Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Silhouette]

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

No, the lower courts are not at libery to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath. What they have done isn't legal and if any governor of any state defied those rulings, any appeal by those rogue lower circuits or punitive action against the states for refusing to bend to the will of a dozen rogue judges wouldn't be able to run all the furlongs.

Their ruse would be exposed.

 

[bodecea]

And with the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was extended to the States. Granting the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens. Whatever the founders intended the States to be, the 14th amendment fundamentally changed that relationship.

States no longer have the authority to violate the constitutional guarantees of US citizens.

No guarantee for homosexual marriage in the constitution .

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, however; where denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the 14th Amendment.

Again no it isnt.

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

 

[Silhouette]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

According to federal appeals procedure and the laws of the United States of America, including the Finding in Windsor 2013 that the power of regulating marriage under the specific question of "gay marriage" is and always has been, "Since the Founding of the country" a state's privelege and right, you ar not, nor have ever been legally married in California.

 

[bodecea]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

According to federal appeals procedure and the laws of the United States of America, including the Finding in Windsor 2013 that the power of regulating marriage under the specific question of "gay marriage" is and always has been, "Since the Founding of the country" a state's privelege and right, you ar not, nor have ever been legally married in California.

So what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans nationwide in June?

 

[Skylar]

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

According to federal appeals procedure and the laws of the United States of America, including the Finding in Windsor 2013 that the power of regulating marriage under the specific question of "gay marriage" is and always has been, "Since the Founding of the country" a state's privelege and right, you ar not, nor have ever been legally married in California.

Save of course that the Windsor court found that all state marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And the Perry v. Brown court found that those constitutional guarantees had been violated by Prop 8. Consequently, the law was invalidated by the federal judiciary on the grounds that it violated these guarantees.

With the USSC preserving the Perry decision overturning Prop 8. Rendering gay marriage legal in California. And Prop 8 unenforceable and invalid.

Remember, Silo......you don't know a thing about federal appeals procedures. You can only type the words.

 

[Silhouette]

So what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans nationwide in June?

I don't have the confidence that you do that the Supreme Court will overturn their Windsor 2013 Upholding on states'-rights on the specific question of defining marriage under the question of gay marriage that soon. It would be just two short years since the Court said states have a right and a historical power of defining lifestyle marriages. I'm not sure the SCOTUS has ever overturned one of their Findings in that short of a time span.

Can you think of any examples where they have done this?

 

[Skylar]

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

No, the lower courts are not at libery to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath. What they have done isn't legal and if any governor of any state defied those rulings, any appeal by those rogue lower circuits or punitive action against the states for refusing to bend to the will of a dozen rogue judges wouldn't be able to run all the furlongs.

Their ruse would be exposed.

The lower courts didn't overrule the Windsor decision. The Windsor decision found that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, State marriage law trumps Federal marriage laws. Every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that the bans violated the constitutional guarantees that Windsor affirmed all State marriage laws were subject to.

Without exception.

Windsor never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, or if such bans violated constitutional guarantees. Making it quite impossible for the lower courts to overrule Windsor on a ruling Windsor never made.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You don't know the question asked by Edith Windsor to the USSC, you don't know the answer the court provided, you don't know the basis of the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

So what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans nationwide in June?

I don't have the confidence that you do that the Supreme Court will overturn their Windsor 2013 Upholding on states'-rights on the specific question of defining marriage under the question of gay marriage that soon.

Can you think of any examples where they have done this?

The Windsor ruling never had any findings on the constitutionality on gay marriage bans, nor even mentions them anywhere in the ruling. You imagined it. Thus, its quite impossible for the USSC to overrule findings in the Windsor decision that exist no where in the Windsor ruling.

As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made ludicrously clear in his dissent:

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.

Chief Justice Roberts,
Dissent Windsor V. US.
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

The case the USSC took up last week does address the issue of whether or not the States may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage. And explicitly addresses the issue of the constitutionality of such bans. The Windsor ruling never does.

It would be just two short years since the Court said states have a right and a historical power of defining lifestyle marriages. I'm not sure the SCOTUS has ever overturned one of their Findings in that short of a time span.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Its the part you always omit from every mention of the Windsor decision:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor V. US.
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

You pretend that such constitutional guarantees don't exist, pretend that such constitutional guarantees don't limit State laws. And yet the USSC explicitly contradicts you. Worse, every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans does so on the basis of the violation of the constitutional guarantees.

