Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.
Definitions can change. Shocking!
Wrong.The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.
Perhaps, but marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman.
There is no right to twist marriage into something that it is not, in order to cater to a tiny population of sick, immoral perverts.
Non sequitur fallacy – given the fact marriage law has not been 'changed' as a result of Obergefell, 'arguing' that some things cannot change is rendered meaningless.Definitions can change. Shocking!
Some things cannot change.
Get a law passed, declaring that there is no such thing as gravity. Step off of a tall cliff, after that law has taken effect, and you will fall, just the same.
You're confused. You brought up the civil rights act as if it always applied to sexual behavior.That explains why gays have been marrying for half a century. LOL.They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that. The American ISIS aka LEFTARDS can't let people be ESPECIALLY if they say NO to one of the American ISIS favorite groups. Then its all out war on those that said NO.None of those merchants were attacked. Check your hyperbole at the door. Those merchants were approached by paying customers who desired the same high level of service every other customer receives. None of those merchants were forced, cajoled or threatened out of their churches.Really numb nuts? Oregon Bakers? Washington Florist? There were more I am trying to remember.Attacked for their religious objections. Its funny people used religious objections to joining the military but when it comes to faggots they can't. Just amazing. I am a NORMAL human being I am what nature INTENDED not a degenerate sexual pervert.
And those churches are not Christian churches, they are places that twist and distort Christianity to serve an evil purpose. Those adherents to such churches are directly analogous to the Taliban. When 'faith' is used as a bludgeoning device, it no longer can be regarded as faith. Rather it can be regarded as blind, stupid hatred.
And, in my humble opinion, you are not normal but anchored in unrefined stupidity andf blind hatred.
The Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago. You're a little slow in your outrage...
Are you confused? Did you not read what Odius is upset about?
Odium: They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that.
Sounds like Title II of the CRA to me.
You are trying hard to massage words here. Marriage is not and never was just a contract by individuals. It's the government recognition of the relationship. People don't go to lawyers and hash out their positions when they get married. Same gender marriage wasn't legally recognized so by pretending blood relatives couldn't or shouldn't be is just mindless. There's no logical reason to deny two brothers or three people. None. If the law can be moved to accommodate one relationship it can be moved to accommodate another. All it takes is political pressure. It's got nothing to do with the Constitution.'Understanding' is subjective and personal, having nothing to do with facts of law.
And as a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners not related to each other to enter into a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Consequently, state marriage contract law has neither 'changed' nor been 'redefined,' marriage exists now as it did before Obergefell – the Supreme Court consistently applied settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from enacting class legislation, in this case prohibiting gay Americans from entering into marriage contracts they're eligible to participate in for no other reason than who they are; this the states cannot do, a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws, including marriage law.
Therefore nothing has been 'twisted,' no one 'catered to,' just the law appropriately applied in defense of gay Americans' right to equal protection of the law.
Trump criticizes Supreme Court for same-sex marriage decision
All ya need is ONE libtard judge to retire maybe that jewess Ginsberg!? This will help him with more conservative folks and people that know this is an issue for the states.
You're confused. You brought up the civil rights act as if it always applied to sexual behavior.That explains why gays have been marrying for half a century. LOL.They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that. The American ISIS aka LEFTARDS can't let people be ESPECIALLY if they say NO to one of the American ISIS favorite groups. Then its all out war on those that said NO.None of those merchants were attacked. Check your hyperbole at the door. Those merchants were approached by paying customers who desired the same high level of service every other customer receives. None of those merchants were forced, cajoled or threatened out of their churches.
And those churches are not Christian churches, they are places that twist and distort Christianity to serve an evil purpose. Those adherents to such churches are directly analogous to the Taliban. When 'faith' is used as a bludgeoning device, it no longer can be regarded as faith. Rather it can be regarded as blind, stupid hatred.
And, in my humble opinion, you are not normal but anchored in unrefined stupidity andf blind hatred.
The Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago. You're a little slow in your outrage...
Are you confused? Did you not read what Odius is upset about?
Odium: They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that.
Sounds like Title II of the CRA to me.
...which exist because it isn't a constitutional matter.You're confused. You brought up the civil rights act as if it always applied to sexual behavior.That explains why gays have been marrying for half a century. LOL.They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that. The American ISIS aka LEFTARDS can't let people be ESPECIALLY if they say NO to one of the American ISIS favorite groups. Then its all out war on those that said NO.
The Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago. You're a little slow in your outrage...
Are you confused? Did you not read what Odius is upset about?
Odium: They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that.
Sounds like Title II of the CRA to me.
