Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

You didn't make me cry. That you think you did is merely more evidence that you're nuts.

And "who they love" is indeed a legal standard. Here ... I'll show you AGAIN...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

... how many more times do I need to educate you on this until it penetrates your shield of ignorance? Just throw out a number so I have an idea...

I'm always struck by, but never amazed by, the passion those who oppose gay marriage display.

It seems to come from some kind of spiritual devotion, yet their arguments run for refuge in objectivity when confronted with the realities of how they affect the lives of gay people.

I know, because I grew up with my brother who was in the closet till he was 25, and displayed amazing strength after he came out. He's matured far beyond my futile hatred for people who judge gays, and has never needed me to fight his battles. As he pointed out..."you just want to fight people about me, for your own reasons". Once, long ago, he set me straight and told me that "what happens in my bedroom is no more worthy of discussion than what happens in yours, and I don't want to be defined by what happens behind the closed doors of my bedroom". He is right...besides what happens there...he is absolutely no different than me, not one tiny bit.

Where I live, gays have been out for a long time. (Northern California). So my defense of him is rather insulting at the end of the day.

Then there are people like Kaz, who I need to think are not bad people, or I just make myself crazy. But what he probably doesn't realize, is that for gay people, who maybe live in an area not quite so gay friendly...people who think the way he does, are truly the "wolves at the door" for gay people, and probably have no idea how horrible that is.

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

 

[kaz]

So with gays your standard was what other animals do, now with food your standard is what people do.

And you think your standard isn't changing? LOL.

Yeah, Toxic, they are logical and I just insult, gotcha

My standard is what is found in nature. Homosexuals are found in nature. So are predators, omnivores, like humans.

That was your standard for gays, but for meat your standard for natural became humans, "humans are meat eaters"

No, my standard is predators, which humans are, meaning meat eaters, some of them gay.

Your typical contrived argument

Nope, not in the slightest. Nature at work, and you reject her like you do the rest of reality.

gay the standard is non humans

meat the standard is humans

No, no inconsistency there...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My standard is what is found in nature. Homosexuals are found in nature. So are predators, omnivores, like humans.

That was your standard for gays, but for meat your standard for natural became humans, "humans are meat eaters"

No, my standard is predators, which humans are, meaning meat eaters, some of them gay.

Your typical contrived argument

Nope, not in the slightest. Nature at work, and you reject her like you do the rest of reality.

gay the standard is non humans

meat the standard is humans

No, no inconsistency there...

Gays and predators, both natural and human.

 

[kaz]

He wants to bring back Anarchy.

Well, righties in America today have revised history back to the 1600's, to support the concept of "what might have been, if only conservatives had been in charge, forever"

Why not just keep going back to the dawn of time!

Who are you quoting?

It was a tangent, wasn't accusing you of revisionism.

What I had in mind about you is how you seem to talk about things like procreation as necessary for marriage

OK, but it isn't just me. If you are paraphrasing what you think someone's view is, you don't use quote marks. You use quote marks when those are the exact words they used and I never heard anyone use those words

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm always struck by, but never amazed by, the passion those who oppose gay marriage display.

It seems to come from some kind of spiritual devotion, yet their arguments run for refuge in objectivity when confronted with the realities of how they affect the lives of gay people.

I know, because I grew up with my brother who was in the closet till he was 25, and displayed amazing strength after he came out. He's matured far beyond my futile hatred for people who judge gays, and has never needed me to fight his battles. As he pointed out..."you just want to fight people about me, for your own reasons". Once, long ago, he set me straight and told me that "what happens in my bedroom is no more worthy of discussion than what happens in yours, and I don't want to be defined by what happens behind the closed doors of my bedroom". He is right...besides what happens there...he is absolutely no different than me, not one tiny bit.

Where I live, gays have been out for a long time. (Northern California). So my defense of him is rather insulting at the end of the day.

Then there are people like Kaz, who I need to think are not bad people, or I just make myself crazy. But what he probably doesn't realize, is that for gay people, who maybe live in an area not quite so gay friendly...people who think the way he does, are truly the "wolves at the door" for gay people, and probably have no idea how horrible that is.

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

 

[kaz]

Yet you couldn't find judicial review in the Constitution. No one else can either. Do you know who actually "tasked" the SCOTUS with judicial review?

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


Such a a shame for you, that you are wrong, and that the issue was debated even before the Constitution was ratified. They wouldn't have done so if it wasn't in there, which it was, and is.

Again, judicial review's not in there, Scoobie

Oh but it is, or it wouldn't have been debated during ratification. You lose, again.

So you can't find it, but you know it's there. So it's like your junk

It's in bold above. You lose, as usual.

