Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"?

[Asclepias]

You must get a state issued Marriage License to be legally married.

Do you need a state issued speech license to speak?

It is indeed your argument, you just can't back it up.

I thought you just said no one is ever required to get a license to exercise a right? Are you reading your own posts?

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

I again ask, do you or do you not need a license to be married? Name another right in which you require state licensing.

Do yourself a favor before responding, cause your getting boring, look up the definition of license.

And I will ask you again. I thought you just said no one is ever required to get a license to exercise a right?

 

[Asclepias]

If it involves others or coercion it is a privilege.

Which is a right.

Which is a granted or licensed right. Not a natural right. That's the distinction between a privilege and a right.
You have the right to do to yourself what you want (except seat belt and helmet laws, which are way wrong) but you don't have a right to do something to another person. That is where privileges come into play.
Forcing others to acquiesce to a behavior that is relevant only to yourself is coercion. Not a right.

I dont care what kind of right it is. You were wrong when you claimed a privilege was not a right.

 

[Asclepias]

Weeds to try to justify nothing.
How about you point out the irrelevancy. Again, logic has no place in the homofascist agenda.

How about you point out where you know what you are talking about? How does your false statement make your irrelevant argument relevant?

My argument was pointed. Your rebuttal about its alleged irrelevance was not. You need to be specific.

No I dont need to be anymore specific than I was.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People aren' born gay.

Proof?

Let me guess. Even the CDC, Mayo Clinic and 300+ peer-reviewed scientific stuides won't be enough to convince you if you can point to just 3 or 4 "American Psychological Association" funded studies that refute this? Bear in mind that the APA was taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s who systematically and secretly removed the ruling Leona Tyler scientific principle and replaced it with a gay political agenda. Google "Leona Tyler" and "Cummings" for details..

2007 Mayo Clinic:
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And this peer-reviewed and approved paper with over 300 peer-reviewed and approved studies in its bibliography supporting its conclusions that not only is sexual orientation learned, but it is learned from cues an individual takes from its environment/social matrix:

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

My sister is gay and I know for a fact she was never sexually abused. I know other gay people who were also not sexually abused.

You lose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You must get a state issued Marriage License to be legally married.

Do you need a state issued speech license to speak?

It is indeed your argument, you just can't back it up.

I thought you just said no one is ever required to get a license to exercise a right? Are you reading your own posts?

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

I again ask, do you or do you not need a license to be married? Name another right in which you require state licensing.

Marriage is in fact a fundamental right in accordance with Constitutional case law, which you and others on the right are entitled to disagree with and ignore – but as a fact of law you are consequently wrong.

And although our rights are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including some sort of license or prerequisite to exercise that right – such as jurisdictions that require a license to purchase and own a firearm, or license to carry a concealed weapon, pursuant to the Second Amendment right (DC v. Heller (2008)), the requirement to register before exercising the right to vote, or the requirement that a permit be obtained first before engaging in the First Amendment right to freely assemble (Virginia v. Hicks (2003)).

Therefore, your ‘argument’ that if a license or permit is required as a condition to exercise a right, that it is not a right, fails.

 

[Silhouette]

Proof?

Let me guess. Even the CDC, Mayo Clinic and 300+ peer-reviewed scientific stuides won't be enough to convince you if you can point to just 3 or 4 "American Psychological Association" funded studies that refute this? Bear in mind that the APA was taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s who systematically and secretly removed the ruling Leona Tyler scientific principle and replaced it with a gay political agenda. Google "Leona Tyler" and "Cummings" for details..





And this peer-reviewed and approved paper with over 300 peer-reviewed and approved studies in its bibliography supporting its conclusions that not only is sexual orientation learned, but it is learned from cues an individual takes from its environment/social matrix:

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

My sister is gay and I know for a fact she was never sexually abused. I know other gay people who were also not sexually abused.

You lose.

So what you believe you're certain you think you know about your sister outweighs over 300+ peer-reviewed accredited studies on deviant sexual orientations being learned?

I happen to have a pet theory about many lesbians. It's that they either grow up to despise the male gender so completely from a foul male role model oppressing their lives, OR they grow to envy what a male in their life was afforded more privelege to, being male with the world laid at their feet for merely having the "tackle" they lack so that they want to be a male like him with all those trappings to out-compete him. And then of course there are those who are molested by the nanny or the babysitter, the teenage aggressive lesbian down the block etc.

For males I'd say the Clinical Psychiatry/ CDC data says that most of them were molested. People from the CDC don't use the word "epidemic" lightly.. Though like their lesbian counterparts, they may have had a horrible female adult presence that caused them to loathe women and to gravitate away from them when it came time for sex. Or that they envied/emulated so much from some perceived perks they saw in being female that they gravitated that way even when it came to sex.

