How Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), Etc. Impacts Gay Marriage (Obergefell 2015)

[Silhouette]

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII....The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

You're literally ignoring the Hively court on Obergefell's relevance to the Hively ruling....Laughing........so much for your 'mulberry bush'.

Well they're right. SCOTUS didn't create the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That was the Legislature. Notice the word "directly". There is also a route in which precedent can affect other cases...that is "indirectly". Removing coverage for sexual behaviors officially from Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS Act means that in all other areas of law now it is possible to say "if the removal of coverage for "rights" can exist at that fundamental level, that Uber-document of all civil rights, we have to examine how sexual behaviors are covered as to "rights" in all other areas of law.

Where that becomes problematic is when you consider ALL sexual orientations and not just some that are politically more active than others. In short, the Court will be faced very soon with telling this nation that either 1. polyamory and all other sexual behaviors (since they tied sexual orientation together with "same-sex" in Obergefell..I'll quote them again if you tempt me) are now legal across the 50 state or 2. Marriage actually is a privilege where some can and some cannot enjoy it. and 2(a) If that's the case, the federal government has no jurisdiction determining who may and who may not marry within each state (see Windsor 2013).

 

[Skylar]

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII....The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

You're literally ignoring the Hively court on Obergefell's relevance to the Hively ruling....Laughing........so much for your 'mulberry bush'.

Well they're right. SCOTUS didn't create the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That was the Legislature. Notice the word "directly".

What the Hively Court said was:

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII....The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

Obegefell has nothing to do with Hively. Says who? Says the Hively court. And you ignore them. Per the Hively court Obergefell never even addresses the issues raised in Hively.

The only one saying that Hively impacts Obergefell......is you citing yourself.

And you don't what you're talking about.

There is also a route in which precedent can affect other cases...that is "indirectly". Removing coverage for sexual behaviors officially from Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS Act means that in all other areas of law now it is possible to say "if the removal of coverage for "rights" can exist at that fundamental level, that Uber-document of all civil rights, we have to examine how sexual behaviors are covered as to "rights" in all other areas of law.

Hively doesn't address rights under the Constitution. It addresses protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remove the coverage of the CIvil Rights Act....and there is no Hively. You're literally insisting that we ignore the core of the entire Hively ruling and replace it with whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you make up.

Um, nope.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation. Its the cornerstone of your entire argument.....and you can't find it anywhere in Obergefell.

You make shit up. It has no relevance to the law. Nothing happens.

 

[Skylar]

Hmm...you and your clones took up the entire page here...slinging ad hominems. And I'm the "desperate one spamming"?

You've spammed the same exact enormous block post 3 times. You blinked, SIl.

You always tell us when you know your argument is collapsing when you start to spam the same exact nonsense over and over and over.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, the problem with Obergefell is that it was too narrow. It didn't address all sexual orientations, only one: same-sex (homosexuality). It's problem was it cited equality (The broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment) in order to make different sexual behaviors that the majority objects to, inequal among themselves. When does a minority get to tell other minorities of the same class (sexual orientation) "not you, just us" and then go on to dictate to the majority on the specific citation of "equality"? Obergefell is doomed so many ways that it would take a small encyclopedia to go into all of them.

The Hively v Ivy Tech case just delivered another blow. If sexual orientation isn't a civil right under the 1964's quite broad inclusion of many classes, how is just one sexual orientation suddenly bestowed with protections with no actual Legislative Act of Congress defining them, while other sexual orientations are out in the cold?

I know you can see the legal problems for Obergefell. I know you can. And so can many others. All it takes is one challenge with some sharp lawyers who have been paying attention and Obergefell is toast. The best you can hope for is another sexual-orientation challenge to replace Obergefell at some point. Might want to have some polygamists on board with you then. Also, be sure children have representation, because Obergefell said that marriage is about more than just two people.. All implied parties to the contract revision will need to be present next time..

 

[Skylar]

Again, the problem with Obergefell is that it was too narrow.

The Obergefell court answered the questions the court were asked by James Obergefell;

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

You just didn't like the answer.

Um....so what?

