Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

And neither prove your claim. The Government does in fact have the power authority and ability to DEFINE what Marriage is and has done so in 30 States. The 8th does not define marriage and so is useless in that regard.

The 9th is the most overturned court in the system and its ruling on California has no bearing on the other 30 States with Constitutions that state Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Unless the Supreme Court takes the case and rules specifically on the ability of a State to define Marriage it means nothing and my point stands and is in FACT the law of the land in 30 States.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most 9th Circuit decisions - Los Angeles Times

U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

That’s more a consequence of ideology than judicial error.

It's also a consequence of some selective math, the size of the court, and it depends on the time frame in question. The SCOTUS picks cases to hear with the intent of overturning them. 76% of the cases heard by the SCOTUS this year have been overturned...that's the percentage of the total, not the 9th Circuit and that's low according to average. They don't have the time to accept cases that they know will stand so they only hear those with a legitimate question. The 9th is a massive court...almost three times larger than the average of the circuit courts so they get a TON more cases than the others. Their caseload makes up a disproportionate percentage of the total caseload for all 11 circuit courts. This means a greater number of cases to be potentially reviewed by the court and hence a higher number of cases the SCOTUS will hear from them as opposed to a different court.


When you have three times the volume you are going to end up with a disproportionate number of cases on a given SCOTUS calendar in comparison to other courts. Since the SCOTUS is predisposed to overturn the 9th will end up with the most overturns on raw volume. By percentage of cases before the SCOTUS they are usually higher than average but usually not nearly as much as people would have you believe. It depends on the year...in 2007 the 5th was overturned more. In 2010 the 5th and the 6th had a higher rate. In 2005 the 1st, 2nd, and 10th had a higher rate of being overturned. In 2004 they were lower than average. They have certainly had some embarrassing years. 1997 is one where they held a 95% overturn rate - OUCH!

But if you look at it another way you get another result. Because of their enormous caseload compared to other courts it also means that a lower percentage of the total number of cases from the 9th make it to the Supreme Court for review. The rest are allowed to stand by the SCOTUS. In other words the number of cases that are allowed to stand by the SCOTUS is vastly higher for the 9th than for other courts and so when you compare their overturn rate to the total number of cases they hear it's actually lower than other courts.

So...is the 9th overturned more? Yes and no...depends on how you look at it. If you look at only the cases that make it to the SCOTUS and express it only in bulk numbers, yes because of their massive caseload. If you express it as a percentage, sometimes they are overturned more, sometimes they are not...usually they are right around average. If you express it as a percentage of their overall caseload then they are actually the least overturned. Just depends on which game you want to play and which political angle you happen to be pounding.

Should the Ninth Circuit be Judged by Reversal Rates?

9th Circuit Overturned | Disorder in the court - Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court overturning numerous 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Falwell wrongly labeled 9 th Circuit Court "the most overturned of all the appellate courts"
 
Last edited:
Wait about three years. Currently, the highest courts that have heard cases on the issue are of the opinion that those states are enforcing unconstitutional law. If you REALLY think Kennedy won't vote in favor of gay rights, you are flat out delusional.

True. Kennedy authored both Romer and Lawrence. Indeed, Romer will likely be the template for the ruling striking down laws, amendments, and referenda prohibiting same-sex couples access to marriage law.
Kennedy is 75 he could be dead before this goes to the supreme court.

What an ingenious response.
 
Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​
.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.
 
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.

Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.
 
There are 30 States that define marriage as between one man and one woman. Federal Courts have NOT overturned those Constitutions. Further just because the Ninny 9th says something is no reason to assume it will remain true. The 9th is the most overturned court in the Federal system.

Unless the Supreme Court takes a case and rules that gay marriage is some how protected MY argument is not only valid BUT the law of the land in 30 States.

Wait about three years. Currently, the highest courts that have heard cases on the issue are of the opinion that those states are enforcing unconstitutional law. If you REALLY think Kennedy won't vote in favor of gay rights, you are flat out delusional.