In all the above events, homosexuality is an affect; an acquired trait in the personality post-natally. Whether or not it's compulsive is irrelevant. Lots of compulsive behaviors are not elevated to iconic status. Does it means gays are less than human? No, because "gays" don't exist. What does exist are people with homosexual compulsive disorders. Society would do well to consider them thusly and not what they DO as "cool, OK, normal" etc.. Just the HIV/AIDS epidemic suggests that that is a terrible idea.

 

[Silhouette]

I dont care what kind of right it is. You were wrong when you claimed a privilege was not a right.

Any person who is able to may drive a car. Each state decides who that is and who doesn't qualify as "able". It's sad and too bad for blind people and those with epilepsy and lots of DUI convictions that they cannot drive. But that's just the way it is with the "right to drive" which isn't a right but a privelege.

Likewise, everyone has the "right" to marry as long as they are able. "Able" to marry varies from state to state according again to that state's will. Like the Supreme Court reminded petitioners for the church of LGBT "where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right"? The only backdoor as exception to that is the 14th and unfortunately the cult of LGBT doesn't qualify under "race", "country of origin" or "gender". They might qualify for a religion if they "came out of the closet" with what they're really up to. Though to be fair their talking heads have declared over and over that what they're up to is, and I quote, "A culture war".

Behaviors do not qualify for 14th protection so if they want to get married in a particular state, it's up to them to convince that state that their behaviors qualify to marry. If not, then they should move to one of the 3 states that has legal gay marriage and get on with life.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont care what kind of right it is. You were wrong when you claimed a privilege was not a right.

Any person who is able to may drive a car. Each state decides who that is and who doesn't qualify as "able". It's sad and too bad for blind people and those with epilepsy and lots of DUI convictions that they cannot drive. But that's just the way it is with the "right to drive" which isn't a right but a privelege.

Likewise, everyone has the "right" to marry as long as they are able. "Able" to marry varies from state to state according again to that state's will. Like the Supreme Court reminded petitioners for the church of LGBT "where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right"? The only backdoor as exception to that is the 14th and unfortunately the cult of LGBT doesn't qualify under "race", "country of origin" or "gender". They might qualify for a religion if they "came out of the closet" with what they're really up to. Though to be fair their talking heads have declared over and over that what they're up to is, and I quote, "A culture war".

Behaviors do not qualify for 14th protection so if they want to get married in a particular state, it's up to them to convince that state that their behaviors qualify to marry. If not, then they should move to one of the 3 states that has legal gay marriage and get on with life.

I'm trying to figure out why you said all that and still missed the fact that regardless of what you think you know, the right to marry is extended to gay people under the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled on it.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm trying to figure out why you said all that and still missed the fact that regardless of what you think you know, the right to marry is extended to gay people under the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled on it.

Yes, I'm sure that's why the US Supreme Court, dominant over all other law in the nation, issued a stay on gay marriage in Utah while Utah appeals...you know...because "the SCOTUS has ruled on it."

What's all that business in the Windsor Opinion then about state's "unquestioned authority" to define marriage via consensus retroactive to the founding of the country in the way "the Framers of the Constitution intended"? And the fact that they mentioned Loving v Virginia [the 14th] and went on at the end of all of it to Declare that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states"?

Hardly a vote of confidence for your conclusion that gay marriage is legal somehow in all 50 states..

The SCOTUS has to look at whether or not LGBT is behavioral [a cult] or a legitimate innate state of being. If it is behavioral, even compulsively so, this changes everything. SCOTUS cannot set a precedent at such a high level of law where a small group of behaviors objectionable to the majority suddenly gain "special immunity" from majority rule. Where then do they draw the line on other compulsive behaviors gaining the same type of immunity and extension of privelege to practice in violation of democracy and majority rule?

What of of the penal and civil codes? How do we enforce them when case after case thereafter will present a "this is just how I am" defense for objectionable behaviors. There are far wider parameters that the Court must weigh when considering giving what is nothing but an obvious cult and fad "special priveleges". Congress would have to rewrite the 14th. The Supreme Court is only allowed to interpret it. Not to rewrite the Constitution. That's the legislative branch.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't know...no matter how many votes rack up each day, the number of folks who are seeing, beginning to see or actually realize that LGBT is a cult is holding steady at around 60%.

Not sure how that translates into "a majority supports gay marriage" etc. And how if such a clear majority supposedly supports gay marriage...they desperately need activist judges engaged in contempt of SCOTUS and clear sedition of the governed to try to issue fascist "overrule" to the governed's Will expressed in their vote...state by state...

