SCOTUS divided over SSM

[The Rabbi]

It's an awful argument that Justices unilaterally rewriting 2000 years of human experience open the door to marriage having any meaning anyone wants? No, that might be one o fhe strongest arguments.

Actually, marriage has been for most of history a transfer of property - the woman - from one family to another. That's why they used to stone women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, just like the bible says.

So the "Appeal to tradition" doesn't hold any water, really Rabbid.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky when it's two dudes."

Didn't think so.

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

 

[Skylar]

It seems to be the red herring of the day among gay marriage opponents. If you're dumping that rhetorical turd, its probably for the best. Its an awful argument.

It's an awful argument that Justices unilaterally rewriting 2000 years of human experience open the door to marriage having any meaning anyone wants? No, that might be one o fhe strongest arguments.

Wow, your reading comprehension isn't great, is it? Read what you're responding to first. Specifically the brain dead reference to incest.

Then comment. Doing it the other way around will lead to the rhetorical load you just dumped on the thread.

Your inability to respond appropirately is acknowledged.

You're trying Keyes schtick now? Good luck with that. Its nothing but an excuse for running. And you're already rhetorically skiddish.

Remember: read first, THEN respond.

Your defeat here is acknowledged and accepted. Bye now.

Laughing...and exactly as described, its nothing but an excuse to cut and run. If your argument had merit, your tail wouldn't be tucked between your legs.

When you muster the courage to slink back into the thread, I'll be here. Though remember to read what you're responding to. Its always been a weak point of your posts. Well, weaker.

 

[Skylar]

It's an awful argument that Justices unilaterally rewriting 2000 years of human experience open the door to marriage having any meaning anyone wants? No, that might be one o fhe strongest arguments.

Actually, marriage has been for most of history a transfer of property - the woman - from one family to another. That's why they used to stone women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, just like the bible says.

So the "Appeal to tradition" doesn't hold any water, really Rabbid.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky when it's two dudes."

Didn't think so.

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

We practice Polygamy now. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

 

[The Rabbi]

It's an awful argument that Justices unilaterally rewriting 2000 years of human experience open the door to marriage having any meaning anyone wants? No, that might be one o fhe strongest arguments.

Actually, marriage has been for most of history a transfer of property - the woman - from one family to another. That's why they used to stone women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, just like the bible says.

So the "Appeal to tradition" doesn't hold any water, really Rabbid.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky when it's two dudes."

Didn't think so.

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

 

[Skylar]

It's an awful argument that Justices unilaterally rewriting 2000 years of human experience open the door to marriage having any meaning anyone wants? No, that might be one o fhe strongest arguments.

Actually, marriage has been for most of history a transfer of property - the woman - from one family to another. That's why they used to stone women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, just like the bible says.

So the "Appeal to tradition" doesn't hold any water, really Rabbid.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky when it's two dudes."

Didn't think so.

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, marriage has been for most of history a transfer of property - the woman - from one family to another. That's why they used to stone women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, just like the bible says.

So the "Appeal to tradition" doesn't hold any water, really Rabbid.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky when it's two dudes."

Didn't think so.

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Especially when polygamy has been so prevalent in the past. Clearly, the definition of marriage has changed with the times.

ANd don't count Rabbi out yet. I'm sure he's got several 'irrefutable' arguments that he'll vaguely allude to. But insist he doesn't actually have to show you. Invisible evidence is kind of his thing.

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

 

[Skylar]

When thas the west been the only civilization to practice marriage? Remember, Rab.....your standard was 'human experience'. Just a hint.....human experience extends far outside just the west.

Laughing....you didn't think that through, did ya? Time for another summary declaration of victory followed by another rout?

....I promise I'll only laugh a little.

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

 

[danielpalos]

Really? When has anyone in the West practiced polygamy who wasnt a Muslim? Never. Fail of an argument.

We practice Polygamy now. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

some on the left don't want to have to indulge the moral turpitude of bearing false witness, for the Establishment.

 

[The Rabbi]

We are a western country. Our laws and customs are based on Europe. Yes human experience of our tradition, not some alien one.
You're failing very very badly. You should give up before you make a total fool of yourself.

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

Way to backpedal buddy! We went from '2000 years of human experience' to 'only the west'. Apparently to your ilk if your'e not of the western tradition, you don't have human experiences.

The 'human experience' has long had polygamy. The old testament is full of it. We've also had a long history of treating women as property in a marriage. Both have changed over time. Obliterating even the idea that marriage is immutable or unchangable. If such were the case, it wouldn't have changed.

But it did.

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Utter face plant level fail.
Sorry. You are too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion.

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Ironic, considering the closet is about to be yours. Your position is dead and will soon be best left unsaid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Ironic, considering the closet is about to be yours. Your position is dead and will soon be best left unsaid.

Yeah you have such a grea track record I'll bet half this board has you on Ignore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Ironic, considering the closet is about to be yours. Your position is dead and will soon be best left unsaid.

Yeah you have such a grea track record I'll bet half this board has you on Ignore.

This board is made up of moronic pussies, I couldn't care less.

 

[Seawytch]

And another snivelling excuse why you're fleeing. As I said, you don't need Keyes' schtick. You rabbit often and early all on your own.

When you're ready to discuss same sex marriage, I'll be about.

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Piss poor deflection, bigot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yawn. You're so fail.

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Piss poor deflection, bigot.

LOL. Coming from you.
The USSC will affirm that states and voters have the power to set marriage laws, not unelected judges. That was the holding in Windsor. Good luck.

 

[Seawytch]

Says the guy with his tail between his legs, giving us another excuse why you're fleeing.

Your argument doesn't work. Marriage has already changed. Women are equals in a marriage...which they haven't been in the past. We don't have polygamy, despite polygamy being quite prevenalt in the last 2000 years of human experience'. We don't have interracial or inter-religious bans, despite those being preveleant in the past.

And we no longer kill gays the way the founders did. But instead, recognize they have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Why then wouldn't they have the right to marriage, which all straights already have?

And remember, I've already got your number with your whole 'they can marry someone of the opposite sex' schtick. The restrictions on marriage must themselves be constitutional, as Loving demonstrates. And contrary to your silly opinion, race based discrimination cases are relevant. As demonstrated by the USSC which has already cited them 4 times.

The USSC is a far better source on which USSC cases are relevant than you are.

The Founders killed gays? SEriously? You lost the argument right there.
Total face palm fail. You have truly beclowned yourself.

So you deny that sodomy was a crime punishable by death at the founding of our nation?

Yawn. Get back in the closet where you belong.

Piss poor deflection, bigot.

LOL. Coming from you.
The USSC will affirm that states and voters have the power to set marriage laws, not unelected judges. That was the holding in Windsor. Good luck.

Uh huh. Ready to put your siggy or avatar where your mouth is, bigot?