Making your desperate, willful ignorance of the portion of the Windsor decision you don't like all the more uselessly inexplicable. As the very constitutional guarantees you ignore are at the heart of the case that the USSC agreed to hear last week.

And pretending that such guarantees don't exist doesn't mean the USSC is similarly obligated to pretend with you.

 

[Skylar]

So what are you going to do when the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage bans nationwide in June?

And as an answer to your question, I suggest you look into Silo's thread on California expunging Prop 8 from its books as invalid, unenforceable law. Silo rants furiously about 'treason' and 'coups' and 'sedition' and 'traitors' and 'judicial fiat' and all manner of over the top, melodramatic declarations of furious woe.

As neither the courts nor the legislature did what Silo insisted they must do. Probably because Silo doesn't have the slightest clue how either works.

 

[Skylar]

OKTEXAS SAID:

“Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.”

Because this is subjective opinion on your part, devoid of objective documentation or evidence, and given the fact that children who are raised by single parents, where those children grow to be healthly, normal adults, this argument fails as justification to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Sure some beat the odds, but I have seen first hand within my own family what happens to children raised in gay households, 4 out of 5 wound up on drugs, two in jail. The decline of traditional families are the root of many of this countries problems and you lefties keep wanting to pervert the concept. You are the reason for the decay that has been sweeping this country and what is truly pathetic, your proud of it.

You mean we are responsible for the 'decay' which is the steady decline in violent crime? Or maybe you think we are responsible for Conservative states having among the highest divorce rates in the country?

How about you tell the folks in the liberal bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, Newark, St Louis and Houston just to name a few about that steady decline in violent crime. And the throw away society the libs have pushed for decades have contributed to divorce rates all over the country, I don't know conservative states are unique in any way.

This nonsense has nothing to do with equal protection rights for gay Americans, and the fact that denying them access to marriage law is un-Constitutional.

They were already protected based on gender, lifestyle is not a protected right.

Read Romer V. Evans. Then tell me that gays aren't protected from the violation of their rights.

And make sure to take a long, hard look at the author of that decision. Its none other than Mr. Swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the lower courts are not at libery to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath. What they have done isn't legal and if any governor of any state defied those rulings, any appeal by those rogue lower circuits or punitive action against the states for refusing to bend to the will of a dozen rogue judges wouldn't be able to run all the furlongs. Their ruse would be exposed.

The lower courts didn't overrule the Windsor decision. The Windsor decision found that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, State marriage law trumps Federal marriage laws...

You're leaving out that at the end of Windsor 2013, the Court Found that only 11 states as of its writing had legal gay marriage.. Therefore, they said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" but concluded de facto that there were none that mandated legal gay marriage across all 50 states. Instead they said "just 11".

So, that's what Windsor Found as to "subject to Constitutional guarantees." Bupkiss.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure some beat the odds, but I have seen first hand within my own family what happens to children raised in gay households, 4 out of 5 wound up on drugs, two in jail. The decline of traditional families are the root of many of this countries problems and you lefties keep wanting to pervert the concept. You are the reason for the decay that has been sweeping this country and what is truly pathetic, your proud of it.

You mean we are responsible for the 'decay' which is the steady decline in violent crime? Or maybe you think we are responsible for Conservative states having among the highest divorce rates in the country?

How about you tell the folks in the liberal bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, Newark, St Louis and Houston just to name a few about that steady decline in violent crime. And the throw away society the libs have pushed for decades have contributed to divorce rates all over the country, I don't know conservative states are unique in any way.

This nonsense has nothing to do with equal protection rights for gay Americans, and the fact that denying them access to marriage law is un-Constitutional.

They were already protected based on gender, lifestyle is not a protected right.

Read Romer V. Evans. Then tell me that gays aren't protected from the violation of their rights.

And make sure to take a long, hard look at the author of that decision. Its none other than Mr. Swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

Sorry, don't see a correlation between the two concepts, I think the State laws against gay marriage will meet the strict scrutiny test. I say this because the States can articulate a compelling State interest in preserving traditional marriage.

 

[Skylar]

You mean we are responsible for the 'decay' which is the steady decline in violent crime? Or maybe you think we are responsible for Conservative states having among the highest divorce rates in the country?

