Gay Marriage v Windsor Part II: "Separate But Equal!"

[M.D. Rawlings]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

homo marriage? that must knock um dead at the trailer park!

You would know.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did so either. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

Well what the liberal Justices do or say is moot without Kennedy on board. The Court would have to be out of its friggin' mind to set a precedent for a limited set of deviant sexual behaviors as a cult gaining special protections to access kids legally for adoption via the loophole of marriage. That's the essence of what the Court would be granting them.

Then what? Compulsive gamblers want "equal access" to bank loans even though they don't qualify on credit because they were "born that way"? [They subjectively determined about themselves after some of their organized leaders took over the APA].

I tend to think Kennedy is more sane than that. I think he knows what setting a precedent for protecting behaviors under the 14th would mean. If you follow the thread to the logical conclusion of a deviant minority being able to dictate their repugnant and objectionable behaviors to the majority, the only destination you arrive at is fascism and the swan song of America.

 

[daws101]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

homo marriage? that must knock um dead at the trailer park!

You would know.

who wouldn't everybody has some trailer trash relatives.

 

[daws101]

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did so either. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

Well what the liberal Justices do or say is moot without Kennedy on board. The Court would have to be out of its friggin' mind to set a precedent for a limited set of deviant sexual behaviors as a cult gaining special protections to access kids legally for adoption via the loophole of marriage. That's the essence of what the Court would be granting them.

Then what? Compulsive gamblers want "equal access" to bank loans even though they don't qualify on credit because they were "born that way"? [They subjectively determined about themselves after some of their organized leaders took over the APA].

I tend to think Kennedy is more sane than that. I think he knows what setting a precedent for protecting behaviors under the 14th would mean. If you follow the thread to the logical conclusion of a deviant minority being able to dictate their repugnant and objectionable behaviors to the majority, the only destination you arrive at is fascism and the swan song of America.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't like Sarah Palin either. And two wrongs don't make a right. Care to actually address what I said in a lucid way instead of using a diversion?

 

[Silhouette]

Getting back to the topic:

How will the Court handle the "retroactive" part of Windsor?

Anyone?

 

[Silhouette]

One of the posters brought up that as a requirement of getting statehood, Utah had to renounce polygamy. How is that going to affect the retroactive part of Windsor?

 

[Inevitable]

The result of Windsor v the Unitedstates found the defense of marriage act section 3 UNconstitutional.

Get better shtick.

 

[Silhouette]

The result of Windsor v the Unitedstates found the defense of marriage act section 3 UNconstitutional.

Get better shtick.

Yes, it found that the fed cannot dictate to the states what marriage is defined as. Not sure the LGBT crowd should be whooping up a big victory on that one. It's quite the double-edged sword. While it means the fed cannot denounce a gay marriage once state approves of it, it also means Prop 8 and all others like it are binding and enforceable law.

 

[Inevitable]

The result of Windsor v the Unitedstates found the defense of marriage act section 3 UNconstitutional.

Get better shtick.

Yes, it found that the fed cannot dictate to the states what marriage is defined as. Not sure the LGBT crowd should be whooping up a big victory on that one. It's quite the double-edged sword. While it means the fed cannot denounce a gay marriage once state approves of it, it also means Prop 8 and all others like it are binding and enforceable law.

No it doesn't. Learn about it before posting your foolishness

 

[Silhouette]

The result of Windsor v the Unitedstates found the defense of marriage act section 3 UNconstitutional.

Get better shtick.

Yes, it found that the fed cannot dictate to the states what marriage is defined as. Not sure the LGBT crowd should be whooping up a big victory on that one. It's quite the double-edged sword. While it means the fed cannot denounce a gay marriage once state approves of it, it also means Prop 8 and all others like it are binding and enforceable law.

No it doesn't. Learn about it before posting your foolishness

You will have to quote from Windsor where you seem to fantasize it says "states get to decide but only the decision to say yes to gay marriage counts". Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Inevitable]

The result of Windsor v the Unitedstates found the defense of marriage act section 3 UNconstitutional.

Get better shtick.

Yes, it found that the fed cannot dictate to the states what marriage is defined as. Not sure the LGBT crowd should be whooping up a big victory on that one. It's quite the double-edged sword. While it means the fed cannot denounce a gay marriage once state approves of it, it also means Prop 8 and all others like it are binding and enforceable law.

No it doesn't. Learn about it before posting your foolishness

You will have to quote from Windsor where you seem to fantasize it says "states get to decide but only the decision to say yes to gay marriage counts". Can't have your cake and eat it too.

But that has nothing to do with what is going on in the courts right now. Basically it's the constitutionality of doma section 2. Which grants states the right to not recognize same sex marriages.

