Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[bravoactual]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and 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 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.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

 

[jwoodie]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and 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 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.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

Good luck with your Torets Syndrome. Sometimes it gets better as you enter puberty.

Paradoxically, the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage will now spawn religious exceptions to the public accommodations rule. If they had just left it to the states (with mandatory recognition), this issue would have worked itself out. Now it will be litigated forever, a la Roe v. Wade. The biggest reason for these unnecessary (and stupid) decisions is that we have a bunch of ideological jackasses on the Court who want their names associated with "historic" rulings. Unfortunately, we are a nation of morons who lap this stuff up.

 

[bravoactual]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

Ah Yes, the Incest Fallacy.

YOU do not have the Right To Impose YOUR Religious/Personal Morals or Values on others.

Your argument has no sound basis or use of logic in it.

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

YOUR a bigot if you believe YOU have the to decided for YOURSELF who can and/or cannot get married.

Marriage is Civil Right, NOT a Religious Right.

YOUR Religious Freedom does not trump the Equal Protection Clause.

YOUR Rights are just as equal as mine, or my younger sister who is a Lesbian.
YOU do not have the Right to decide who can and cannot be married.

As for incest, not exactly valid because as I recall incest was a primary means of procreation after Adam Eve, as their Sons and Daughters did procreate and that would have been through incest.

 

[bravoactual]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and 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 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.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

Good luck with your Torets Syndrome. Sometimes it gets better as you enter puberty.

Paradoxically, the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage will now spawn religious exceptions to the public accommodations rule. If they had just left it to the states (with mandatory recognition), this issue would have worked itself out. Now it will be litigated forever, a la Roe v. Wade. The biggest reason for these unnecessary (and stupid) decisions is that we have a bunch of ideological jackasses on the Court who want their names associated with "historic" rulings. Unfortunately, we are a nation of morons who lap this stuff up.

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and 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 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.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

And you don't have the right to use your warped, immoral reading of the Constitution to use gay marriage laws to prosecute religious vendors who do not want to service a ceremony that they find spiritually offensive.

Why don't animal sex lovers have "equal protection under the law"? You know some of them have now filed lawsuits to be allowed to marry their horses or dogs, right? Why no "equal protection" for them? Who are you to judge the morality of their romantic desires? (Sound familiar?)

Why can't middle-aged men and pubescent preteen girls who want to get married enjoy "equal protection under the law"?

Why can't guys shack up with multiple women at a time and call their immorality marriage, i.e., secular polygamy? Why no "equal protection" for them? Why not?

You see, when you pervert the law to include the perversion of homosexuality as part of the definition of "marriage," you have no logical basis to deny any other perversion "equal protection."

 

[jwoodie]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

Why don't you read the case law and find out for yourself?

 

[Roadrunner]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

We will soon see multiple partner marriages across all gender and orientation lines.

But who gives a fuck, I don't.

It just does not effect my life; if it offends enough people, they will demand a marriage definition amendment.

 

[bravoactual]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

Why don't you read the case law and find out for yourself?

I don't need the case law.

It's called the Constitution and the Constitution the origin of the Equal Protection Clause.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that.

Equal Rights.

NOT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Under the Constitution of The United States of America all people have Equal Rights Under The Law.

I know.....I know....

Who needs Equal Rights when your White and your RIGHT!

 

[bravoactual]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and 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 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.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

And you don't have the right to use your warped, immoral reading of the Constitution to use gay marriage laws to prosecute religious vendors who do not want to service a ceremony that they find spiritually offensive.

Why don't animal sex lovers have "equal protection under the law"? You know some of them have now filed lawsuits to be allowed to marry their horses or dogs, right? Why no "equal protection" for them? Who are you to judge the morality of their romantic desires? (Sound familiar?)

Why can't middle-aged men and pubescent preteen girls who want to get married enjoy "equal protection under the law"?

Why can't guys shack up with multiple women at a time and call their immorality marriage, i.e., secular polygamy? Why no "equal protection" for them? Why not?

You see, when you pervert the law to include the perversion of homosexuality as part of the definition of "marriage," you have no logical basis to deny any other perversion "equal protection."

First the Incest Fallcy and now Beastialty.

0-2.

Your not making logical well thought arguments, you using RW Talking Points with no basis in reality.

Your Right to Your Religious Freedom does not trump the Rights of others. You cannot use Freedom of Religion as a weapon against others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

 

[bravoactual]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

The 14th. Amendment protects ALL AMERICANS....NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.

Who are YOU to deny Rights to select group of people?