The Hively v Ivy Tech case just delivered another blow. If sexual orientation isn't a civil right under the 1964's quite broad inclusion of many classes, how is just one sexual orientation suddenly bestowed with protections with no actual Legislative Act of Congress defining them, while other sexual orientations are out in the cold?

Nope.

Hively, by the Hively Court's own emphasis, has nothing to do with Obergefell. Hively was about employement discrimination between private individuals. Obergefell was about marriage recognized by the State. The only one saying that Hively has anything to do with Obergefell....

....is you citing yourself. And you can see the flaws in citing your imagination as the law. I know you can:

You make shit up. It is irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

So....show us where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation. This is what? The 6th time I've asked. And the 6th time you've failed.

 

[Silhouette]

So....show us where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation. This is what? The 6th time I've asked. And the 6th time you've failed.

You mean "show us again where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation."? OK

(Opinion pages 7-8) Obergefell vs Hodges
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

******

They tried...they really did try to sew the words "sex" (from "same-sex") together with "homosexuality", "sexual orientation" & "gays & lesbians". But Hively v Ivy Tech separated the two away from each other legally at the very least in the 1964 Civil Rights Act...the king of civil rights documents in most recent times.

I can see Kennedy with Kagan and Ginsburg behind him as he wrote, poking and nudging him.."Ok, in the same couple paragraphs here on these pages, alternate every other sentence the words "sex" with "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" so that it sticks and people will think they're legally interchangeable!"

In fact, this was the trojan horse they hoped would never be noticed; the alteration of the legal meaning of a key word "sex" to mean "also what one does in ones bedroom"...

 

[Silhouette]

You've spammed the same exact enormous block post 3 times. You blinked, SIl.

You always tell us when you know your argument is collapsing when you start to spam the same exact nonsense over and over and over.

You asked me to post where it was in Obergefell where they equated "sex" with "sexual orientation". Sorry where they did that had too many words for you to read. Just take a rest. You can read more later.

 

[Syriusly]

So....show us where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation. This is what? The 6th time I've asked. And the 6th time you've failed.

You mean "show us again where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation."? OK

(Opinion pages 7-8) Obergefell vs Hodges
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

******
.

Once again Silhouette is just delusional

"Same Sex intimacy" is not 'sex;
"Sexual Orientation' is not sex
Same Sex couples is not sex
Gay and lesbians is not sex
Homosexuality is not sex

Sex is the physical act of sex.
"Sexual orientation', 'gay', 'lesbian' homosexuality' 'same sex' are all about gender orientation.

She is delusional- and just promoting her usual hate against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

You've spammed the same exact enormous block post 3 times. You blinked, SIl.

You always tell us when you know your argument is collapsing when you start to spam the same exact nonsense over and over and over.

You asked me to post where it was in Obergefell where they equated "sex" with "sexual orientation". Sorry where they did that had too many words for you to read. Just take a rest. You can read more later.

And you couldn't find a single place where Obergefell equated sex with sexual orientation.

Not one.

You spam your anti-gay hatred across the internet.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ You're no longer allowed to categorize people who disagree with the cult of LGBT as "hating gays". It is a disagreement about behavior; which is allowed and encouraged in the US. Always.

 

[Silhouette]

Same Sex couples is not sex

It refers to the gender, ie "sex" of the people. So yes, they made the comparison in Obergefell and attempted to tie "sex" with "sexual orientation". If Obergefell had nothing to do with gender, then it was about sexual orientation, which has no guarantee of civil rights under the most recent master-document by the Legislature "The 1964 Civil Rights Act". And if it had to do with sexual orientation, then no sexual orientation, including polyamory, may be barred from marriage in any state. But they are though, aren't they? In violation of the 14th's broad interpretation of "equality". And as such, Obergefell is an illegal ruling.

ie: if some sexual orientations "may marry" while others are still barred because "the majority rejects them as qualifying"..as the majority did and does with gay marriage in nearly all states, then marriage is in fact a privilege and the states then decide who may or may not marry. (See Windsor 2013).

 

[Skylar]

So....show us where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation. This is what? The 6th time I've asked. And the 6th time you've failed.