Currently, the highest courts that have heard a case about same sex marriage vis a vis the 14th Amendment held that Nebraska's initiative 416, and laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, do not violate the constitution. Prop 8 was overturned not because it violates the constitution but because it took away a right that previously existed under state law. That was what violated the equal protection clause, not the law in and of itself.

Not quite true. You are referring to the 8th Circuit. The 9th disagrees. The 1st has yet to issue their ruling but I would be completely shocked if they rejected gay marriage. The 3rd has not heard a case on gay marriage but given they overturned Florida's ban on gay adoption in 2010 I wouldn't be too keen to rely on them if I were endorsing the anti-gay angle. The 5th agrees with the 8th. The point is that the 5th and 8th do not outrank anyone else. So the best you could hope for is to say that in the Circuit Courts the opinions have been divided. While the 9th upheld the District Court ruling on Prop 8 on Romer, it made clear that it agreed with the interpretation of the court in regard to the broader question of gay marriage. That's pretty typical. The higher up you go, the more they narrow in on specific point of law. So while they single out a specific technical point, they also have the freedom to support it with broader arguments. Such as:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort".

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf
 
Last edited:
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.

Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.

I looked at the first results, from CNN, which actually stated that 22% of Liberals were in favor of banning gay marriage. Not sure if you know this, but not all Democrats are liberals....but I understand why you used the higher Democrat figure of 36%.

As the vast majority of blacks in that poll voted for banning gay marriage it makes sense that they made up the 22% of liberals.

I still think your question is silly since the vast majority of liberals favor allowing gays to marry.
 
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.

Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.

I looked at the first results, from CNN, which actually stated that 22% of Liberals were in favor of banning gay marriage. Not sure if you know this, but not all Democrats are liberals....but I understand why you used the higher Democrat figure of 36%.

As the vast majority of blacks in that poll voted for banning gay marriage it makes sense that they made up the 22% of liberals.

I still think your question is silly since the vast majority of liberals favor allowing gays to marry.

Vote by Party ID
Total
YesNo
Democrat (42%)
36%
64%

Near the bottom of the page

Self-described "liberals" yes 22%. So one in five liberals voted to ban gay marriage in California. In Michigan self-described "liberals" supported the ban at 32%...that's one in three. You are free to hold your own opinions, of course, but to me that's "significant liberal support" and Democratic support including moderates is even higher.

Do the "majority" support gay rights? Sure. But there's a big enough chunk that do not that the blame cannot be laid completely on the GOP. I mean let's face it. The Democrats held the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress for two years. If they really gave a shit they could have passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in a slam dunk...it didn't even make it out of the Democrat dominated committee although it has gained considerable Republican support.
 
Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.

Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.

That is the part that many supporters don't like to admit. There are plenty of people who support same sex marriage, but when push comes to shove they get a case of NIMBY and want it to happen somewhere else.
 
Wait about three years. Currently, the highest courts that have heard cases on the issue are of the opinion that those states are enforcing unconstitutional law. If you REALLY think Kennedy won't vote in favor of gay rights, you are flat out delusional.

Currently, the highest courts that have heard a case about same sex marriage vis a vis the 14th Amendment held that Nebraska's initiative 416, and laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, do not violate the constitution. Prop 8 was overturned not because it violates the constitution but because it took away a right that previously existed under state law. That was what violated the equal protection clause, not the law in and of itself.

Not quite true. You are referring to the 8th Circuit. The 9th disagrees. The 1st has yet to issue their ruling but I would be completely shocked if they rejected gay marriage. The 3rd has not heard a case on gay marriage but given they overturned Florida's ban on gay adoption in 2010 I wouldn't be too keen to rely on them if I were endorsing the anti-gay angle. The 5th agrees with the 8th. The point is that the 5th and 8th do not outrank anyone else. So the best you could hope for is to say that in the Circuit Courts the opinions have been divided. While the 9th upheld the District Court ruling on Prop 8 on Romer, it made clear that it agreed with the interpretation of the court in regard to the broader question of gay marriage. That's pretty typical. The higher up you go, the more they narrow in on specific point of law. So while they single out a specific technical point, they also have the freedom to support it with broader arguments. Such as:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort".
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

The Ninth might disagree, but the decision the Ninth handed down was narrowly tailored to what happened in California. The actual chain of events is what was ruled on, not the concept in general. This precedent would not even affect other states in the Ninth unless they went to the trouble of approving same sex marriage and then repealing it after some people were allowed to get married. You can see that in the paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 5 in your link. "This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendments constitutionality on narrow grounds."

