Former County Clerk Kim Davis Is Making The Headlines Again.

[martybegan]

.
When you attempt to push a minority down, sooner or later they are going to push back.

Too bad if you don't like it.

.

I would vote for SSM if it was brought up as a referendum, but I simply don't see the Constitutional right to it.

Mixed race/tribe/clan marriages have been around for millennia, The miscegenation laws were reactionary bullshit to the failure of reconstruction.

Marriage between anything but a man or a woman or a man and many women is a brand new concept of the last 2-3 decades, and thus to me doesn't meet the bar of "equality" as written in the 14th amendment.

Obergfell should have just made States recognize any valid marriage from another State under full faith and credit.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

This was a Clarence Thomas dream. Who wants all previous civil rights revisited like they did Roe v Wade.

He believes that non-enumerated rights need to be rooted in 17th and 18th century traditions.
And although it was clear that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights, Thomas believes they had to be either spelled out centuries ago, or embodied into the constitution to make them real.

In short, Thomas doesn't believe in a "living" constitution. That changes with society. And instead locks modern society into the norms of previous centuries.

In other words Thomas adheres to the constitution and leftists do not.

 

[g5000]

I would vote for SSM if it was brought up as a referendum, but I simply don't see the Constitutional right to it.

Mixed race/tribe/clan marriages have been around for millennia, The miscegenation laws were reactionary bullshit to the failure of reconstruction.

Marriage between anything but a man or a woman or a man and many women is a brand new concept of the last 2-3 decades, and thus to me doesn't meet the bar of "equality" as written in the 14th amendment.

Obergfell should have just made States recognize any valid marriage from another State under full faith and credit.

This is where mixed-race couples and same-sex couples have common constitutional ground.

In the Loving decision, the bigots had to prove harm to the institution of marriage by interracial marriage. Since no harm could be proven, then under the 14th amendment such marriages were subject to equal protection of the laws.

In the Obergefell decision, the Supremes used the exact same benchmark. And since no one could show harm to the institution of marriage by same-sex couples, they, too, are subject to equal protection of the laws.

Both state and federal governments grant a large number of cash and prizes through our laws. Nearly 1,000 benefits are bestowed on married couples.

Since the Supreme Court said gay and interracial marriages have a right to equal protection of those laws, then they must receive all those cash and prizes like the rest of us married folk.

This takes away nothing from heterosexual marriages. Those opposed to interracial and same-sex marriages want special treatment.

And it has nothing to do with religion. It's about the cash and prizes married people demand from the government.

.

 

[citygator]

 

[g5000]

Marriage between anything but a man or a woman or a man and many women is a brand new concept of the last 2-3 decades, and thus to me doesn't meet the bar of "equality" as written in the 14th amendment.

.
"We've always oppressed these people we hate" is the very worst argument for continuing the practice.

That's exactly why the 14th amendment was necessary in the first place.



.

 

[hadit]

Both are intrinsic so yes, ironic.

The trans movement, however, has taught us that sexual orientation can indeed be changed at the desire of the person. Consider, a man attracted to other men, aka gay, becomes a woman. We are told, remember, that we dare not question or deny that happens. If a man wants to be a woman, we MUST call him and think of him as a woman. So, what do we now have? We have a woman who is attracted to men, aka straight. Thus, a miracle occurs and a person has changed their sexual orientation merely by desiring it.

 

[martybegan]

This is where mixed-race couples and same-sex couples have common constitutional ground.

In the Loving decision, the bigots had to prove harm to the institution of marriage by interracial marriage. Since no harm could be proven, then under the 14th amendment such marriages were subject to equal protection of the laws.

In the Obergefell decision, the Supremes used the exact same benchmark. And since no one could show harm to the institution of marriage by same-sex couples, they, too, are subject to equal protection of the laws.

Both state and federal governments grant a large number of cash and prizes through our laws. Nearly 1,000 benefits are bestowed on married couples.

Since the Supreme Court said gay and interracial marriages have a right to equal protection of those laws, then they must receive all those cash and prizes like the rest of us married folk.

This takes away nothing from heterosexual marriages. Those opposed to interracial and same-sex marriages want special treatment.

And it has nothing to do with religion. It's about the cash and prizes married people demand from the government.


.

