Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Syriusly]

They would not be deprived of a civil right under a civil union, they just would not be allowed to label that civil union as a marriage because it does not meet the traditional or set legal definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman. They would no more be deprived of a civil right than anyone contracting to purchase a car under a purchase contract with payments and then attempting to call that purchase contract a marriage: It simply is NOT a marriage.

There is no right to a Civil union- and Alabama specifically made civil unions between same gender couples exactly as illegal as marriage between same gender couples.

Again....Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.Therefore there is a right to contract a civil union.

All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

You are being reminded of gays being beaten and arrested?

Why is this thread reminding you of how gays stayed in the closet to avoid being physically assaulted and jailed?

No... All we're going through today is being reminded of why they were in the closet in the first place.

Still waiting to see why you think this thread about gay marriage is a reminder of how gays were subject to assault and arrest, so they stayed in the closet.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

We'll never know. You homos never gave it a chance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

 

[Skylar]

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal.

Says you. The law doesn't recognize them as equal. The same rights and priveldges aren't attached to each, social security didn't recognize civil unions for survivor benefits, for example. And many states didn't recognize the civil unions at all.

Every state recognizes marriage.

So your entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish. But your position is so much worse than just the meaningless babble:

If civil unions and marriage were identical, why bother with civil unions? Why not just grant gays marriage? Why the pointlessly elaborate 'seperate but equal' bullshit? Easy. Because they aren't equal. And that's the entire point.

That's why gays fought for marriage. And that's why they're winning.

A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

In 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples. You can disagree. But gays get married just the same.

 

[Skylar]

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage

Children aren't a requirement for anyone getting married. Nor is the ability to have children. A woman with a hystorectomy can get married, despite having no more chance of bearing a child than a gay man.

No one is excluded from marriage for being unable to marry. No one. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one, then apply it only go gays just to keep them out of marriage?

That has 'equal protection violation' written all over it. If gays can't be part of marriage because they can't bear children, then any straight that is unable should be similarly prohibited. But none are.

Simply destroying your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race.

And between Windsor v. US (which cited Loving V. Virginia specifically) and Romer v Evans, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate race based cases when describing why the rights of gays can't be violated.

You insist no such cases are relevant. The USSC obviously disagrees, citing them at least 4 times.

Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself?

 

[Skylar]

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race. The definition of a marriage refers to the sex of the union as in " a contract between a man and a woman, Race is not mentioned in the traditional and set legal definition, however the sex of the individuals are. . If laws were applied and recognised equally between the States, then a man registering a permit/permission to carry a firearm in Tennessee would also be able to carry that same firearm in New York.
Then their fight should be the right to contract a civil union and have it along with its benefits and drawbacks be recognised by the State of Alabama, rather than this false claim of discrimination over the traditional and set legal definition of the word marriage. Again, Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. .

No one has ever realized that after far more than 30 pages......

This issue is nothing more to me than a catalyst to educate anyone who may be interested in learning the truth concerning their system of government, its limitations and the differing jurisdictions, how it has become under the control of a political party duopoly, and much more that I have learned through countless hours of research

You've done 'countless hours of research', but never noticed the 14th amendment?

Then you really suck at this. As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens.

And you completely ignore it, citing only cases that precede the 14th, when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. No competent researcher ever would. As the 14th amendment fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government in relation to rights. And was designed to.

And every ruling overturning gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. With almost all of them citing the 14th amendment specifically.

And you ignore the 14th? You are rejected as an authoritative source.

 

[Skylar]

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

Some of the most patriotic conservatives are combat veterans, including myself.

When the hell did you ever serve anything higher than yourself? Don't even THINK of telling me that conservatives don't know how to fight and die for something. You metrosexual freaks won't ever be HALF the real men that we conservatives are. If I got in a fight with one of you people, I wouldn't even punch you like a man, I'd slap you like a little *****, that's how little respect I have for your "ilk".

 

[Skylar]

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

Some of the most patriotic conservatives are combat veterans, including myself.