When the dicision comes in, if doma section 2 is constitutional or unconstitutional then you can say whether or not prop 8 has any validity.

Truth be told, I don't think doma section 2 will hold up. It's based on placing states over people.

When it comes down to it states have no interest in banning gay people from getting married, you have no articulable interest in the bans. It's likely going to be declared unconstitutional. Thus states will have to recognize it.

Before you go posting gay pride parade photos keep in mind Texas has had a ban on it since they could and the pride parade gets bigger and more extravagant every year in Houston. Bans don't stop what you don't like, public executions don't even work.

Letting them get married might even tone them down a bit, since it's a commemoration of the beginning of the fight for equality, once it's finished it will likely fall away.

 

[daws101]

I don't like Sarah Palin either. And two wrongs don't make a right. Care to actually address what I said in a lucid way instead of using a diversion?

who's diverting?
that whole concerto of shit was just the long way around to this " the only destination you arrive at is fascism and the swan song of America." a classic paranoid reactionary reaction.

 

[Silhouette]

] But that has nothing to do with what is going on in the courts right now. Basically it's the constitutionality of doma section 2. Which grants states the right to not recognize same sex marriages.

When the dicision comes in, if doma section 2 is constitutional or unconstitutional then you can say whether or not prop 8 has any validity.

Truth be told, I don't think doma section 2 will hold up. It's based on placing states over people.

When it comes down to it states have no interest in banning gay people from getting married, you have no articulable interest in the bans. It's likely going to be declared unconstitutional. Thus states will have to recognize it.

Before you go posting gay pride parade photos keep in mind Texas has had a ban on it since they could and the pride parade gets bigger and more extravagant every year in Houston. Bans don't stop what you don't like, public executions don't even work.

Letting them get married might even tone them down a bit, since it's a commemoration of the beginning of the fight for equality, once it's finished it will likely fall away.

Are you high on meth or simply devoid of the talent of logical thinking? Prop 8 is not dependent upon whether or not other states allow or disallow the recognition of gay marriage! Prop 8 was enacted by Californians to rule and lord over California. If New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry, maybe other states have to recognize those marriages. But that in no way, shape or form guarantees that every 13 year old in the US is then granted the right to marry!

How daft can you be? Did you think Windsor included the reference to 13 year olds being able to marry in New Hampshire just to exercise their typing fingers? No. They brought it up precisely in anticipation of your wishful thinking. When you read Windsor it is clear that the Court considers gay marriage these ways:

1. Weird, new and in opposition to thousands of years of tradition in society [read it. They actually say this]

2. As such, needs the broadest weigh in from the discreet communities within states, and a question to be answered within each state's respective boundaries as such.

3. To be recognized only upon that state's validating that new, weird form of marriage.

Others states may be ordered to recognize gay marriages from other states, but that does not mean each and every state must allow gay marriage. Just as each and every state doesn't have to allow 13 year olds marrying.

Incidentally, that "question" of law was most recently put to bed by the European Court on Human Rights. When they found that gays do not have a human right to marry, that means in the 49 countries within that jurisdiction, no more lawsuits or appeals can be filed because gays from one country feel dejected that they don't enjoy the same rights enacted by the discreet community of another country. It means that if you want to convince people that gay marriage is the way to go, you've got your work cut out for you. You're going to have to prove to the discreet members of each separate community that your new and weird idea of marriage is the way that majority wants to go. Else you have to just make do with realizing that gay marriage is not your "human right" [at the expense of children, for example..]

 

[daws101]

] But that has nothing to do with what is going on in the courts right now. Basically it's the constitutionality of doma section 2. Which grants states the right to not recognize same sex marriages.

When the dicision comes in, if doma section 2 is constitutional or unconstitutional then you can say whether or not prop 8 has any validity.

Truth be told, I don't think doma section 2 will hold up. It's based on placing states over people.

When it comes down to it states have no interest in banning gay people from getting married, you have no articulable interest in the bans. It's likely going to be declared unconstitutional. Thus states will have to recognize it.

Before you go posting gay pride parade photos keep in mind Texas has had a ban on it since they could and the pride parade gets bigger and more extravagant every year in Houston. Bans don't stop what you don't like, public executions don't even work.

Letting them get married might even tone them down a bit, since it's a commemoration of the beginning of the fight for equality, once it's finished it will likely fall away.

Are you high on meth or simply devoid of the talent of logical thinking? Prop 8 is not dependent upon whether or not other states allow or disallow the recognition of gay marriage! Prop 8 was enacted by Californians to rule and lord over California. If New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry, maybe other states have to recognize those marriages. But that in no way, shape or form guarantees that every 13 year old in the US is then granted the right to marry!