"Under" the Constitution, not over the Constitution. They are to use the Constitution as a ruler. They don't get to define the ruler. That came from somewhere else. Do you know where it came from?

 

[kaz]

You didn't make me cry. That you think you did is merely more evidence that you're nuts.

And "who they love" is indeed a legal standard. Here ... I'll show you AGAIN...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

... how many more times do I need to educate you on this until it penetrates your shield of ignorance? Just throw out a number so I have an idea...

I'm always struck by, but never amazed by, the passion those who oppose gay marriage display.

It seems to come from some kind of spiritual devotion, yet their arguments run for refuge in objectivity when confronted with the realities of how they affect the lives of gay people.

I know, because I grew up with my brother who was in the closet till he was 25, and displayed amazing strength after he came out. He's matured far beyond my futile hatred for people who judge gays, and has never needed me to fight his battles. As he pointed out..."you just want to fight people about me, for your own reasons". Once, long ago, he set me straight and told me that "what happens in my bedroom is no more worthy of discussion than what happens in yours, and I don't want to be defined by what happens behind the closed doors of my bedroom". He is right...besides what happens there...he is absolutely no different than me, not one tiny bit.

Where I live, gays have been out for a long time. (Northern California). So my defense of him is rather insulting at the end of the day.

Then there are people like Kaz, who I need to think are not bad people, or I just make myself crazy. But what he probably doesn't realize, is that for gay people, who maybe live in an area not quite so gay friendly...people who think the way he does, are truly the "wolves at the door" for gay people, and probably have no idea how horrible that is.

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

Another stupid point. There are often laws which contradict each other. This would be a case where the left is siding with equality over taxes.

How much ya wanna bet this flies clear over your head too?

Oblivious is your department, I defer to the expert

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, righties in America today have revised history back to the 1600's, to support the concept of "what might have been, if only conservatives had been in charge, forever"

Why not just keep going back to the dawn of time!

Who are you quoting?

It was a tangent, wasn't accusing you of revisionism.

What I had in mind about you is how you seem to talk about things like procreation as necessary for marriage

OK, but it isn't just me. If you are paraphrasing what you think someone's view is, you don't use quote marks. You use quote marks when those are the exact words they used and I never heard anyone use those words

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

 

[kaz]

You don't think the leftists have a gay agenda? Wow, you are an ignorant slut, Jane

Equality before the law isn't gay, and you are the one with the agenda, that's losing...

Gays have equality, you want more. And yes, liberty is a losing agenda, you leftist parasites are winning. I can realize that and yet continue to advocate liberty. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

How many gays have you killed in your life? Or do you just like beating the crap out of them with a baseball bat? Or are you just some weirdo that likes putting your jack boots on their necks?

Not wanting to give gays validation and tax breaks is the same as killing them and beating them with a baseball bat. Got it. And I said you have a stick up your ass. Called that one, didn't I?

And even then I have repeatedly said I don't really give a shit over other government marriage as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature.

And beyond that I've said it will happen eventually as the old geezers die off, the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage in both parties

Got it... you are not enough of a man to do anything about your hatred for gays except to put your jack boot on their necks while someone else is holding them down. But hey if someone forces you back into your closet you will just bitch and moan that you were forced to remove your jack boot by your betters.

OK. I guess with that giant lumber rammed up your ass that's how you hear it. I do have a three word process. Grab, pull, remove. It's wonderful, try it

 

[kaz]

Wrong, the Constitution doesn't mention judicial review in any way directly or indirectly.

Try again, who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? There is a specific answer to the question

Of course it does. The Constitution grants the judiciary judicial power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. ALL cases includes cases of judicial review.

When do you stop being retarded?

No, it doesn't say that, stop being retarded. They are "tasked" with it, but who tasked them? Simple question, and you're a simpleton, it's in your native language. Stop running away and provide the simple, direct, clear answer. There is one

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler

I didn't say it does. This is yet another example of how your retardation prevents you from understanding pretty much everything.

What I said is they have judicial power in ALL cases arising under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review.

Do you understand now or would it be helpful to you if I wrote it in crayon...?

Wow, you're going to be in trouble with ToxicMedia, he's against insults. Funny thing is that standard so far has only been evoked with me, the one he disagrees with. I'm sure he's planning to correct that, he couldn't be a hypocrite or anything

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Equality before the law isn't gay, and you are the one with the agenda, that's losing...

Gays have equality, you want more. And yes, liberty is a losing agenda, you leftist parasites are winning. I can realize that and yet continue to advocate liberty. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

How many gays have you killed in your life? Or do you just like beating the crap out of them with a baseball bat? Or are you just some weirdo that likes putting your jack boots on their necks?

Not wanting to give gays validation and tax breaks is the same as killing them and beating them with a baseball bat. Got it. And I said you have a stick up your ass. Called that one, didn't I?

