It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.

Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings.

 

[Syriusly]

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Yet Obergefel doesn't mention strict scrutiny- nor have siblings been found to be a 'suspect class'.

Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

 

[Pop23]

And today it's same sex siblings.

You may not like it, but you joined the hater crowd.

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.

Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings.

How do you come up with that tripe?

Is this another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument that you are famous for?

Obergfell made same sex marriage, not gay marriage legal you bigot.

Learn about freedom. Freedom for ALL.

 

[Pop23]

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Yet Obergefel doesn't mention strict scrutiny- nor have siblings been found to be a 'suspect class'.

Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

Nor did it mention intermediate scrutiny either, which is used to determine gender equity questions, which is a silly argument because gay is not a gender nor orientation because marriage never precluded orientation from the license.

You realize Loving was a 14th amendment case decided by strict scrutiny test, Right?

 

[Syriusly]

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.

Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings.

How do you come up with that tripe?

Is this another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument that you are famous for?

Obergfell made same sex marriage, not gay marriage legal you bigot.

Learn about freedom. Freedom for ALL.

Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings

 

[Syriusly]

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Yet Obergefel doesn't mention strict scrutiny- nor have siblings been found to be a 'suspect class'.

Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

Nor did it mention intermediate scrutiny either, which is used to determine gender equity questions, which is a silly argument because gay is not a gender nor orientation because marriage never precluded orientation from the license.

You realize Loving was a 14th amendment case decided by strict scrutiny test, Right?

Loving doesn't mention 'strict scrutiny'- and mentions 'scrutiny' only once.

At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective,

And then Loving goes on to say:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[Syriusly]

And who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

Then, because you can't find that State Compelling interest are you saying that there is no legal standing to stop same sex siblings from marrying?

Let's be clear on this.

I think instead I will ignore your attempts at deflection and repeat my point- lets be clear about what you were not responding to

Who do you think that I am 'hating'?

Me- who takes no position regarding sibling marriage- or you- who 'hate' marriage by gay couples- and sibling couples?

You can ignore us equality fighters all you want. That's what bigots do.

Yes- you 'freedom fighters' want to deny marriage to gays and siblings.

Learn about freedom. Freedom for ALL.

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

 

[Faun]

So you're idea of being right is about stamina and not having facts on your side??



Your deflection aside, you've been given examples dozens of times. Your position is dead. At this point, folks here are just making fun of you for entertainment.

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

 

[Pop23]

You racist boob.

Those given would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

You argue in the same manner those that wanted to keep the black man down, women the vote and gays in the closet.

Because you want to use the Rational basis test, you are officially a BIGOT, RACIST AND A HOMOPHOBES.

Damn, you'd prolly shit your pants if a black lesbian crossed your path.

Must suck to be such a hater

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

 

[Syriusly]

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Really- you are rather amusing as you just pull crap out of your ass, fling it about and call it an argument.

I know you hate it when I cite actual judges- and court cases- but here it goes again:

Judge Crabb again:

The Supreme Court has not explained how to distinguish a “suspect” classification
from a “quasi-suspect” classification, but sexual orientation is most similar to sex among the
different classifications that receive heightened protection, Doe, 119 F.3d at 593 n. 27.
Because sex discrimination receives intermediate scrutiny and the difference between
intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny is not dispositive in this case, I will assume that
intermediate scrutiny applies, which means that defendants must show that Wisconsin’s laws
banning marriage between same-sex couples must be “substantially related” to the
achievement of an “important governmental objective,” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524, to survive
scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

Of course Obergefell doesn't mention strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny at all.

 

[Syriusly]

You're ******* deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

 

[Pop23]

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

 

[Syriusly]

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

 

[Pop23]

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

It all fits

You want the legal requirement lowered from strict to intermediate, maybe lower?

Go ahead, go to court and try to Marry your own family member. Tell us how that goes. You fail and the reason will be that I will continue my search for the States compelling interest to deny you and your family marriage partner from getting a license.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

You blind? Masturbation will do that

 

[Boss]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against....

I would like to raise a complaint here! I think same-sex marriage always discriminates against a woman or a man. Man marrying man, discrimination against women... Woman marrying woman, discrimination against men! Marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and woman.... one or the other is being discriminated against on the basis of gender in every homosexual gay marriage.

It is discrimination to allow someone to do something? Not denying anyone the ability to do something, but allowing someone to do something?

As is what wisconsin is doing in the case of cousin marriage.

And the discussion was about the use is strict scrutiny VS intermediate.

It's obvious that there was no gender bias unless you say discrimation was against everyone, which equals no discrimination.

What prevented a man from marrying a man prior to same sex marriage becoming legal? Was it because of gender?

Back atcha. What created the burdon that the wisconsin opposite sex cousins must bare that the same sex does not?

A paradox, nothing more.