You mean "show us again where Obergefell equates sex with sexual orientation."? OK

(Opinion pages 7-8) Obergefell vs Hodges
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

******

They tried...they really did try to sew the words "sex" (from "same-sex") together with "homosexuality", "sexual orientation" & "gays & lesbians". But Hively v Ivy Tech separated the two away from each other legally at the very least in the 1964 Civil Rights Act...the king of civil rights documents in most recent times.

I can see Kennedy with Kagan and Ginsburg behind him as he wrote, poking and nudging him.."Ok, in the same couple paragraphs here on these pages, alternate every other sentence the words "sex" with "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" so that it sticks and people will think they're legally interchangeable!"

In fact, this was the trojan horse they hoped would never be noticed; the alteration of the legal meaning of a key word "sex" to mean "also what one does in ones bedroom"...

And no where in anything you just blocked spammed for the 4th time....does the Obergegfell court equate sex with sexual orientation.

So I ask again, where did the Obergefell court equate sex with sexual orientation?

This is the 8th time I've asked. And I'd suggest you read what you're posting this time around.

 

[Skylar]

Same Sex couples is not sex

It refers to the gender, ie "sex" of the people. So yes, they made the comparison in Obergefell and attempted to tie "sex" with "sexual orientation".

Except that the Obergefell court never did argue that sex was the same thing as sexual orientation. Nor have you ever been able to cite the court doing so. With the Hively Court emphazing in its ruling that Obergefell has nothing to do with the Hively ruling.

Do you have anything but you quoting yourself on rulings you've never read?

If Obergefell had nothing to do with gender, then it was about sexual orientation, which has no guarantee of civil rights under the most recent master-document by the Legislature "The 1964 Civil Rights Act".

Which would be relevant if Obergefell cited as its basis the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which it never does, instead citing the 14th amendment's due process clause.

Which you already know....but really hope we don't. So far your only source claiming that the Hively 'challenges' Obergefell....is you citing yourself.

You make shit up. It has no relevance to the law. Nothing happens.

And if it had to do with sexual orientation, then no sexual orientation, including polyamory, may be barred from marriage in any state. But they are though, aren't they? In violation of the 14th's broad interpretation of "equality". And as such, Obergefell is an illegal ruling.

Three major problems with your latest squirt of pseudo-legal nonsense. First, 'polyamory' isn't a sexual orientation. Second, the polyamorous aren't barred from marriage. They are barred from bigamy....just like everyone else. Third, the Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polyamory. Making its findings regarding polyamory a 'violation of the 14th amendment' blithering nonsense. As there is no such finding.

You make shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

See how that works?

ie: if some sexual orientations "may marry" while others are still barred because "the majority rejects them as qualifying"..as the majority did and does with gay marriage in nearly all states, then marriage is in fact a privilege and the states then decide who may or may not marry. (See Windsor 2013).

Windsor never argues that marriage is a privilege. But instead acknowledges the right to marry. You're citing yourself, while ignoring Windsor.

Windsor finds that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, the states have authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States".

You always ignore any mention of constitutional guarantees by the Windsor Court. Then laughably, pretend that because you ignore constitutional guarantees, that these guarantees magically disappear.

So, um.....how's that working out?

 

[Skylar]

^^ You're no longer allowed to categorize people who disagree with the cult of LGBT as "hating gays". It is a disagreement about behavior; which is allowed and encouraged in the US. Always.

You don't tell people they are allowed to say or what opinions they are allowed to express. You possess the freedom of speech. And we process the freedom to contradict you.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

You've spammed the same exact enormous block post 3 times. You blinked, SIl.

You always tell us when you know your argument is collapsing when you start to spam the same exact nonsense over and over and over.

You asked me to post where it was in Obergefell where they equated "sex" with "sexual orientation". Sorry where they did that had too many words for you to read. Just take a rest. You can read more later.

And you have yet to post anywhere in the Obergefell decision where the court equates sex with sexual orientation.

Please do so now....or withdraw your pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

From a thread about the latest LGBTQ...whatever...court decision: a setback, for the first time ever as far as I know. Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's! Except maybe Hobby Lobby. Skylar, mdk and the usual crew were busy on damage control when saintmichaeldefendthem noticed it:

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels. That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility. This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Others are that children are implied sharers to the marriage contract, yet they were not invited to the revision; and it was revised to strip them of either a mother or father for life.