Seems their level of desperation and hard line tactics betrays the true numbers of who they actually know "supports gay marriage" etc...

 

[Asclepias]

I don't know...no matter how many votes rack up each day, the number of folks who are seeing, beginning to see or actually realize that LGBT is a cult is holding steady at around 60%.

Not sure how that translates into "a majority supports gay marriage" etc. And how if such a clear majority supposedly supports gay marriage...they desperately need activist judges engaged in contempt of SCOTUS and clear sedition of the governed to try to issue fascist "overrule" to the governed's Will expressed in their vote...state by state...

Seems their level of desperation and hard line tactics betrays the true numbers of who they actually know "supports gay marriage" etc...

You should learn the meaning of context. All that shows you is that 60% of the people responding to your poll are homophobic and xenophobic retards. I wouldn't put much stock into your poll results as indicative of the nation at large.

 

[Silhouette]

You should learn the meaning of context. All that shows you is that 60% of the people responding to your poll are homophobic and xenophobic retards. I wouldn't put much stock into your poll results as indicative of the nation at large.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Demonizing people who rightfully question a cult with obvious behavioral issues deeper than the Grand Canyon is not the way to win people over to vote in gay marriage. The more you marginalize people who know right from wrong and who see the glaring red flags piling up all around the Gay Agenda, the more you're going to see them tell you one thing in polling and vote another way in private. Or they'll just turn on you and call you out.

I think you're edging ever closer to that last scenario. Being pushy and verbally abusive has a way of backfiring on a cult's agenda..

 

[Asclepias]

You should learn the meaning of context. All that shows you is that 60% of the people responding to your poll are homophobic and xenophobic retards. I wouldn't put much stock into your poll results as indicative of the nation at large.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Demonizing people who rightfully question a cult with obvious behavioral issues deeper than the Grand Canyon is not the way to win people over to vote in gay marriage. The more you marginalize people who know right from wrong and who see the glaring red flags piling up all around the Gay Agenda, the more you're going to see them tell you one thing in polling and vote another way in private. Or they'll just turn on you and call you out.

I think you're edging ever closer to that last scenario. Being pushy and verbally abusive has a way of backfiring on a cult's agenda..

I'm not flattering you or demonizing you for your right to question anything. I am doing to you what you are doing to gay people. I am questioning your intelligence and pointing out you may have several phobias and mental issues you need to work through. If you think they have issues you should probably look deeply into the mirror. I dont get why you would worry about what gay people are doing to each other if you are not gay yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not flattering you or demonizing you for your right to question anything. I am doing to you what you are doing to gay people. I am questioning your intelligence and pointing out you may have several phobias and mental issues you need to work through. If you think they have issues you should probably look deeply into the mirror. I dont get why you would worry about what gay people are doing to each other if you are not gay yourself.

Only from my perspective I understand human physiology and the digestive tract vs the reproductive tract. I know about how each one functions. You're trying to sell a rotten bill of goods to the public. You're trying to say that people who habitually use the lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina with their same gender are acting normally and in a healthy manner. I, with the facts behind me, say they are not. Why not use a real vagina and reduce the risk of HIV in the general population? For example..

Your perspective is one of make believe. Mine is grounded in thousands of years of understood biology and millions of years of evolution. Yours is the perspective of a fad, a cult. Therein lies the difference. So when I point out the obvious in your stance, it is justified. When you call me a "hater" or "homophobe" for pointing out the obvious in your stance, you are doing so defensively, without a shred of facts to back your position. Yours is a baseless ad hominem. Mine is an objective observation with teeth.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not flattering you or demonizing you for your right to question anything. I am doing to you what you are doing to gay people. I am questioning your intelligence and pointing out you may have several phobias and mental issues you need to work through. If you think they have issues you should probably look deeply into the mirror. I dont get why you would worry about what gay people are doing to each other if you are not gay yourself.

Only from my perspective I understand human physiology and the digestive tract vs the reproductive tract. I know about how each one functions. You're trying to sell a rotten bill of goods to the public. You're trying to say that people who habitually use the lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina with their same gender are acting normally and in a healthy manner. I, with the facts behind me, say they are not. Why not use a real vagina and reduce the risk of HIV in the general population? For example..

Your perspective is one of make believe. Mine is grounded in thousands of years of understood biology and millions of years of evolution. Yours is the perspective of a fad, a cult. Therein lies the difference. So when I point out the obvious in your stance, it is justified. When you call me a "hater" or "homophobe" for pointing out the obvious in your stance, you are doing so defensively, without a shred of facts to back your position. Yours is a baseless ad hominem. Mine is an objective observation with teeth.

