Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #381
Swing and a miss. As always, you conveniently leave out the part from the Windsor ruling that finds state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the inconvenient parts the court's ruling all you wish; however, the rest us are under no such obligation.
What constitutional guarantees? That any and all sexual orientations between adults can marry? Not all of them? How is that a constitutional guarantee again?....
The basis of the right to marry in the Obergefell decision wasn't sexual orientation. Instead, the court found that a state couldn't deny marriage licenses to a couple based on their genders.
And both genders can marry.
There's no mandate in any law or court ruling that those in same sex marriages be gay or those in opposite sex marriages be straight.
You made all that up.
Then what if four lesbians wanted to marry? Why is the number "two" sacred when a mother and father for children are no longer? Surely a child would be better off with role models of both sexes than to be deprived of one FOR LIFE..