Another vulnerability to Obergefell is that two of the Justices brazenly advertised their Opinions months in advance of the actual hearing, to a Public they are mandated to not demonstrate bias in front of.

Another is that marriage cannot be denied polygamists, incest or any other sexual orientation, once sexual orientation of any description can dictate to the majority "how it's going to be" in the various states. The fact that marriage is still denied to polygamists and any other orientation defies the spirit of the 14th Amendment upon which the Court relied.

Another vulnerability is that the Court made up that marriage is a right; where it is mentioned nowhere as such in the Constitution. It is, as Windsor said 56 times, a privilege defined by only the power of the separate states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Another vulnerability is that even in Windsor (2013), the Court itself contradicted Obergefell 56 times. So, Obergefell in effect overturned Windsor. Because the 56 reiterations in Windsor said that marriage is up to the states to define. Obergefell overturned Windsor because Windsor's entire win was based on the fact that New York, "after careful deliberation" within its power and jurisdiction on the question, made gay marriage legal. Windsor said, ironically, that DOMA could be overturned...BECAUSE THE FED HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING MARRIAGE! How's that for legal matter and anti-matter? I guess if it comes to gay marriage, the fed can define marriage, but not for polygamy or incest...both equally viable sexual orientations. But when it comes to awarding a lesbian money, then the fed cannot define marriage for a state. Or more precisely: the US Supreme Court can do as it pleases. But when the Congress wants to regulate marriage, particularly a conservative Congress, then the Court steps in to say "you have no power here!".. That's reserved only for THEM.

The Supreme Court effectively stepped in and on the same question walked both sides of the fence, while simultaneously castrating Congress and naming Itself "the vetoers of Congressional acts, on it's Supreme Whims".

So, Skylar is correct worrying about "gay marriage" because the federal decision from the OP just shot perhaps the final death-arrow in Obergefell. Skylar's only hope at this point is that two new corrupt Justices, blatantly political towards the cult of LGBT, get confirmed. Because if conservative ones do, Obergefell is toast.

******
Here's July 2016's Decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Once again this court is asked to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from or offers redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This time, however, we do so in the shadow of a criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this court and others have continued to reflexively declare that sexual orientation is not cognizable under Title VII without due analysis or consideration of intervening case law. The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statutes. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court.

What the court said was, "just because trannies are getting advances from Title VII, doesn't mean what one does with one's gender is covered. Ostensibly (and incorrectly because a male can never be a female or vice versa; a thing upon challenge the MDs will have to admit in sworn testimony), the court says "static status is one thing, behavior is another." The former being covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the latter, not.

Huh? What kind of thread did I just walk into?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It refers to the gender, ie "sex" of the people. So yes, they made the comparison in Obergefell and attempted to tie "sex" with "sexual orientation".

The word "sex" can be one of two things:

1) Another classification used to ascribe gender; or

2) The act of mating, making love, and doing the hunka-chunka (h/t Demolition Man).

Sexual orientation can be one of five things:

Heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, pansexual or asexual.

These terms do not define gender, they do not ascribe gender, they describe sexual attraction. They define the preference of a human being to the opposite sex, same sex, both of them, no sex, or an attraction to someone regardless of "sexual identity."

In this context, they are not related to one another. Meaning Obergfell and Hively have nothing to do with one another.

Dictionaries. Helping mankind define the English language (and differentiate court rulings) since 1755.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And as such, Obergefell is an illegal ruling.

And amidst all the ocean of words you posted, one question remains... how? How is it illegal?

 

[TemplarKormac]

ie: if some sexual orientations "may marry" while others are still barred because "the majority rejects them as qualifying"..as the majority did and does with gay marriage in nearly all states, then marriage is in fact a privilege and the states then decide who may or may not marry. (See Windsor 2013).

Ahh, but the majority is not always right. I am a Christian conservative, who opposes gay marriage as a practice, and even I know that. The majority of the people cannot tell the minority what to do with their sex lives. No more than I can tell you what to do with your guns (if you have any).

If you need education on majority rule and minority rights, read Federalist #10.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Ah, so then you'll be happy that polygamy is now legal as well. And so are any combination of adults who want to marry.