Which is why I am pointing out that your claim that the highest courts have all supported overturning laws that define marriage is wrong, the only case actually decided on those terms held them to be constitution. The Ninth deliberately decided not to address the issue of marriage as it applies to the constitution, they chose only to address what happened as a result of the entire process that led to Proposition 8 in California and it applies only to California. That is the reason many supporters of same sex marriage want to appeal the decision even though they won, they hope to get the Supreme Court to expand the decision to the other 49 states.
 
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most 9th Circuit decisions - Los Angeles Times

U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

That’s more a consequence of ideology than judicial error.

Are you saying that when SCOTUS rebukes the Ninth for ignoring precedent that isn't judicial error?
That's a good description
 
Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.

I looked at the first results, from CNN, which actually stated that 22% of Liberals were in favor of banning gay marriage. Not sure if you know this, but not all Democrats are liberals....but I understand why you used the higher Democrat figure of 36%.

As the vast majority of blacks in that poll voted for banning gay marriage it makes sense that they made up the 22% of liberals.

I still think your question is silly since the vast majority of liberals favor allowing gays to marry.

Vote by Party ID
Total
YesNo
Democrat (42%)
36%
64%

Near the bottom of the page

Self-described "liberals" yes 22%. So one in five liberals voted to ban gay marriage in California. In Michigan self-described "liberals" supported the ban at 32%...that's one in three. You are free to hold your own opinions, of course, but to me that's "significant liberal support" and Democratic support including moderates is even higher.

Do the "majority" support gay rights? Sure. But there's a big enough chunk that do not that the blame cannot be laid completely on the GOP. I mean let's face it. The Democrats held the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress for two years. If they really gave a shit they could have passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in a slam dunk...it didn't even make it out of the Democrat dominated committee although it has gained considerable Republican support.

You cab see it as "significant liberal support" all you want. I see it as bigotry based on religion.
 
Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I think that should read essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free WOMEN.
;)

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

No, actually; he's equating an American issue to an American issue.
 
Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I think that should read essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free WOMEN.
;)

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

No, actually; he's equating an American issue to an American issue.

Well hate to tell you this but the case he used Loving vs. Va, is about race not same sex marriage neither are the same. One gives a special right over the other.
 
Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​
.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?



1) It's a states Rights issue and the Feds have no business sticking their nose into it.
2) Review 1.
3) Probably so on all points. But, still, review 1.
 
No, actually; he's equating an American issue to an American issue.

Well hate to tell you this but the case he used Loving vs. Va, is about race not same sex marriage neither are the same. One gives a special right over the other.

Nope. It's about marriage, and the wrongful denial thereof.

Show me exactly where it's talking about an illegal act of homosexuality is mentiuoned when the case was heard
 
Well hate to tell you this but the case he used Loving vs. Va, is about race not same sex marriage neither are the same. One gives a special right over the other.

Nope. It's about marriage, and the wrongful denial thereof.

Show me exactly where it's talking about an illegal act of homosexuality is mentiuoned when the case was heard


"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Now you are claiming that this is only about race and not about homosexuality. But this shows marriage to be a fundamental right, and does not call for it to be only one man & one woman. Nor does it specifically address it as only a racial issue.
 
Nope. It's about marriage, and the wrongful denial thereof.

Show me exactly where it's talking about an illegal act of homosexuality is mentiuoned when the case was heard


"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Now you are claiming that this is only about race and not about homosexuality. But this shows marriage to be a fundamental right, and does not call for it to be only one man & one woman. Nor does it specifically address it as only a racial issue.

So the justices are saying break the law even if it violates your rights? Is that what you're trying to say?
 
imagine-1.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top