. In the Senate there are 5 republicans that said they will vote for the bill to protect gay marriage and 8 that said they would not. The remainder have not responded or said they were undecided.. It's expected that the bill will pass with 60 votes or more. Apparently, republican law makers are beginning to pay attention to the their constituents. In a recent Gallup poll for the first time, 55% of republicans said gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid. Overall 70% of Americans believed gay marriage should be cognized by law as valid."it's not raining here, so it's not raining anywhere" kind of argument.
Loads of Republicans oppose gay marriage.
Most Republican legislators in DC oppose gay marriage, for a start.
news.gallup.com
Wrong again, taint .Discrimination is discrimination.
Have you not been reading my posts?Nope. Empty words absent a clear explanation of how equal protection is being denied. You canāt deny a white man the right to marry a black woman because thatās explicitly prohibited racial discrimination by the state. So far, so good.
But your claim is that you canāt deny two men the right to marry because ā¦ ?
Itās not race. It may be discrimination. But if itās not discrimination based on race, what Constitutional prohibition is violated?
Exactly.Discrimination is discrimination.
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.
Have you not been reading my posts?
A state cannot decide what the definition of marriage is and then use that definition to deny equal protection of the laws.
I have the support of prior Supreme court decisions which I have already cited.Yes. And noting your many errors.
According to you. Otherwise, the actual question is: other than your own say so, what support do you have for your claim?
My response is, MANY groups would be offended if people bastardized THEIR beliefs or ceremonies. You would probably agree with them too, but you are a hypocrite when it comes to this because you arent capable of looking beyond your bias for people on the right.That doesn't even come close to being a response to my question.
The proper way to respond to a question is with an actual response, not with a question about some unrelated nonsense...
My response is, MANY groups would be offended if people bastardized THEIR beliefs or ceremonies.
You are citing a case that has no precedential value. As I told you already (pay attention), it is by having read your posts that I have been able to point out your errors.I have the support of prior Supreme court decisions which I have already cited.
So you are NOT reading my posts.
Is there anything in the constitution that says gays should be allowed to marry each other? What stupid point.That's nothing without an explanation as to how someone would be adversely affected.
I'm pretty well versed in the Constitution and, the last time I read it, there was nothing contained therein which said you have a right to not be offended...
Is there anything in the constitution that says gays should be allowed to marry each other? What stupid point.
Exactly, so i dont know why you even mentioned the constitution in the first place. Ive noticed that you say a lot of dumb things. Everyone seems to have noticed in fact.There's also nothing which addresses the right of heterosexuals to marry, so your argument, well, fails...