How about you tell the folks in the liberal bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, Newark, St Louis and Houston just to name a few about that steady decline in violent crime. And the throw away society the libs have pushed for decades have contributed to divorce rates all over the country, I don't know conservative states are unique in any way.

This nonsense has nothing to do with equal protection rights for gay Americans, and the fact that denying them access to marriage law is un-Constitutional.

They were already protected based on gender, lifestyle is not a protected right.

Read Romer V. Evans. Then tell me that gays aren't protected from the violation of their rights.

And make sure to take a long, hard look at the author of that decision. Its none other than Mr. Swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

Sorry, don't see a correlation between the two concepts, I think the State laws against gay marriage will meet the strict scrutiny test.

The courts explicitly protected the rights of gays in Romer from discrimination and arbitrary targeting by state law. And they did so on the basis of the victims of such discrimination being gay. You insist that a 'lifestyle is not a protected right'. The courts have found that the people living that 'lifestyle' are protected. And that they can't be subject to an arbitary abrogation of their rights without a compelling state interest, a valid rational reason, and a legislative end that can't be achieved in other ways.

Gay marriage bans, as lower court after lower court has found, fails on all three points. It serves no state interest, it has no rational basis, it serves no legislative end.

I say this because the States can articulate a compelling State interest in preserving traditional marriage.

And what interest would that be? Remember, any issue of procreation is out. As the law makes millions upon millions of excepttions for infertile couples, old couples, and those who choose never to have children, allowing them to marry or remain married....but only if they're straight. No one is required to have children nor be able to have children in order to get married.

No one.

Why then would we exclude gays for failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason. So what compelling state interest does the state have in 'preserving traditional marriage'? What requirement of straight couples can gays not meet?

This is where the gay marriage ban argument breaks again and again. There is nothing that marriage requires that same sex couples can't do. There's no requirement they can't meet. And as all the childless and infertile couples demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Making a 'man woman' arrangement arbitrarily discriminatory. And gays likewise arbitrarily denied their rights.

 

[Skylar]

No, the lower courts are not at libery to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath. What they have done isn't legal and if any governor of any state defied those rulings, any appeal by those rogue lower circuits or punitive action against the states for refusing to bend to the will of a dozen rogue judges wouldn't be able to run all the furlongs. Their ruse would be exposed.

The lower courts didn't overrule the Windsor decision. The Windsor decision found that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, State marriage law trumps Federal marriage laws...

You're leaving out that at the end of Windsor 2013, the Court Found that only 11 states as of its writing had legal gay marriage.. Therefore, they said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" but concluded de facto that there were none that mandated legal gay marriage across all 50 states. Instead they said "just 11".

So, that's what Windsor Found as to "subject to Constitutional guarantees." Bupkiss.

Um, the Windsor court didn't 'conclude de factor that there were none that mandated legal gay marriage across all 50 states'. Or even mention it. The constitutionality of same sex marriage bans weren't an issue that the courts were deciding or addressing in Windsor. They were deciding if Federal Law can ignore State law when it comes to recognizing same sex marriage.

And the answer was no, Federal Law couldn't ignore State law when it came to recognizing same sex marriages. The Windsor court makes no mention of same sex marriage bans, nor makes any ruling on them.

You've imagined it.

The Windsor court did find that the States were subject to constitutional guarantees in marriage. The Windsor court didn't limit this finding of constitutional guarantees to only 11 States. You've imagined it. They cited the Loving Decision as an example....a ruling that applied to all 50 States.

And every single lower court ruling that has overturned same sex marriage bans, without exception, did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees. Making your dismissal of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling all the more inexplicable. As its the central issue that the court will be considering in the 6th District ruling it agreed to hear last week.

You ignoring constitutional guarantees doesn't change that.

 

[OKTexas]

How about you tell the folks in the liberal bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, Newark, St Louis and Houston just to name a few about that steady decline in violent crime. And the throw away society the libs have pushed for decades have contributed to divorce rates all over the country, I don't know conservative states are unique in any way.

This nonsense has nothing to do with equal protection rights for gay Americans, and the fact that denying them access to marriage law is un-Constitutional.

They were already protected based on gender, lifestyle is not a protected right.

Read Romer V. Evans. Then tell me that gays aren't protected from the violation of their rights.

And make sure to take a long, hard look at the author of that decision. Its none other than Mr. Swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

Sorry, don't see a correlation between the two concepts, I think the State laws against gay marriage will meet the strict scrutiny test.

