If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[The Rabbi]

Equal protection didn't overturn a lot of what states were doing? You need to go back and study history! It certainly overturned the effects of slavery, which the states used to think was there perview. You need to quit posting foolishness. You're getting easier and easier to debunk. Your first sentence shows how clueless you are. I never said the 14th over-ruled the 10th. I said, "In this case...". BIG difference.

Argument #1.
See, it's all you've got.

You're still doing your 'secret argument' schtick?

Dude, you've got no counter for what you're responding to.

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't addressed your error when you stated that the 14th didn't overturn some of what used to be included in the 10th.

You're deteriorating into incoherence.

You suggested that the 14th did not effect the 10th, despite the fact that the 14th remedied some of the inequities due to slavery, previously a "State Right" covered by the 10th. Is that a little (more) comprehensible for you? I don't know how to make it any simpler.

That is completely incoherent.

Which words are you having trouble with? It seems even the simplest explanations of my position are throwing you for a loop. Do I need to number my arguments?

Your entire understanding of American history and the Constitution is incorrect. I can't help that. Frankl I blame Bush.

 

[Seawytch]

Argument #1.
See, it's all you've got.

You're still doing your 'secret argument' schtick?

Dude, you've got no counter for what you're responding to.

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost...on your argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're still doing your 'secret argument' schtick?

Dude, you've got no counter for what you're responding to.

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost...on your argument.

Plessy v Ferguson also was a loss for one side.

 

[Seawytch]

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost...on your argument.

Plessy v Ferguson also was a loss for one side.

Uh huh...what's the current score now 5 to 1 in appeals court rulings? I like my chances.

And we know how the procreation "argument" has already gone over in the Supreme Court. (Laughter)

 

[bendog]

Am I still married?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Am I still married?

For now, but that will soon change.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

Answer the question, why should the state be involved in marriage? Why do you want Big Brother in the bedroom?

I've been pointing this out to anti gay marriage people for literally years. All married gays are asking for are the exact same government cash and prizes other married people get. They are not asking for anything special that married heteros don't get.

This never seems to sink in with the homophobes. It's all about the joint tax returns and Social Security survivor benefits and so forth. But the homophobes want to make it about blowjobs and anal sex. Actually, they are more specifically sweaty over man-on-man blowjobs and anal sex.

 

[bodecea]

Argument #1.
See, it's all you've got.

You're still doing your 'secret argument' schtick?

Dude, you've got no counter for what you're responding to.

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

To?

 

[bodecea]

"Dude" you've already been pwned on this topic over and over. I told you what the arguments were. Multiple times. You dont even know what they are much less understand them much less can refute them.
You're done.

It is amazing how the Lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court aren't hiring you as a consultant. You should contact them.

Or Alabama. They lost on the procreation argument too.

They've appealed the decision.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost...on your argument.

Plessy v Ferguson also was a loss for one side.

It was.....but then Brown v. Board of Ed came along proving the fallacy of "separate but equal".

 

[Skylar]

You suggested that the 14th did not effect the 10th, despite the fact that the 14th remedied some of the inequities due to slavery, previously a "State Right" covered by the 10th. Is that a little comprehensible for you? I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Before the 14th amendment the Bill of RIghts didn't apply to the States. It applied only to the federal government. The States could and often did violate the rights of their citizens. None more systematically than blacks after the civil war. And there was zilch the Federal government could do about it.

After the 14th, the Federal government could protect the rights of federal citizens from violation by State law. And since every citizen of the State is also a citizen of the U.S., that applied to everyone.

The question of whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn State marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees was answered long ago. Most relevantly in Loving v. Virginia.