Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[bravoactual]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

YES!!!!

Marriage is Right and such is covered by The Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

Marriage is Civil Right, Granted by The State. The State derives income from the issuance of the Marriage Licence and regulated by the State.

The Right to Marry is granted by State, not by a Organized Religious Group or Groups.

Private Citizens under the Equal Protection Clause have a Right To Marry, Gay/Lesbian/Straight each are eqally protected under the law and the law cannot be used to deny one group or groups the Right to marry based on personal prejudice/religious grounds.

Equal Protect Under The Law.

Get used to it.

 

[Kosh]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

YES!!!!

Marriage is Right and such is covered by The Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

Marriage is Civil Right, Granted by The State. The State derives income from the issuance of the Marriage Licence and regulated by the State.

The Right to Marry is granted by State, not by a Organized Religious Group or Groups.

Private Citizens under the Equal Protection Clause have a Right To Marry, Gay/Lesbian/Straight each are eqally protected under the law and the law cannot be used to deny one group or groups the Right to marry based on personal prejudice/religious grounds.

Equal Protect Under The Law.

Get used to it.

So you are for there men and three women getting married to each other because it is their right, you are for 12 year old marring a 15 year old because it their right to marry..

 

[bravoactual]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

YES!!!!

Marriage is Right and such is covered by The Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

Marriage is Civil Right, Granted by The State. The State derives income from the issuance of the Marriage Licence and regulated by the State.

The Right to Marry is granted by State, not by a Organized Religious Group or Groups.

Private Citizens under the Equal Protection Clause have a Right To Marry, Gay/Lesbian/Straight each are eqally protected under the law and the law cannot be used to deny one group or groups the Right to marry based on personal prejudice/religious grounds.

Equal Protect Under The Law.

Get used to it.

So you are for there men and three women getting married to each other because it is their right, you are for 12 year old marring a 15 year old because it their right to marry..

You keep using empty arguments.

Age of consent to marries will vary from State, I personally believe the should 18-but that's me.

A Three-Way Marriage - how many more times will lame talking point be used.

The State in it's capacity to regulate marriage cannot discriminate against a group of people based solely on their sexual indentity.

IF and when the State consents plural marrige by enacting laws that cover such marriage, such marriage would be illegal and you know that.

The State cannot act to deny the Civil Right of Marriage based on sexual identity alone, which is what your trying and failing to do.

 

[Kosh]

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

YES!!!!

Marriage is Right and such is covered by The Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

Marriage is Civil Right, Granted by The State. The State derives income from the issuance of the Marriage Licence and regulated by the State.

The Right to Marry is granted by State, not by a Organized Religious Group or Groups.

Private Citizens under the Equal Protection Clause have a Right To Marry, Gay/Lesbian/Straight each are eqally protected under the law and the law cannot be used to deny one group or groups the Right to marry based on personal prejudice/religious grounds.

Equal Protect Under The Law.

Get used to it.

So you are for there men and three women getting married to each other because it is their right, you are for 12 year old marring a 15 year old because it their right to marry..

You keep using empty arguments.

Age of consent to marries will vary from State, I personally believe the should 18-but that's me.

A Three-Way Marriage - how many more times will lame talking point be used.

The State in it's capacity to regulate marriage cannot discriminate against a group of people based solely on their sexual indentity.

IF and when the State consents plural marrige by enacting laws that cover such marriage, such marriage would be illegal and you know that.

The State cannot act to deny the Civil Right of Marriage based on sexual identity alone, which is what your trying and failing to do.

So see when the far left is faced with showing that marriage is an actual "right" they keep proving it is not. They stick to their narrative without question or hesitation, thus proving time and time again marriage is NOT a "right".

A right is something that can not be taken away or legislated, but yet the far left wants their beliefs legislated and claim it is a "right", when they prove time and time again it is not a "right".

Just like they believe voting is a "right" and yet by their own definition it is not..

 

[bravoactual]

No one "Voting A Right". The Right, under the Constitution was per-existing.

For the record I'm hardly "Far Left", I am Left of Center.

There is no uniform Age of Consent to Marry in the U.S. Such consent is governed in the individual states.

Plural Marriage, as you love to hypothocize can only be granted by the States.

Though if you go to any Moron Church in Utah a segment of the persons attending the service will be part of Plural Marriage, it's called "Living The Prinicpal" I believe.

A Right, already granted by the State (Marriage) cannot be denied to group or groups within that State based upon their Sexual Identity, hence the 14th. Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The State cannot discriminate in it's granting of the Civil Right of Marriage. To do so is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can continue to make your useless and irrelvent arguments....but know that is what they are, useless and irrelevent.

You cannot decide based upon your own dislike/hate of Gays/Lesbians the same Right of Marriage you have.

 

[Kosh]

No one "Voting A Right". The Right, under the Constitution was per-existing.

For the record I'm hardly "Far Left", I am Left of Center.

There is no uniform Age of Consent to Marry in the U.S. Such consent is governed in the individual states.

Plural Marriage, as you love to hypothocize can only be granted by the States.

Though if you go to any Moron Church in Utah a segment of the persons attending the service will be part of Plural Marriage, it's called "Living The Prinicpal" I believe.

A Right, already granted by the State (Marriage) cannot be denied to group or groups within that State based upon their Sexual Identity, hence the 14th. Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The State cannot discriminate in it's granting of the Civil Right of Marriage. To do so is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can continue to make your useless and irrelvent arguments....but know that is what they are, useless and irrelevent.

You cannot decide based upon your own dislike/hate of Gays/Lesbians the same Right of Marriage you have.

No you are far left running their programmed narrative without question or hesitation..

