Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
"Them"?Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
Mark
Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.
So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
Mark
It's about treating all partnerships the same.
If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
Mark
Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
And stop signing your name. It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is. This isn't a letter to mommy.
And Sodom fell
The Bible
Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.
How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
Why wouldn't it be....under the law? You cannot discriminate based on race......you cannot discriminate based on gender. And if Marriage "is for reproduction"...why isn't reproduction a requirement for legal, civil marriage?Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
And stop signing your name. It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is. This isn't a letter to mommy.
The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.
Oh, by the way, my name is...
Mark
80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.
How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?
That's ludicriously inconsistent.
You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality. And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
.
I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?
And would that mean they're gay?
.
Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?
That's ludicriously inconsistent.
You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality. And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
And stop signing your name. It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is. This isn't a letter to mommy.
The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?
You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