The courts explicitly protected the rights of gays in Romer from discrimination and arbitrary targeting by state law. And they did so on the basis of the victims of such discrimination being gay. You insist that a 'lifestyle is not a protected right'. The courts have found that the people living that 'lifestyle' are protected. And that they can't be subject to an arbitary abrogation of their rights without a compelling state interest, a valid rational reason, and a legislative end that can't be achieved in other ways.

Gay marriage bans, as lower court after lower court has found, fails on all three points. It serves no state interest, it has no rational basis, it serves no legislative end.

I say this because the States can articulate a compelling State interest in preserving traditional marriage.

And what interest would that be? Remember, any issue of procreation is out. As the law makes millions upon millions of excepttions for infertile couples, old couples, and those who choose never to have children, allowing them to marry or remain married....but only if they're straight. No one is required to have children nor be able to have children in order to get married.

No one.

Why then would we exclude gays for failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason. So what compelling state interest does the state have in 'preserving traditional marriage'? What requirement of straight couples can gays not meet?

This is where the gay marriage ban argument breaks again and again. There is nothing that marriage requires that same sex couples can't do. There's no requirement they can't meet. And as all the childless and infertile couples demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Making a 'man woman' arrangement arbitrarily discriminatory. And gays likewise arbitrarily denied their rights.

You can say it all you want, doesn't make it so. Having both a male and female in the home rearing a child is the best circumstance for the child. Second best is having a consistent opposite gender influence in a child's life, neither are usually the case in gay cohabitation situations. I'm tired of playing ping pone on the subject, I'll wait on the court decision, but after reading Roberts decision on the ACA with all his circular reasoning, I'm not real hopeful.

 

[Skylar]

This nonsense has nothing to do with equal protection rights for gay Americans, and the fact that denying them access to marriage law is un-Constitutional.

They were already protected based on gender, lifestyle is not a protected right.

Read Romer V. Evans. Then tell me that gays aren't protected from the violation of their rights.

And make sure to take a long, hard look at the author of that decision. Its none other than Mr. Swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

Sorry, don't see a correlation between the two concepts, I think the State laws against gay marriage will meet the strict scrutiny test.

The courts explicitly protected the rights of gays in Romer from discrimination and arbitrary targeting by state law. And they did so on the basis of the victims of such discrimination being gay. You insist that a 'lifestyle is not a protected right'. The courts have found that the people living that 'lifestyle' are protected. And that they can't be subject to an arbitary abrogation of their rights without a compelling state interest, a valid rational reason, and a legislative end that can't be achieved in other ways.

Gay marriage bans, as lower court after lower court has found, fails on all three points. It serves no state interest, it has no rational basis, it serves no legislative end.

I say this because the States can articulate a compelling State interest in preserving traditional marriage.

And what interest would that be? Remember, any issue of procreation is out. As the law makes millions upon millions of excepttions for infertile couples, old couples, and those who choose never to have children, allowing them to marry or remain married....but only if they're straight. No one is required to have children nor be able to have children in order to get married.

No one.

Why then would we exclude gays for failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason. So what compelling state interest does the state have in 'preserving traditional marriage'? What requirement of straight couples can gays not meet?

This is where the gay marriage ban argument breaks again and again. There is nothing that marriage requires that same sex couples can't do. There's no requirement they can't meet. And as all the childless and infertile couples demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Making a 'man woman' arrangement arbitrarily discriminatory. And gays likewise arbitrarily denied their rights.

You can say it all you want, doesn't make it so. Having both a male and female in the home rearing a child is the best circumstance for the child.

Oh, its not me that's saying it. Its virtually every federal court ruling to address the topic. Its why gay marriage is legal in 36 of 50 states. With the USSC preserving every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, without exception.

Like it or not, no couple is required to have children or be able to have children to be married. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Second best is having a consistent opposite gender influence in a child's life, neither are usually the case in gay cohabitation situations. I'm tired of playing ping pone on the subject, I'll wait on the court decision, but after reading Roberts decision on the ACA with all his circular reasoning, I'm not real hopeful.

Study after study confirms that that children raised by same sex parents are as healthy and well adjusted as those raised by straight parents. Worse, you're asking the wrong question. Gays and lesbians are already having kids. Per justice Kennedy, there are 40,000 in California alone. The question is whether those children are better off if they're parents can marry. And you may want to check out the Windsor decision for the court's view of the harm caused to children of same sex parents when the marriages of their parents aren't recognized.