Just like the far left claims health care is a "righty" and should be free to everyone.

So why do people have to pay for marriage when it s a "right"..

 

[bravoactual]

No one "Voting A Right". The Right, under the Constitution was per-existing.

For the record I'm hardly "Far Left", I am Left of Center.

There is no uniform Age of Consent to Marry in the U.S. Such consent is governed in the individual states.

Plural Marriage, as you love to hypothocize can only be granted by the States.

Though if you go to any Moron Church in Utah a segment of the persons attending the service will be part of Plural Marriage, it's called "Living The Prinicpal" I believe.

A Right, already granted by the State (Marriage) cannot be denied to group or groups within that State based upon their Sexual Identity, hence the 14th. Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The State cannot discriminate in it's granting of the Civil Right of Marriage. To do so is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can continue to make your useless and irrelvent arguments....but know that is what they are, useless and irrelevent.

You cannot decide based upon your own dislike/hate of Gays/Lesbians the same Right of Marriage you have.

No you are far left running their programmed narrative without question or hesitation..

Just like the far left claims health care is a "righty" and should be free to everyone.

So why do people have to pay for marriage when it s a "right"..

Yet another one in long line of useless and irrelevent excuses.

The Right of Marriage is granted by the State, therefore it is up to the State how it derives revenue of the issuance of the marriage licence or the Certificate of Confidential Marriage in the State of California.

Attempts at diversion from the Right To Marry with health care will not be addressed.

Again, I am NOT Far Left. I am Center Left.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You keep using empty arguments.

Says the guy who chooses to be wrong in stating the right to arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia.,

 

[Kosh]

No one "Voting A Right". The Right, under the Constitution was per-existing.

For the record I'm hardly "Far Left", I am Left of Center.

There is no uniform Age of Consent to Marry in the U.S. Such consent is governed in the individual states.

Plural Marriage, as you love to hypothocize can only be granted by the States.

Though if you go to any Moron Church in Utah a segment of the persons attending the service will be part of Plural Marriage, it's called "Living The Prinicpal" I believe.

A Right, already granted by the State (Marriage) cannot be denied to group or groups within that State based upon their Sexual Identity, hence the 14th. Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The State cannot discriminate in it's granting of the Civil Right of Marriage. To do so is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You can continue to make your useless and irrelvent arguments....but know that is what they are, useless and irrelevent.

You cannot decide based upon your own dislike/hate of Gays/Lesbians the same Right of Marriage you have.

No you are far left running their programmed narrative without question or hesitation..

Just like the far left claims health care is a "righty" and should be free to everyone.

So why do people have to pay for marriage when it s a "right"..

Yet another one in long line of useless and irrelevent excuses.

The Right of Marriage is granted by the State, therefore it is up to the State how it derives revenue of the issuance of the marriage licence or the Certificate of Confidential Marriage in the State of California.

Attempts at diversion from the Right To Marry with health care will not be addressed.

Again, I am NOT Far Left. I am Center Left.

And yes you are far left and each and every post you make proves that..

So yes you can not support that "marriage" is a "right" other than the programmed far left religious narrative..

Yes you can prove your comments that you are Center left by posting all the protest threads you have made for Obama illegal wars.

Thus proving you a far left drone spouting out far left religious dogma as you can not prove "marriage" is a "right"..

 

[bravoactual]

You keep using empty arguments.

Says the guy who chooses to be wrong in stating the right to arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia.,

I choose the very strict interpretation, A Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You keep using empty arguments.

Says the guy who chooses to be wrong in stating the right to arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia.,

I choose the very strict interpretation, A Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.

That's strict alright, too strict for the Supreme Court...

 

[bravoactual]

You keep using empty arguments.

Says the guy who chooses to be wrong in stating the right to arms is predon membership in a well-regulated militia.,

I choose the very strict interpretation, A Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.

That's strict alright, too strict for the Supreme Court...

The First Four Words of 2nd Amendment spell out exactly who has the right to own a fire arm. A member of a Well Regulated Militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You keep using empty arguments.

Says the guy who chooses to be wrong in stating the right to arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia.,

I choose the very strict interpretation,

That is, you choose to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The First Four Words of 2nd Amendment spell out exactly who has the right to own a fire arm. A member of a Well Regulated Militia.

Meaningless, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[PratchettFan]

"So the states should be able to completely ban all gun ownership?"

As you are aware laws must be constitutional and that obviously is not.

So when you said that states should not be held accountable for federal decisions (and the Constitution is federal) you meant what? And let's keep in mind that the state laws banning SSM were deemed not to be constitutional.

 

[PratchettFan]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you fucking libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

That isn't what the amendment says. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[bravoactual]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you fucking libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

That isn't what the amendment says. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"A Well Regulated Militia" is what the 2nd. Amendment says.

Private Ownership is not mention, The Right of People, as a Well Regulated Militia is.

 

[danielpalos]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you fucking libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Dud, I was using the exact, full and complete text of the 2nd. Amendment. You did not.

"A Well Regulated Militia" you neglected that part.

Gun owners is predicated on those 4-words.

You don't have a clue or a Cause, do you.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Four Words of 2nd Amendment spell out exactly who has the right to own a fire arm. A member of a Well Regulated Militia.

Meaningless, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, it doesn't. Those of the opposing view are resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing the security needs of our free States with rights in private property declared inalienable or indefeasible in State Constitutions.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Can you tell me how two same sex siblings could possibly procreate?

What sound legal reasoning is there to prohibit these couples marriage? Because another couple can?

You realize that's an argument against SSM as well, right?