And even then I have repeatedly said I don't really give a shit over other government marriage as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature.

And beyond that I've said it will happen eventually as the old geezers die off, the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage in both parties

Got it... you are not enough of a man to do anything about your hatred for gays except to put your jack boot on their necks while someone else is holding them down. But hey if someone forces you back into your closet you will just bitch and moan that you were forced to remove your jack boot by your betters.

OK. I guess with that giant lumber rammed up your ass that's how you hear it. I do have a three word process. Grab, pull, remove. It's wonderful, try it

You would know...

 

[Faun]

You are truly retarded. Now you want to talk about marriage without talking about feelings.

We're talking about the law, dumb ass. How you feel isn't relevant in that context

You are fucking retarded.

We're talking about laws regarding marriage. You still don't understand that Supreme Court decision, do you?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

 

[kaz]

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

 

[Faun]

Of course it does. The Constitution grants the judiciary judicial power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. ALL cases includes cases of judicial review.

When do you stop being retarded?

No, it doesn't say that, stop being retarded. They are "tasked" with it, but who tasked them? Simple question, and you're a simpleton, it's in your native language. Stop running away and provide the simple, direct, clear answer. There is one

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler

I didn't say it does. This is yet another example of how your retardation prevents you from understanding pretty much everything.

What I said is they have judicial power in ALL cases arising under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review.

Do you understand now or would it be helpful to you if I wrote it in crayon...?

Wow, you're going to be in trouble with ToxicMedia, he's against insults. Funny thing is that standard so far has only been evoked with me, the one he disagrees with. I'm sure he's planning to correct that, he couldn't be a hypocrite or anything

Your evasion is duly noted.

 

[kaz]

Who are you quoting?

It was a tangent, wasn't accusing you of revisionism.

What I had in mind about you is how you seem to talk about things like procreation as necessary for marriage

OK, but it isn't just me. If you are paraphrasing what you think someone's view is, you don't use quote marks. You use quote marks when those are the exact words they used and I never heard anyone use those words

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

 

[kaz]

Gays have equality, you want more. And yes, liberty is a losing agenda, you leftist parasites are winning. I can realize that and yet continue to advocate liberty. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

How many gays have you killed in your life? Or do you just like beating the crap out of them with a baseball bat? Or are you just some weirdo that likes putting your jack boots on their necks?

Not wanting to give gays validation and tax breaks is the same as killing them and beating them with a baseball bat. Got it. And I said you have a stick up your ass. Called that one, didn't I?

And even then I have repeatedly said I don't really give a shit over other government marriage as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature.

And beyond that I've said it will happen eventually as the old geezers die off, the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage in both parties

Got it... you are not enough of a man to do anything about your hatred for gays except to put your jack boot on their necks while someone else is holding them down. But hey if someone forces you back into your closet you will just bitch and moan that you were forced to remove your jack boot by your betters.

OK. I guess with that giant lumber rammed up your ass that's how you hear it. I do have a three word process. Grab, pull, remove. It's wonderful, try it

You would know...

Um...OK?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

It does that often enough. That's the game we play. Grownups know this, but not mental children such as yourself.

 

[Faun]

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

Depends on how you define natural.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1. 1.
   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
   .
2. 2.
   of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

I guess I'm using #1, and it sounds like your using #2

He's using number 2 alright...

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Great .... ... even Merriam Webster knows you're an imbecile...

Alright Definition of alright by Merriam-Webster

BTW, you do love Meriams, don't you?

WTF is "Meriams," dumbfuck?

 

[kaz]

You are truly retarded. Now you want to talk about marriage without talking about feelings.

We're talking about the law, dumb ass. How you feel isn't relevant in that context

You are fucking retarded. :cuckooc

We're talking about laws regarding marriage. You still don't understand that Supreme Court decision, do you?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

We are talking about marriage laws, idiot, not "marriage." They are not the same any more than driving laws are the same as driving

 

[kaz]

No, it doesn't say that, stop being retarded. They are "tasked" with it, but who tasked them? Simple question, and you're a simpleton, it's in your native language. Stop running away and provide the simple, direct, clear answer. There is one

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler

I didn't say it does. This is yet another example of how your retardation prevents you from understanding pretty much everything.

What I said is they have judicial power in ALL cases arising under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review.

Do you understand now or would it be helpful to you if I wrote it in crayon...?

Wow, you're going to be in trouble with ToxicMedia, he's against insults. Funny thing is that standard so far has only been evoked with me, the one he disagrees with. I'm sure he's planning to correct that, he couldn't be a hypocrite or anything

Your evasion is duly noted.

As is ToxicMedia's double standard