Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

 

[Silhouette]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You can pretend all you wish that Prop 8 still is the current and binding law of California. It isn't. Those of living in the real world know otherwise and are no obligated to follow your delusions. Gay people are still getting married in CA despite all your foot stomping and legal gibberish. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Silhouette]

You can pretend all you wish that Prop 8 still is the current and binding law of California. It isn't. Those of living in the real world know otherwise and are no obligated to follow your delusions. Gay people are still getting married in CA despite all your foot stomping and legal gibberish. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

What other comment would I expect from a child-hater hellbent on institutionalizing homes where boys are deprived of fathers or girls are deprived of mothers..?

 

[Skylar]

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage.

No it isn't. It was overturned on the basis that it violated constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the federal ruling on the matter, or the USSC preserving that ruling....but it really doesn't matter. As your willful ignorance has no relevance to any law, court case or legal outcome.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study never mentions gays, gay parenting, same sex couples, gay marriage or measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it same a good same sex role model must be a parent.

You made all that up. And your hallucinations are as irrelevant to these issues as your pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

You can pretend all you wish that Prop 8 still is the current and binding law of California. It isn't. Those of living in the real world know otherwise and are no obligated to follow your delusions. Gay people are still getting married in CA despite all your foot stomping and legal gibberish. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

What other comment would I expect from a child-hater hellbent on institutionalizing homes where boys are deprived of fathers or girls are deprived of mothers..?

Um....Sil, your proposal does nothing but hurt children. As the courts made clear:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Remember, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically mean their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents.

Which only hurts children. And helps none. And that's what you're advocating.

No thank you.

 

[mdk]

You can pretend all you wish that Prop 8 still is the current and binding law of California. It isn't. Those of living in the real world know otherwise and are no obligated to follow your delusions. Gay people are still getting married in CA despite all your foot stomping and legal gibberish. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

What other comment would I expect from a child-hater hellbent on institutionalizing homes where boys are deprived of fathers or girls are deprived of mothers..?

Please tell more how much you care about children while you simultaneously classify Duggar's actions as mere "sexual experimentations" amongst children. You only care about children until you can't use them to harm gay people. When you can't you thrown them onto the trash heap.

 

[dcraelin]

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

Both Adams and Henry disagree with you. lex majoris parti was a saying at Our founding....meaning that law of the majority should rule. Madison said majority rule was the Republican principle. see my picture gallery for more, specifically the Jefferson picture...he would also disagree with you.

You are not making your point that 'tyranny of the majority' is an oxymoron. One can believe in majority rule and still not think the terms are contradictory. I think you may be misconstruing my point.

I get what people think they're referring to when they use the term.....but it is like Adams says, sophistry and chicanery ...it is used to justify systems that give power to corrupt, elitist minorities. ...and it is at base an oxymoron.

 

[dcraelin]

Adams does seem to have changed his mind later in life..........I have a a pic by Mercy Otis Warren who once knew him well, expressing shock at this change.....he was right in his earlier life.

Adams correctly pointed out that the the injustice and inhumanity heaped upon the minority by the majority is on every page of history. And its certainly on ours. As every single one of the examples I cited demonstrates. It is entire possible for the majority to act tyrannically. And as Adams pointed out, pretty much inevitable unless checked. Madison made the same point using 'factions' as his vehicle in the federalist papers.

Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prevents the States from violating the rights of US citizens. Making the majority vote of the people of that State insufficient to violate federal protected constitutional guarantees. As the USSC has already found.

A lot.

So historically, logically, philosophically and legally.......the tyranny of the majority is not our system of government. As for the authenticity of the quote, I'll gladly show you links to its authenticity.

After you do the same for every one of your quotes. When the homework train comes to town, everybody rides!

ha, you cant provide links....some of mine are from public sources like the federalist...others have the date and correspondent supplied on the picture. Mercy Otis Warren's is from her history of the revolution.

Prove they're are in the source cited by your pictures. You can't provided a single link backing any of your quotes. Again, I'll be happy to show you my links when you show me yours. With evidence. I'm all about homework....once you've done your own. But I'm not providing a single link to any source to a person who won't back their own claims first.

And of course, you're still ignoring every example of the tyranny of the majority in our history, along with every example of it in the world's history. From slavery to Socrates, you either ignore them entirely or pretend they never existed. But its not like we have to ignore history just because you do.

Adams described the injustice and inhumanity of the majority heaped upon the minority as being on all pages of history. And he's right.

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

You picture isn't a source. Show me a link to the text. I'll gladly show you mine once you do. And you like Jefferson, huh?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson

Want some more?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson.

Law is always the tyrants will when it violates the rights of the individual. About as clear a contradiction of your claims as is possible.

You're literally advocating oppression per the standards of Jefferson. Literally ignoring the inhumanity and injustice the majority heaps upon the minority per Adams.. Where the majority can do....anything. Strip any right, take property, even take life with a simple 50% plus 1 vote. And even more laughably, insisting that the majority can't be tyrannical. \

And then there's the 14th amendment which forbids the state to violate the rights of US citizens. Which you summarily ignore as well. Again, just because you ignore everything inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean we're similarly obligated.