Again, you assume race and sexuality are the same thing, I am saying they are not.

Tell that to the baker and photographers being sued for not wanting to participate in Same Sex Weddings.

 

[martybegan]

.
"We've always oppressed these people we hate" is the very worst argument for continuing the practice.

That's exactly why the 14th amendment was necessary in the first place.



.

Hate has nothing to do with it. In fact, most of the hate these days comes from the left.

Ask that Baker who's been sued multiple times for not wanting to participate in Same Sex Weddings.

The 14th was about race, it's been extrapolated to other things, some beneficial, some not.

Morris v. Board of Estimates is an example of "not"

 

[martybegan]

The trans movement, however, has taught us that sexual orientation can indeed be changed at the desire of the person. Consider, a man attracted to other men, aka gay, becomes a woman. We are told, remember, that we dare not question or deny that happens. If a man wants to be a woman, we MUST call him and think of him as a woman. So, what do we now have? We have a woman who is attracted to men, aka straight. Thus, a miracle occurs and a person has changed their sexual orientation merely by desiring it.

Hell, the Trans movement says SEX can be changed via drugs, surgery, or even just feeling like being the other sex.

 

[hadit]

Again, you assume race and sexuality are the same thing, I am saying they are not.

Tell that to the baker and photographers being sued for not wanting to participate in Same Sex Weddings.

Interesting, that. The same suspects who went bonkers wanting to force a cake artist to create and sell his art to anyone with a wallet ALSO go bonkers supporting artists who don't want TRUMP! using their music on the campaign trail.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hell, the Trans movement says SEX can be changed via drugs, surgery, or even just feeling like being the other sex.

And with children

 

[g5000]

Again, you assume race and sexuality are the same thing, I am saying they are not.

.
On the basis of equal protection of the laws, they are identical.

.

Tell that to the baker and photographers being sued for not wanting to participate in Same Sex Weddings.

.
That is the same whining we heard from other public accommodations which wanted to ban blacks from their lunch counters.

Same bullshit, different decade.

.

 

[martybegan]

.
On the basis of equal protection of the laws, they are identical.

.

.
That is the same whining we heard from other public accommodations which wanted to ban blacks from their lunch counters.

Same bullshit, different decade.

.

Only if you consider them equal. There are many views that say they are not.

Again, if you have to go to race to make your point that just shows you can't make the point about sexuality on its own merits.

 

[g5000]

Only if you consider them equal. There are many views that say they are not.

Again, if you have to go to race to make your point that just shows you can't make the point about sexuality on its own merits.

You are thoroughly failing to understand the 14th amendment.

If someone wrote a law denying handicapped people or mentally deficient people the right to marry, and the ACLU challenged that law under the 14th Amendment, you'd be whining that negroes and cripples and retards aren't the same.

.

 

[martybegan]

You are thoroughly failing to understand the 14th amendment.

If someone wrote a law denying handicapped people or mentally deficient people the right to marry, and the ACLU challenged that law under the 14th Amendment, you'd be whining that negroes and cripples and retards aren't the same.

.

None of those change what Marriage always was, one man and either one woman or many women depending on the time and the culture.

Again, by having to run to other things for comparison, you admit the stand alone basis for your arguments are weak.

 

[0311]

You are thoroughly failing to understand the 14th amendment.

If someone wrote a law denying handicapped people or mentally deficient people the right to marry, and the ACLU challenged that law under the 14th Amendment, you'd be whining that negroes and cripples and retards aren't the same.

.

Fourteenth Amendment.

Section One,

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.

 

[martybegan]

Fourteenth Amendment.

Section One,

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.

And it all still hinges on what you define as "equal"

 

[Zincwarrior]

And it all still hinges on what you define as "equal"

True but doesn't everything.

 

[martybegan]

True but doesn't everything.

Agreed, you are the first one in this thread to get that.

 

[postman]

Marriage between anything but a man or a woman or a man and many women is a brand new concept of the last 2-3 decades, and thus to me doesn't meet the bar of "equality" as written in the 14th amendment.

Obergfell should have just made States recognize any valid marriage from another State under full faith and credit.

Actually the bible , torah, and Quran would support polygamy.
Meaning the Clarence Thomas historical right principle would be unable to ban polygamy.