It won't make you very hopeful either. Though Kennedy's astute recognition of it brightens my day.

As for Roberts, I suspect he'll side with Kennedy and the court's left leaning wing. And give gay marriage a 6-3 majority. I'd say there's an outside chance that the court could even go 7-2....as denial of cert for all the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage were either uanimuous, or a 7-2 split. With Scalia and Thomas predictably voting against.

No one wants to be this generation's Leon Bazile.

 

[thanatos144]

No guarantee for homosexual marriage in the constitution .

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, however; where denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the 14th Amendment.

Again no it isnt.

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

Suure you don't. I'm married too and I don't either.

And I don't give up freedoms.....tho you seem upset about giving up the "freedom" to harass your fellow citizens.

Really? You are giving up your vote to be valid ever since all they need is a judge to willy nilly vacate it. Hey just keep thinking you are gaining something you stupid ass.

 

[Silhouette]

As for Roberts, I suspect he'll side with Kennedy and the court's left leaning wing. And give gay marriage a 6-3 majority. I'd say there's an outside chance that the court could even go 7-2....as denial of cert for all the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage were either uanimuous, or a 7-2 split. With Scalia and Thomas predictably voting against.

No one wants to be this generation's Leon Bazile.

No one wants to be this generation's fool that sentences kids to a formative environment missing their gender as an adult role model either. So those two concepts will be tugging on the Justices' minds. I'll bet they'll come down on the side of children at the end of the day. After all, a state's only interest in losing money on legal marriage is to insure the best formative environment for kids, so the wreckage without that necessity is kept to a cheaper dull roar (prisons, indigency, mental institutions)

Are you that sure the Court will overturn its Findings in Windsor 2013 that soon? You know the "unquestioned authority" of the states under this question of gay marriage... the "only 11 states have legal gay marriage as of this Decision" etc. etc.? I think that would be a first for the Court to overturn itself in less than three years on a specific question of law (do states have the right to regulate lifestyle marriages or not--Windsor found they did have that Constitutional right)

That's how they awarded Ms. Windsor her money. On that specific hinge. A state doesn't at one moment have a right, but the next, not have that right. A choice means either "yes" or "no".

 

[Syriusly]

OKTEXAS SAID:

“Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.”

Because this is subjective opinion on your part, devoid of objective documentation or evidence, and given the fact that children who are raised by single parents, where those children grow to be healthly, normal adults, this argument fails as justification to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Sure some beat the odds, but I have seen first hand within my own family what happens to children raised in gay households, 4 out of 5 wound up on drugs, two in jail. The decline of traditional families are the root of many of this countries problems and you lefties keep wanting to pervert the concept. You are the reason for the decay that has been sweeping this country and what is truly pathetic, your proud of it.

You mean we are responsible for the 'decay' which is the steady decline in violent crime? Or maybe you think we are responsible for Conservative states having among the highest divorce rates in the country?

How about you tell the folks in the liberal bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, Newark, St Louis and Houston just to name a few about that steady decline in violent crime. And the throw away society the libs have pushed for decades have contributed to divorce rates all over the country, I don't know conservative states are unique in any way.

Sure- its all liberals fault that Conservatives divorce........because Conservatives are all about 'personal responsibility'...

Your words not mine, but if you think gays will do any better than straights over time when it comes to divorce your delusional.

Your words not mine. I haven't made any claims about homosexuals and divorce. I was pointing out that this decline- i.e. divorce- that you seem convinced is happening is embraced by Conservative Americans

 

[Syriusly]

And with the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was extended to the States. Granting the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the privileges and immunities of US citizens. Whatever the founders intended the States to be, the 14th amendment fundamentally changed that relationship.

States no longer have the authority to violate the constitutional guarantees of US citizens.

No guarantee for homosexual marriage in the constitution .

There is a guarantee of equal protection of the law, however; where denying gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the 14th Amendment.

Again no it isnt.

Yes it is....and the courts are proving that it is. Sucks for you, doesn't it?

Why would it suck for me? I am married and dont suck dick. What sucks is idiots like you praising judicial tyranny because you ignorantly think all you are is a box eater. How sad that you so readily give up freedoms for something that would have happened anyway in time. Well you can celibrate yet another abuse of our liberty

I am still waiting for a conservative to explain how allowing others to marry is an abuse of your liberty.

Still waiting.