The source is right in the picture you dolt....founders online is a web source......

Henry speaks to your "historic examples" .....slavery was a system which generally was the minority over the majority.

Yes, Jefferson did have an out in unjust systems....rebellion... a little now and then was essential...but as my gallery pic of him shows,he thought the will of the majority was the only sure guardian of the rights of man..........

 

[dcraelin]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I said the prop 8 CASE,....wasnt clear enough I guess, I agree with you generally on prop 8. The ruling on it by SC was idiocy.

 

[SwimExpert]

"Tyranny of the majority" is an idiots phrase

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

Which is why Jefferson supported rebellion against the state when the majority of the British Empire agreed with taxing the blood out of the colonies....

 

[dcraelin]

"Tyranny of the majority" is an idiots phrase

As Jefferson said, the majority sometimes errs, buts its errors are honest solitary and short lived. source provided.

Which is why Jefferson supported rebellion against the state when the majority of the British Empire agreed with taxing the blood out of the colonies....

Right, I addressed that in a recent post

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dcraelin's arguments are merely sophistry and chicanery.

 

[Montrovant]

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.

"tyranny of the majority" is an oxymoron

The abuse of words Adams talks about could also be extended to the redefinition of the word marriage that some want the court to do.


John Adams says Democratical despotism is contadiction in terms by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


PH speech against consitution pic1 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? I don't think the definition of tyranny requires a minority be in control. I suppose it depends on what definition you use; tyranny can be defined as control by a single ruler, but that is certainly not the only definition of the word.

Both Adams and Henry disagree with you. lex majoris parti was a saying at Our founding....meaning that law of the majority should rule. Madison said majority rule was the Republican principle. see my picture gallery for more, specifically the Jefferson picture...he would also disagree with you.

You are not making your point that 'tyranny of the majority' is an oxymoron. One can believe in majority rule and still not think the terms are contradictory. I think you may be misconstruing my point.

I get what people think they're referring to when they use the term.....but it is like Adams says, sophistry and chicanery ...it is used to justify systems that give power to corrupt, elitist minorities. ...and it is at base an oxymoron.

Again, only an oxymoron if you define tyranny as being limited to a single ruler or small number in charge.

 

[Silhouette]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

you may have a point. I believe policing powers are left to the states. which would maybe be similar to saying what your saying. I do fear the consequences on the law of these cases....the prop 8 case has maybe already set a poor example in denying standing to millions of Californians.

Why would Prop 8's simply saying "marriage is only legal between a man and a woman" set a poor example? It's California's current and binding standard for marriage. They have a right to set that standard if they're going to lose money in order to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (the only reason states are involved in marriage in the first place). A state wants kids to have both a father and a mother. So that state says "only a man and woman may marry to receive the benefits thereof". That's how incentives work.

What would be truly terrible and a miscarriage of justice (for children, who cannot vote, and who more than any other demographic depend on the SCOTUS to be supremely wise and forward thinking on this question of law), would be for the SCOTUS to cut the conversation off and set a mandate that states must incentivize motherless or fatherless "marriage". Check the OP of this thread for the details on the detriment to children of boys being raised without a father or girls being raised without a mother: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I said the prop 8 CASE,....wasnt clear enough I guess, I agree with you generally on prop 8. The ruling on it by SC was idiocy.

Well, I see you as a rare thinking person on these boards. And I would like to hear more from you by what you mean that the ruling on the Prop 8 case by SCOTUS was "idiocy". Maybe line that out exactly why here. I value your opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, only an oxymoron if you define tyranny as being limited to a single ruler or small number in charge.

You mean like just 9 people in DC shutting down the conversation and mandating fatherless or motherless "marriages" against the will of the majority in the sovereign states...before anyone really understands, as just one example of many red flags, why lipstick "lesbians" are attracted to all the trappings of masculinity?

That type of tyranny? Like the tyranny of a cult coercively manipulating just 9 powerful people in DC to get their dogma mainstreamed right into the schools and boyscout troops of children without the consent of the governed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take your pills, Sil. I know you are unhappy, but you are the one out of step. Most Americans support marriage equality, the millennials overwhelmingly so.

 

[Silhouette]

Take your pills, Sil. I know you are unhappy, but you are the one out of step. Most Americans support marriage equality, the millennials overwhelmingly so.

Then why are you afraid to let states regulate and vote on it?

And..

Have you seen the results in these polls?

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 893 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl Page 42 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because it is not the role of majoritarian democracy to vote on a constitutional issue that belongs to SCOTUS. The states have every right to hold non-binding referendums to reveal public will on the matter. None have.

Opposition to marriage equality fails to generate the outrage that does abortion even today.

The millennials will flee the GOP if it continues to oppose ME.

 

[Silhouette]

Non-binding referendums?