This is why I question your intelligence. Nothing is obvious about your homophobic tirade except that you are homophobic. Nothing you said is justified. You are simply nosey for some unknown reason. For these behaviors you should not be considered a normal part of society and you should not be allowed to marry. How does it feel to have someone judge you because you happen to waste your time worrying about what someone else does in their bedroom?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not flattering you or demonizing you for your right to question anything. I am doing to you what you are doing to gay people. I am questioning your intelligence and pointing out you may have several phobias and mental issues you need to work through. If you think they have issues you should probably look deeply into the mirror. I dont get why you would worry about what gay people are doing to each other if you are not gay yourself.

Only from my perspective I understand human physiology and the digestive tract vs the reproductive tract. I know about how each one functions. You're trying to sell a rotten bill of goods to the public. You're trying to say that people who habitually use the lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina with their same gender are acting normally and in a healthy manner. I, with the facts behind me, say they are not. Why not use a real vagina and reduce the risk of HIV in the general population? For example..

Your perspective is one of make believe. Mine is grounded in thousands of years of understood biology and millions of years of evolution. Yours is the perspective of a fad, a cult. Therein lies the difference. So when I point out the obvious in your stance, it is justified. When you call me a "hater" or "homophobe" for pointing out the obvious in your stance, you are doing so defensively, without a shred of facts to back your position. Yours is a baseless ad hominem. Mine is an objective observation with teeth.

This is why I question your intelligence. Nothing is obvious about your homophobic tirade except that you are homophobic. Nothing you said is justified. You are simply nosey for some unknown reason. For these behaviors you should not be considered a normal part of society and you should not be allowed to marry. How does it feel to have someone judge you because you happen to waste your time worrying about what someone else does in their bedroom?

That's a very very defensive sounding reply. Thanks for making my point.

And, it's not that the cult of LGBT wants to keep their religion in the bedroom. They're in the schools and the wedding halls trying to force a new generation of Americans to practice the faith by assent and enabling...and secular laws forcing the dogma on the masses. That's not quite "in the bedroom" now anymore, is it?

Still holding at 60% that allow as to how LGBT looks like a cult. Do cults get coverage under the 14th? Just wondering...

 

[Asclepias]

Only from my perspective I understand human physiology and the digestive tract vs the reproductive tract. I know about how each one functions. You're trying to sell a rotten bill of goods to the public. You're trying to say that people who habitually use the lower digestive tract as an artificial vagina with their same gender are acting normally and in a healthy manner. I, with the facts behind me, say they are not. Why not use a real vagina and reduce the risk of HIV in the general population? For example..

Your perspective is one of make believe. Mine is grounded in thousands of years of understood biology and millions of years of evolution. Yours is the perspective of a fad, a cult. Therein lies the difference. So when I point out the obvious in your stance, it is justified. When you call me a "hater" or "homophobe" for pointing out the obvious in your stance, you are doing so defensively, without a shred of facts to back your position. Yours is a baseless ad hominem. Mine is an objective observation with teeth.

This is why I question your intelligence. Nothing is obvious about your homophobic tirade except that you are homophobic. Nothing you said is justified. You are simply nosey for some unknown reason. For these behaviors you should not be considered a normal part of society and you should not be allowed to marry. How does it feel to have someone judge you because you happen to waste your time worrying about what someone else does in their bedroom?

That's a very very defensive sounding reply. Thanks for making my point.

And, it's not that the cult of LGBT wants to keep their religion in the bedroom. They're in the schools and the wedding halls trying to force a new generation of Americans to practice the faith by assent and enabling...and secular laws forcing the dogma on the masses. That's not quite "in the bedroom" now anymore, is it?

Still holding at 60% that allow as to how LGBT looks like a cult. Do cults get coverage under the 14th? Just wondering...

Thanks for confirming my belief that you have a very tenuous grip at best on reality. So now being gay is a religion? What rock do you guys hide under? You cant force someone to be gay. They are or they are not. Dont worry. No one is coming to get you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WTF? Only in 3 states according to Windsor.

No, it's not "3 states according to WIndsor".

Windor recognized the 12 States that had SSCM which where achieved judicially and legislatively as well as the 3 states that passed it at the ballot box.

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves
and their union and in a status of equality with all other married
persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its
citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex
marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to
correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to
be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

WTF? Only in 3 states according to Windsor.

No, it's not "3 states according to WIndsor".