Then why aren't you fighting your 'civil war' rather than talking about it?

Washington fought in the French Indian War. He didn't use his former service as an excuse for not having to fight again. So if you and your ilk are unwilling to bleed for your 'revolution', who pray tell is going to do the fighting for you?

Laughing.....the millennials? Um, sorry chum.....but they're not going to kill anyone because you don't like gay marriage.

And this is exactly my point. Among the 'civil war' crowd, there's always an excuse, always a reason why someone else has to fight their 'revolution'. Why someone else has to bleed.

Which is why there will be no civil war. Just a bunch of arm chair generals telling us why they shouldn't have to fight.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

Some of the most patriotic conservatives are combat veterans, including myself.

Then why aren't you fighting your 'civil war' rather than talking about it?

Washington fought in the French Indian War. He didn't use his former service as an excuse for not having to fight again. So if you and your ilk are unwilling to bleed for your 'revolution', who pray tell is going to do the fighting for you?

Laughing.....the millennial? Um, sorry chum.....but they're not going to kill anyone because you don't like gay marriage.

And this is exactly my point. Among the 'civil war' crowd, there's always an excuse, always a reason why someone else has to fight their 'revolution'. Why someone else has to bleed.

Which is why there will be no civil war. Just a bunch of arm chair generals telling us why they shouldn't have to fight.

Nobody's going to kill anyone over gay marriage. That's the movie in YOUR twisted little head.

 

[Skylar]

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

Some of the most patriotic conservatives are combat veterans, including myself.

Then why aren't you fighting your 'civil war' rather than talking about it?

Washington fought in the French Indian War. He didn't use his former service as an excuse for not having to fight again. So if you and your ilk are unwilling to bleed for your 'revolution', who pray tell is going to do the fighting for you?

Laughing.....the millennial? Um, sorry chum.....but they're not going to kill anyone because you don't like gay marriage.

And this is exactly my point. Among the 'civil war' crowd, there's always an excuse, always a reason why someone else has to fight their 'revolution'. Why someone else has to bleed.

Which is why there will be no civil war. Just a bunch of arm chair generals telling us why they shouldn't have to fight.

Nobody's going to kill anyone over gay marriage. That's the movie in YOUR twisted little head.

Of course not. But your ilk does love their empty bluster....

So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

where_r_my_keys

And as I explained to you, there will be no civil war. As there's always an excuse for why you shouldn't have to fight.

And no one else is fighting your 'revolution' for you.

 

[James Everett]

I'll save you the trouble. She's going to keep equating queer marriage to racism and Loving V. Virginia no matter how absurd and at variance with the facts. This one is stuck on stupid.

I do not think it productive for anyone to insult another, it only lessens the value of the discussion which is not and should not be relegated to an attempt to change the opinion of the opponent, but rather to illustrate the facts and truth for any who may choose to follow the discussion, so that they may see the truth and facts as they are rather than have them hidden underneath fictional rhetoric.

It's your time, and you seem to have a lot more of it than me. After about 30 more pages, you might finally realize I'm right. .

No one has ever realized that after far more than 30 pages......

This issue is nothing more to me than a catalyst to educate anyone who may be interested in learning the truth concerning their system of government, its limitations and the differing jurisdictions, how it has become under the control of a political party duopoly, and much more that I have learned through countless hours of research

You've done 'countless hours of research', but never noticed the 14th amendment?

Then you really suck at this. As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens.

And you completely ignore it, citing only cases that precede the 14th, when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. No competent researcher ever would. As the 14th amendment fundamentally changed the relationship of the States and the Federal government in relation to rights. And was designed to.

And every ruling overturning gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. With almost all of them citing the 14th amendment specifically.

And you ignore the 14th? You are rejected as an authoritative source.

SKYLAR.....
You ask and state......
"You've done 'countless hours of research', but never noticed the 14th amendment?

Then you really suck at this. As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens."