How daft can you be? Did you think Windsor included the reference to 13 year olds being able to marry in New Hampshire just to exercise their typing fingers? No. They brought it up precisely in anticipation of your wishful thinking. When you read Windsor it is clear that the Court considers gay marriage these ways:

1. Weird, new and in opposition to thousands of years of tradition in society [read it. They actually say this]

2. As such, needs the broadest weigh in from the discreet communities within states, and a question to be answered within each state's respective boundaries as such.

3. To be recognized only upon that state's validating that new, weird form of marriage.

Others states may be ordered to recognize gay marriages from other states, but that does not mean each and every state must allow gay marriage. Just as each and every state doesn't have to allow 13 year olds marrying.

Incidentally, that "question" of law was most recently put to bed by the European Court on Human Rights. When they found that gays do not have a human right to marry, that means in the 49 countries within that jurisdiction, no more lawsuits or appeals can be filed because gays from one country feel dejected that they don't enjoy the same rights enacted by the discreet community of another country. It means that if you want to convince people that gay marriage is the way to go, you've got your work cut out for you. You're going to have to prove to the discreet members of each separate community that your new and weird idea of marriage is the way that majority wants to go. Else you have to just make do with realizing that gay marriage is not your "human right" [at the expense of children, for example..]

major butthurt!

 

[Darlene]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Silhouette]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

 

[daws101]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

 

[Darlene]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

I think you're a closet homosexual because you bash on them so much.

 

[Inevitable]

] But that has nothing to do with what is going on in the courts right now. Basically it's the constitutionality of doma section 2. Which grants states the right to not recognize same sex marriages.

When the dicision comes in, if doma section 2 is constitutional or unconstitutional then you can say whether or not prop 8 has any validity.

Truth be told, I don't think doma section 2 will hold up. It's based on placing states over people.

When it comes down to it states have no interest in banning gay people from getting married, you have no articulable interest in the bans. It's likely going to be declared unconstitutional. Thus states will have to recognize it.

Before you go posting gay pride parade photos keep in mind Texas has had a ban on it since they could and the pride parade gets bigger and more extravagant every year in Houston. Bans don't stop what you don't like, public executions don't even work.

Letting them get married might even tone them down a bit, since it's a commemoration of the beginning of the fight for equality, once it's finished it will likely fall away.

Are you high on meth or simply devoid of the talent of logical thinking? Prop 8 is not dependent upon whether or not other states allow or disallow the recognition of gay marriage! Prop 8 was enacted by Californians to rule and lord over California. If New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry, maybe other states have to recognize those marriages. But that in no way, shape or form guarantees that every 13 year old in the US is then granted the right to marry!

How daft can you be? Did you think Windsor included the reference to 13 year olds being able to marry in New Hampshire just to exercise their typing fingers? No. They brought it up precisely in anticipation of your wishful thinking. When you read Windsor it is clear that the Court considers gay marriage these ways:

1. Weird, new and in opposition to thousands of years of tradition in society [read it. They actually say this]

2. As such, needs the broadest weigh in from the discreet communities within states, and a question to be answered within each state's respective boundaries as such.

3. To be recognized only upon that state's validating that new, weird form of marriage.

Others states may be ordered to recognize gay marriages from other states, but that does not mean each and every state must allow gay marriage. Just as each and every state doesn't have to allow 13 year olds marrying.

Incidentally, that "question" of law was most recently put to bed by the European Court on Human Rights. When they found that gays do not have a human right to marry, that means in the 49 countries within that jurisdiction, no more lawsuits or appeals can be filed because gays from one country feel dejected that they don't enjoy the same rights enacted by the discreet community of another country. It means that if you want to convince people that gay marriage is the way to go, you've got your work cut out for you. You're going to have to prove to the discreet members of each separate community that your new and weird idea of marriage is the way that majority wants to go. Else you have to just make do with realizing that gay marriage is not your "human right" [at the expense of children, for example..]

When you are on meth the rest of the world appears to be crazy. Put down the pipe and listen.

Listen up , not like it will sink into your thick skull, prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional, it's over and done with. Nothing will ever come out of it again.

As for your caterwalling about traditions and so forth it's benign and nothing. Appeals to traditions, or authority are logical fallacies, they are all you have. I have read your bullshit for months and you have no argument, you have no interest in forbidding Ssm other than your need to be traditional which I suspect is only a tactic.

This is why I predict this being a loss.

Windsor was a victory for Ssm if you have to spin it into a defeat to wake up in the morning be my guest.