Windor recognized the 12 States that had SSCM which where achieved judicially and legislatively as well as the 3 states that passed it at the ballot box.

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves
and their union and in a status of equality with all other married
persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its
citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex
marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to
correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to
be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.​

>>>>

Here's the $20,000 question. Why did they say 12 states "decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.."?

In your words.. and perhaps Theirs, if you dare? For instance, properly shouldn't they have said that only 3 states "decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry" according to how laws are properly enacted in each respective state? Or, they should have said "gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states". Why do you think they defined how a state arrives at legalizing gay marriage as "after weighing the issue and allow the public to weigh in" "in consensus" that's "the unquestioned authority" of each state, did you think they allowed that in states where that didn't happen and instead an activist judge dictated to that state against it's own sovereignty that "gay marriage is legal there" and then said that was only the case with "11 states"?

ie: Was the Court saying "the way gay marriage is made legal in each state is by the way all laws are made in that state" or was it saying "one by one an activist appeals judge needs only to override the Will of the Governed and their constitutionally-protected right to define marriage for itself, since the founding of the nation, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

WTF? Only in 3 states according to Windsor.

No, it's not "3 states according to WIndsor".

Windor recognized the 12 States that had SSCM which where achieved judicially and legislatively as well as the 3 states that passed it at the ballot box.

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves
and their union and in a status of equality with all other married
persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its
citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex
marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to
correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to
be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.​

>>>>

Here's the $20,000 question. Why did they say 12 states "decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.."?

Because that was not a question addressed by Windsor, i.e. whether states can discriminate and treat same-sex couples differently. The question in Windsor was if the state says yes, can the Federal government discriminate against legally married couples by the state.

This is born out by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who one could assume knows a little bit more about the Windsor decision than you:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to
point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does
not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not
decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.​

In your words.. and perhaps Theirs, if you dare?

Not my words. The words of the Chief Justice noting that the case was not about State law but about federal law and not my words that the SCOTUS in the Windsor decision that 12 States and DC SSCM was valid and that those states achieved it thorugh judicial action, legislative action, and at the ballot.

For instance, properly shouldn't they have said that only 3 states "decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry" according to how laws are properly enacted in each respective state?

Nope, because as they noted at the time of the writing of the decision 12 States and DC had valid SSCM and later that same day the number became 13 as the Prop 8 decision was issued and the District Court Judge's decision was left in place making California the 13th State.

Or, they should have said "gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states".

Nope, not the question before the court in Windsor. The question before the court was that if a State allows SSCM, can the Federal government refuse to recognize it. The answer was "No". The question as to whether States can say "No" will be a different case.

Why do you think they defined how a state arrives at legalizing gay marriage as "after weighing the issue and allow the public to weigh in" "in consensus" that's "the unquestioned authority" of each state, did you think they allowed that in states where that didn't happen and instead an activist judge dictated to that state against it's own sovereignty that "gay marriage is legal there" and then said that was only the case with "11 states"?

The word "consensus" appears in only one place in the decision and it doesn't say what you imply.

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York
was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping
the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___
(2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise
of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the
Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the
federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the
members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and
constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to
constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is
more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.
Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same
sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in
a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558,
567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages
performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions
and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and
dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the
State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a
far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between
two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the
community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s
considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage
and its evolving under standing of the meaning of equality.​

The use of "consensus" is clearly describing New York that had reached consensus as demonstrated by the legislature passing the legislation and it being signed by the Governor. As a matter of fact the court goes on to say that the States ability to define and regulate marriage is limited by Constitutional guarantees and they then use the Loving decision as an example of when Constitutional guarantees superseded State laws.

ie: Was the Court saying "the way gay marriage is made legal in each state is by the way all laws are made in that state" or was it saying "one by one an activist appeals judge needs only to override the Will of the Governed and their constitutionally-protected right to define marriage for itself, since the founding of the nation, "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"?

The were saying that there are Constitutional limits on the laws and States can enact to define and regulate Civil Marriage and that when the States exceed those limits (as they did prior to the Loving decision) it doesn't matter if the law was passed by the legislature or voted on by the citizens, it will be invalid. That's what the "Constitution guarantee" limit means.

The people of Alabama voted to ban interracial marriage and enacted a State Constitutional Amendment for that ban. They exceeded their authority to deny citizens equal treatment under the law under the 14th Amendment and the ban was made void by the Loving decision in 1967 and then it took 33 years for the people of the State to remove the language from their State Constitution, funny thing though is that even though the language remained that provision was no longer valid.

The really sad thing is that 40% of the people in 2000 voted to keep the language.



>>>>