Oh, I know full well YOUR 14th amendment and its true purpose of consolidating the States, by subjugating the State citizens under a consolidation into the State of America, by removing their status as American citizen and replacing such with an artificial U.S. citizen.
The 14th Amendment applies to “persons”, and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person.“Collective” “naturalization occurs when designated groups”(inhabitants) “are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress”.　These artificial persons were “created and devised by constructive human laws (14th Amendment U.S.citizen) for the purpose to (re-venue)the natural person into the “venue” of a constructive society and subject to exclusive government control, and evidencing their names crafted in all capital or upper case letters. These designated political groups are “made” or created corporate citizens/employees and are as a matter of law, distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, whose named spelled in upper and lower case letters i.e “Capitalized”, was born with unalienable rights, and is NOT as a matter of fact, a corporate U.S. citizen. Whereas, the artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, is displayed of its name in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be reduced to the condition of an artificial person.

The theme of the collective entity rule states: Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944)But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.

As for your statement that....
"It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens."
That does NOT apply to your argument because no ones privilege is being denied. The law is applied equally in Alabama, as it denies all men from redefining marriage to fit the definition that a minority may wish, It does not allow some men to redefine it, while not allowing other men to redefine the word based on race or any other reason. Such denial simply maintains the use in clarifying the relationship of a husband and wife, under the contract known as a marriage contract.
Now under the 14th amendment and as you have stated....
"As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens"
The 2nd amendment states specifically that I have the right to keep and bear arms....
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Yet, in order to do so, I must according to YOUR government, obtain permission from it by obtaining a permit to do that which is my recognised pre-existing right, NOT to be infringed. Now if I obtain said permission/ permit, to do so, that right is not recognized by every State, hence your 14th is nothing more than B/S unless it pertains to that which furthers the POWER NOT granted to YOUR government.
Last, YOUR statement that..... "And every ruling overturning gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees." shows your ignorance of YOUR government, as the Courts do not RULE, they do NOT make "RULINGS", they render opinions. The courts and its officers are NOT rulers, they are simply glorified debaters who render their individual opinions after debate, and then via majority rule render the collective opinions and dissenting opinions with the majority opinion being the one that is considered.

 

[Skylar]

You ask and state......
"You've done 'countless hours of research', but never noticed the 14th amendment?

Then you really suck at this. As the 14th amendment simply destroys your entire argument. It expressly prohibits states from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or from applying state law unequally to US citizens."

Oh, I know full well YOUR 14th amendment and its true purpose of consolidating the States, by subjugating the State citizens under a consolidation into the State of America, by removing their status as American citizen and replacing such with an artificial U.S. citizen.
The 14th Amendment applies to “persons”, and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person.“Collective” “naturalization occurs when designated groups”(inhabitants) “are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress”.　These artificial persons were “created and devised by constructive human laws (14th Amendment U.S.citizen) for the purpose to (re-venue)the natural person into the “venue” of a constructive society and subject to exclusive government control, and evidencing their names crafted in all capital or upper case letters. These designated political groups are “made” or created corporate citizens/employees and are as a matter of law, distinguished from natural persons.

So by 'countless hours of research', you mean cutting and pasting random blogs, verbatim:

The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress". These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen)for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

American Citizen or U.S. citizen

My, my that looks familiar. If you're going to mindlessly ape someone else's conspiracy, the least you can do is attribute your sources. And hitting 'ctrl + C' and 'ctrl + V' isn't research. Its an excuse for it.

Oh, and your conspiracy batshit has never been recognized by the law as valid. If your name is written in capitals, if its written in lower case, its just a stylistic chohice. The law recognizes no distinction between legally. So all your 'natural person' vs. 'corporate US citizen' idiocy is pure imaginary bullshit.

And lastly, nothing you posted has a ******* thing to do with the 14th amendment and the prohibition of states violating the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor the prohibition of states from applying their laws unequally to US citizens. You cited pre-14th amendment cases exclusively when describing the relationship of the US government and the States.......because you know that the relationship changed radically after the 14th.

But you really hoped we didn't know that.