Why should only certain people be denied Rights granted to others?

Who are YOU to deny couples who lived together for 20, 30, 40-years the Right To Marriage, based solely on their sexual indentification?

You are equating Homosexuality as perversion, it is not.

Homosexuality is NOT a Mental Disorder.

Homsexuality is NOT Pedophilla (A sexual act performed by an adult upon a Minor Child).

Sexual Indentification occurs well berfore puberty. I have met to many Gay/Lesbians have said the same thing, they knew early on they did not want to have sex the opposit sex. They were not attracted to the opposit sex. Why should a person who NOT attracted to the opposit sex be forced live a lie just to conform to a society that refuses to understand them?

I take the arguments your making and use them as a person who believes in Gun Control. I don't want people owning guns, I don't like guns and because I don't like guns all guns should be taken away. The same argument applies. YOU don't want Gays/Lesbians to have the Civil Right of Marriage . Gays/Lesbians should have NOT the Rights YOU have, so they cannot have them.

The Human Heart will love whom it wants. You cannot tell the heart who it can and cannot love.

Your Gay/Lesbian Family Members, your Gay/Lesbian Friends and Co-Workers are just has human as you are. You seek to deny your friends and family Rights only because of their sexuality. You would rather have them deny their most basic and essential self just so you can be moaround them.

Before you tell you do not have Gay/Lesbian Family, Friends and Co-Workers, it is not that you do not, it's that they are to damn afraid to come to you. They are afraid of you rejecting them They are to damn afraid that you will not stop loving them. They would rather live a lie that you are forcing on them rather than telling you the truth of who they are.

Who are you to force them do live that lie?

I love and I acccept my Lesbian Younger Sister, being a Lesbian does not make her any less my sister. The sister I used to (back when you still could) swim in the Mississippi River with in the summer in Arkansas.

I love and respect my Gay/Lesbian Friends. Who they love and make a life with does not make them any less who they are. I do not fear them, I embrace them for living their life as who they are, not what some RW so-called "Christian" whack job thinks they should be.

Equal Rights means Equal Rights. Limiting those rights or taking away those rights or denying those means they are not Equal.

I do not live in fear of Homosexual trying to convert me. I am not interested sexually in Men. Never have been.

This whole damn thing is about Equal Rights Under The Law.

What is so damn wrong with Equal Right Under The Law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

FYI you're quoting me not the guy you're trying to quote.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

Ah Yes, the Incest Fallacy.

YOU do not have the Right To Impose YOUR Religious/Personal Morals or Values on others.

Your argument has no sound basis or use of logic in it.

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

YOUR a bigot if you believe YOU have the to decided for YOURSELF who can and/or cannot get married.

Marriage is Civil Right, NOT a Religious Right.

YOUR Religious Freedom does not trump the Equal Protection Clause.

YOUR Rights are just as equal as mine, or my younger sister who is a Lesbian.
YOU do not have the Right to decide who can and cannot be married.

As for incest, not exactly valid because as I recall incest was a primary means of procreation after Adam Eve, as their Sons and Daughters did procreate and that would have been through incest.

So you admit that incest should now be legal. OK. So will polygamy and everything else. Any restriction on whatever someone wants to call "marriage" will be invalid under the 14th A.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

Gays and lsbians alwayts had the same rights as I did. Now they have additional rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

Gays and lsbians alwayts had the same rights as I did. Now they have additional rights.

What rights did gays get that you don't have?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

Ah Yes, the Incest Fallacy.

YOU do not have the Right To Impose YOUR Religious/Personal Morals or Values on others.

Your argument has no sound basis or use of logic in it.

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

YOUR a bigot if you believe YOU have the to decided for YOURSELF who can and/or cannot get married.

Marriage is Civil Right, NOT a Religious Right.

YOUR Religious Freedom does not trump the Equal Protection Clause.

YOUR Rights are just as equal as mine, or my younger sister who is a Lesbian.
YOU do not have the Right to decide who can and cannot be married.

As for incest, not exactly valid because as I recall incest was a primary means of procreation after Adam Eve, as their Sons and Daughters did procreate and that would have been through incest.

So you admit that incest should now be legal. OK. So will polygamy and everything else. Any restriction on whatever someone wants to call "marriage" will be invalid under the 14th A.

Same sex marriage didn't change that. As soon as ONE form of marriage became legal the door was opened for any other form to claim equal protection.

 

[OKTexas]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

You mean like the court just did? When you start inventing rights based on actions and preferences and not genetics there are no limits.