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, 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.
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.
Well in the Sup Ct has no problem with states passing laws that can only affect women because only they get pregnant, why would the Sup Ct have any problem with passing laws that only affect gay people?Because there is this thing in the Constitution called the Equal Protection Clause.
It will come a a huge relief to you that you are not required to do that.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
The state’s definition of marriage is unconstitutional then. Your straw men are frail.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.
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 doesn’t.
Nope. Empty words absent a clear explanation of how equal protection is being denied. You can’t deny a white man the right to marry a black woman because that’s explicitly prohibited racial discrimination by the state. So far, so good.
But your claim is that you can’t deny two men the right to marry because … ?
It’s not race. It may be discrimination. But if it’s not discrimination based on race, what Constitutional prohibition is violated?
No denial. First comes the definition of marriage. According to the laws of some states, that definition is a legal union between a man and a woman. So gay people aren’t denied the right to marry. They are only deprived of the right to marry a person of the same sex as they are. But a lesbian can marry a man. And a homosexual man can marry a woman.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Wrong. Abortion laws affect the babies. Not just the pregnant females.Well in the Sup Ct has no problem with states passing laws that can only affect women because only they get pregnant, why would the Sup Ct have any problem with passing laws that only affect gay people?
Because it violates equal protections. Your argument has failed repeatedly throughout the civil rights era. Some just never learn from history.Why is that? Because you say so? Uhm gee. No. That’s not how it works.
Your rejoinders are fails.
What portion of the Constitution does that prohibition get found in? Is it one of those penumbra clauses?
They don't mind gays having a civil partnership, a union etc.. call it what you like and have the same legal benefits, they just object to the tradition of marriage and the word marriage being hijacked. Marriage in terms of joining a man and a woman in holy matrimony.
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.
So can hindus get married ?They don't mind gays having a civil partnership, a union etc.. call it what you like and have the same legal benefits, they just object to the tradition of marriage and the word marriage being hijacked. Marriage in terms of joining a man and a woman in holy matrimony.
The misunderstanding of the argument seems to be with Lefty's brains, it's a concept they can't seem to grasp. So have two gay guys, in a civil partnership with rings on their fingers and the legal benefits that come with it. Then have a man and a woman, married with rings on their fingers and the legal benefits that come with it. Pretty simple really.
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.
Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage
U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to grow, now at 70% -- a new high in Gallup's trend dating to 1996.news.gallup.com
Exactly. In order to "transform" America, the family unit has to be destroyed because that's the strength of the nation. Therefore, every freakish perverted thing they can get by with has to be exploited. Children are more confused than ever. They're bombarded by media, entertainment and public schools with this filth. It's deliberate.
They don't mind gays having a civil partnership, a union etc.. call it what you like and have the same legal benefits, they just object to the tradition of marriage and the word marriage being hijacked. Marriage in terms of joining a man and a woman in holy matrimony.
The misunderstanding of the argument seems to be with Lefty's brains, it's a concept they can't seem to grasp. So have two gay guys, in a civil partnership with rings on their fingers and the legal benefits that come with it. Then have a man and a woman, married with rings on their fingers and the legal benefits that come with it. Pretty simple really.