No credible researcher would ever omit the entire 14th amendment when discussing the federal government's protection of rights. Especially in a debate on gay marriage, when EVERY federal ruling overturning gay marriage bans has used the 14th amendment.

So what else have you got? Because ignoring caselaw, the constitution and the 14th amendment hasn't worked out so well for you.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Yes, displaying a sexual attraction to the same sex in front of children. Kissing, and going to bed with the same sex, just the opposite of what normal people do. Denying children a mother and father, another aspect of your homosexual lifestyle. Spending countless hours arguing on message boards while your 5 children suffer no father figure and are denied even your attention.

I bet you get a great tax break, seeings how it is tax time, I bet you even get more back then you pay in?

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

Children need a mother AND a father for their complete psychological rearing. To deprive them of either is to harm them because a man can't fulfill the role of a mother nor a woman the role of a father.

And yet that is not what studies show. Studies show that there is no difference in outcomes between the children of heterosexuals and the children of gays and lesbians. Studies also show that gender is immaterial in parenting.

But now, the results of a new study challenge this very established line of thinking. The February 2010 issue of Journal of Marriage and Family shows that children without fathers suffer no disadvantage. It also shows that men don't offer a different type of necessary parenting skills as separate from a woman's.

Sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences had this to say, "Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents."

During the course of their analysis, the researchers found no suggestion that parenting abilities were specific to one gender or another, except when it comes to lactation. There seems to be no negative impact on a child who is motherless or fatherless. There are no associated psychological adjustment issues or problems with social success in children with parents of only one sex.​

 

[Seawytch]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Yes, the argument for gay marriage can nit stand on its own merit, you must attempt to draw a parallel to a distant point in history, as explained by experts and studies.

Same sex marriage, without obfuscation, distortions and lies, fails all tests.

If there wasn't such a parallel among the bigots...

 

[Seawytch]

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

Taxes, just testing you, to see if you would lie or not, with the earned income credit, you get more than you put in unless you lied here about your deduction, it was 5, right.

No, that isn't right. You either didn't bother to read the post you responded to or this "English as a 2nd language" thing isn't working out very well for you. I just told you, in the post you responded to, that I have two teenagers. While it is true that I bore 5 babies in 4 pregnancies, only two of the five were mine. I was a gestational surrogate. Run along and look it up.

As far as the rest that you deny, that living as a homosexual is not a lifestyle,

Life is a "lifestyle". I live a life. It has a wife in it, kids, pets, bills to pay and work it do. It's a life and it's a good one.

and that kids without fathers are not denied a father,

They aren't "denied" anything. Children do best in two parent households, period. Studies already provided.

I am just here using you as an example for all to see, how crazy you really are.

Right...you're an example of how "crazy" I am. Ironic post is ironic.

 

[Seawytch]

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman....

Actually in most states now, a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman.

We have made great progress.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

Should interracial couples have waited until it was popular for them to marry? They would have had to wait until the 1990s...

Just for historical context, interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. Where was that graph in 1967?

Now take a look at the same organization's poll on gays marrying each other.

Despite the fact that civil rights should not be a popularity contest, we're pretty ******* popular.

 

[Seawytch]

See post #698.

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman....

Actually in most states now, a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman.

We have made great progress.

Really? I'm only counting states where the gay marriage was voted in by democratic process. By that measure, you got a LONG way to go.

You can count only States that start with the letter "A" if you want to.

Meanwhile
in most states now, a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman.

We have made great progress

States laws being overturned by black robed tyrants doesn't count as "progress", fuckstick.

Yes, Loving v Virginia is considered progress. I'm sure the racist bigots didn't feel that way. In fact, I'm sure they felt just like you do.

 

[Conservative65]

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

LOL....how about I revise that?

He supports calling people f*ggots- just like racists and misogynists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

I call people what they are. In your case, you're a ****** lover.

I bet you've suck a few in your lifetime.

Bigots- you are all alike

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

****** lovers like you are all alike.

You've posted that same sentence many, many times. I bet you've suck that many dicks.