Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[TNHarley]

Where in the 14th does it specifically say "Same Sex Marriage"?

Lolz
It doesnt. What it does say is, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Marener]

Nothing in the Constitution requires that.

Because Race is different than sex.

Loving got it right.

So you think states should be allowed to discriminate based on sex but not race?

**** that.

If Loving had come before this SCOTUS, they’d have ruled differently and you would have supported that decision.

 

[martybegan]

Lolz
It doesnt. What it does say is, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Depending on the definition of equal.

 

[martybegan]

So you think states should be allowed to discriminate based on sex but not race?

**** that.

If Loving had come before this SCOTUS, they’d have ruled differently and you would have supported that decision.

Nope, Loving was correct.

SSM is a new concept, and the only proper way to equalize it with traditional marriage is through the legislative process at the State level.

 

[Marener]

Nope, Loving was correct.

SSM is a new concept, and the only proper way to equalize it with traditional marriage is through the legislative process at the State level.

Interracial marriage was also a new concept.

This SCOTUS would have said that Equal Protection doesn’t apply to interracial marriage.

 

[pknopp]

Some people don't see same sex marriage as equal.

Too bad for you.

 

[martybegan]

Interracial marriage was also a new concept.

Nope. Marriage between races/countries/clans/families have been part of human history for millennia.

And race isn't sex.

 

[martybegan]

Too bad for you.

If it's passed legislatively I support same sex marriage. I don't support making up stuff in the Constitution to force it on States that don't want to issue them.

But I am OK with forcing them to recognize them if they are issued by other States.

It's called not being an ideological idiot.

 

[pknopp]

And marriage between a man and a woman has been a cornerstone of society since time immemorial.

It was once illegal for interracial couples to marry. Equal protection.

 

[TNHarley]

Depending on the definition of equal.

What in the world could "equal protection" mean? lol

 

[pknopp]

If it's passed legislatively I support same sex marriage. I don't support making up stuff in the Constitution to force it on States that don't want to issue them.

But I am OK with forcing them to recognize them if they are issued by other States.

It's called not being an ideological idiot.

Equal protection is a Constitutional cornerstone.

 

[martybegan]

What in the world could "equal protection" mean? lol

So if a person wants to marry a fire hydrant, that's equal?

Argumentum ad absurdum, I know, but just trying to show the point.

 

[Marener]

Nope. Marriage between races/countries/clans/families have been part of human history for millennia.

And race isn't sex.

This SCOTUS doesn’t give a shit about human history. Their standard is whether it’s rooted in American history.

And it’s not.

This SCOTUS would not required interracial marriage.

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection is a Constitutional cornerstone.

Depending on the definition of equal.

Should I get maternity leave as a man?

 

[martybegan]

This SCOTUS doesn’t give a shit about human history. Their standard is whether it’s rooted in American history.

And it’s not.

This SCOTUS would not required interracial marriage.

American history and historical precedent.

I'm sure they would have ruled on Loving the same way.

 

[TNHarley]

So if a person wants to marry a fire hydrant, that's equal?

Argumentum ad absurdum, I know, but just trying to show the point.

No but humans are.

 

[pknopp]

Depending on the definition of equal.

Should I get maternity leave as a man?

Maternity leave isn't something directed by the government. Marriage is based upon tax benefits.

Want to get the government completely out of marriage? I'd be good with that.

 

[TNHarley]

Want to get the government completely out of marriage? I'd be good with that.

Thats the way it should be.

 

[martybegan]

No but humans are.

Yes, but marriage was always man and woman, or man and women. SSM is a new concept and thus equal shouldn't be figured out judicially, but legislatively.

Then pushed on States that don't like it via full faith and credit.

 

[martybegan]

Maternity leave isn't something directed by the government. Marriage is based upon tax benefits.

Want to get the government completely out of marriage? I'd be good with that.

LOL, some States require it, and it sure as hell is regulated by government.

Wasn't that tried with civil unions? The SSM people wanted the word marriage, and I'm OK with it as long as it goes through the legislative process.