C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
As for Romney, that he represents the authoritarian rights hostility to Americans civil liberties is not news.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
really? on what planet?
read....
learn...
Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.
If marriage were a right then it would be legal for first cousins to marry.
Unsurprisingly, you still don’t understand.
Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.
And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because it’s applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.
This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.
Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.
Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples’ right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.
Guess you didn't get the memo that your Boiking reauthorized the USAPATRIOT Act, authorized full body scanning in airports, signed NDAA, etcetera...As for Romney, that he represents the authoritarian rights hostility to Americans civil liberties is not news.
That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.
If marriage were a right then it would be legal for first cousins to marry.
Unsurprisingly, you still dont understand.
Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.
And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because its applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.
This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.
Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.
Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.
Frankly, I think that the "objective evidence" is quite clear:
One man humping another man's ass is as wrong as a man humping a hefer.
While the man humping the hefer may excuse the abominable behaviour by proposing marriage to the cow, it still doesn't make it any more socially acceptable.
really? on what planet?
read....
learn...
Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man
and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.
If marriage were a right then it would be legal for first cousins to marry.
Unsurprisingly, you still dont understand.
Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.
And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because its applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.
This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.
Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.
Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.
That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man
and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.
If marriage were a right then it would be legal for first cousins to marry.
Unsurprisingly, you still dont understand.
Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.
And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because its applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.
This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.
Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.
Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.
Just go get your shit packed and shut the fuck up faggot
Unsurprisingly, you still dont understand.
Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.
And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because its applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.
This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.
Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.
Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.
Just go get your shit packed and shut the fuck up faggot
Republicans always get testy when the republican party gets pegged as the home of racist scum and bigot shit for brains.
And then they prove it.
Just go get your shit packed and shut the fuck up faggot
Republicans always get testy when the republican party gets pegged as the home of racist scum and bigot shit for brains.
And then they prove it.
I'm not racist. I just think that rubbing shit all over your dick is nasty.
Sorry you dissagree
Republicans always get testy when the republican party gets pegged as the home of racist scum and bigot shit for brains.
And then they prove it.
I'm not racist. I just think that rubbing shit all over your dick is nasty.
Sorry you dissagree
What other people do with their sexuality is none of my business. Nor is it yours. I have a wife, and that's MY way.
I disagree with bigots, and always will.
I'm not racist. I just think that rubbing shit all over your dick is nasty.
Sorry you dissagree
What other people do with their sexuality is none of my business. Nor is it yours. I have a wife, and that's MY way.
I disagree with bigots, and always will.
I dissagree with faggots and always will.
My decision to dissagree with them is no different than yours to disagree with me.
So fuck you
What other people do with their sexuality is none of my business. Nor is it yours. I have a wife, and that's MY way.
I disagree with bigots, and always will.
I dissagree with faggots and always will.
My decision to dissagree with them is no different than yours to disagree with me.
So fuck you
There is a decided difference. One is hating someone because they have a different colour, lifestyle, or creed than you.
The other, is hating someone because there a dumbfuck bigot.
I dissagree with faggots and always will.
My decision to dissagree with them is no different than yours to disagree with me.
So fuck you
There is a decided difference. One is hating someone because they have a different colour, lifestyle, or creed than you.
The other, is hating someone because there a dumbfuck bigot.
I never mentioned hate dumbfuck
No, I'm going to die without shit on my dick or cum in my assThere is a decided difference. One is hating someone because they have a different colour, lifestyle, or creed than you.
The other, is hating someone because there a dumbfuck bigot.
I never mentioned hate dumbfuck
you don't have to say it. You live it. Exude it. You're a hateful little douchnozzle and you're going to die angry.
No, I'm going to die without shit on my dick or cum in my assI never mentioned hate dumbfuck
you don't have to say it. You live it. Exude it. You're a hateful little douchnozzle and you're going to die angry.
Hate and disgust are two different things. When you grow up you'll realize that.No, I'm going to die without shit on my dick or cum in my assyou don't have to say it. You live it. Exude it. You're a hateful little douchnozzle and you're going to die angry.
Good for you for being straight. So am I. yet I don't hate those who aren't. You're a small, petty bigot, and everything you have said indicates it.
Hate and disgust are two different things. When you grow up you'll realize that.No, I'm going to die without shit on my dick or cum in my ass
Good for you for being straight. So am I. yet I don't hate those who aren't. You're a small, petty bigot, and everything you have said indicates it.
Hate and disgust are two different things. When you grow up you'll realize that.Good for you for being straight. So am I. yet I don't hate those who aren't. You're a small, petty bigot, and everything you have said indicates it.
Bullshit. People always want to make excuses for their bigotry. Keep talking, you're only sticking your foot further in to your mouth.
Please proceed, Governor.
Hate and disgust are two different things. When you grow up you'll realize that.
Bullshit. People always want to make excuses for their bigotry. Keep talking, you're only sticking your foot further in to your mouth.
Please proceed, Governor.
I'm not ashamed. I'm civilized and NORMAL