I brought up the CRA as it applies to public accommodation laws.
...which exist because it isn't a constitutional matter.You're confused. You brought up the civil rights act as if it always applied to sexual behavior.That explains why gays have been marrying for half a century. LOL.The Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago. You're a little slow in your outrage...
Are you confused? Did you not read what Odius is upset about?
Odium: They were FORCED to serve people they did not want to serve. Simple as that.
Sounds like Title II of the CRA to me.
I brought up the CRA as it applies to public accommodation laws.
SC just one more thing for Trump to straighten out.
faction of the S.C. would it have any effect? 
I agree and what's even more funny is the fact the anti-gay marriage crowd thinks even a conservative SCOTUS would all of a sudden remove the right for gays to have their marriage recognized by the state.All this fruitless whining and foot stomping about gay marriage is just delicious to behold.
SC just one more thing for Trump to straighten out.
i was wondering that IF Cruz or Trump asked for the resignations of the liberfool
what say ya'll ??
Definitions can change. Shocking!
Some things cannot change.
Get a law passed, declaring that there is no such thing as gravity. Step off of a tall cliff, after that law has taken effect, and you will fall, just the same.
Some things may not be able to change, but marriage is clearly not one of those things. Marriage changed many times before Obergefell and will likely change again in the future...Marriage isn't a natural force but a man-made institution.....The definition of gravity can change....Your analogy would make more sense if, instead of same sex couples being allowed to legally marry, all marriage was banned. No one passed a law declaring there is no such thing as marriage....You are welcome to use whatever personal definition of marriage you like. In the United States, however, marriage legally includes same sex couples. You can claim they are not actually married and they will remain legally married, just the same.
Some things may not be able to change, but marriage is clearly not one of those things. Marriage changed many times before Obergefell and will likely change again in the future...Marriage isn't a natural force but a man-made institution.....The definition of gravity can change....Your analogy would make more sense if, instead of same sex couples being allowed to legally marry, all marriage was banned. No one passed a law declaring there is no such thing as marriage....You are welcome to use whatever personal definition of marriage you like. In the United States, however, marriage legally includes same sex couples. You can claim they are not actually married and they will remain legally married, just the same.
That's quite a lot of verbal gymnastics for even you Monty.
However, if you derive "marriage legally includes same sex couples" from an alleged "constitutional right" that that is so, you've got troubles...perhaps that's why you did the verbal gymnastics...a bit of sleight of hand there?
The problems with your "gay marriage is constitutional" are these (at least and maybe more)
1. Kagan & Ginsburg both displayed rampant bias before Obergefell was heard. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 says they were not allowed to preside over Obergefell.
2. The Judicial Branch of government cannot change the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. Creating a new inclusion in the 14th Amendment for "just some of the the Court's favorite repugnant deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others" violates the 14th's equality skeleton. Either all majority-repugnant deviant sex behaviors may be married, (think polygamy) or none of them may outside state laws.
3. There are no provisions in the federal government for regulating marriage: it belongs to the states. In fact, Windsor 2013 found that as fact 56 times in that Opinion's wording. States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage Windsor's essence in fact was that DOMA should be dismantled precisely because marriage was up to New York where Windsor was "gay married"..I'll explain the quotation marks further down...
4. Marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago specifically to remedy the various situations where children found themselves without both a mother and father. Ergo, not only are children implicit partners in that contract, but the contract was invented and maintained for thousands of years FOR CHILDREN. The state gains no benefit from two adults shacking up. The state DOES gain benefit by enticing a mother and father for the sake of children's best shot at life. The woes without either a mother or father present for both genders of children are long understood, established, documented and simply also a matter of common sense. When the radical contract revision was proposed, children were not invited to the table. They had no representation in Obergefell; which was required by contract law.
5. If a contract involving minors either expressly or implicitly serves a need of theirs, the contract cannot be changed to their detriment. Even if children wanted to change it to their detriment, it cannot be done. Study the Infants Doctrine: ancient law. Even if the reason for changing the contract is pure compassion for adults, it still cannot stand if it is to the detriment of children involved.. Incidentally, Loving v Virginia did not change that thousands-years-old skeleton where races all over the world intermarried to provide a mother and father for children. So, gay marriage is nothing at all like Loving and may not cite it because the two (mother/father) & (man/man, woman/woman) are NOTHING alike with regards to marriage's original reason for being invented.
6. New York vs Ferber (1982) was a case about a guy Ferber who wanted to peddle kiddie porn, claiming the 1st Amendment supported his "right" to do so constitutionally. At first it was found that he could under the 1st, then it was found he could not. SCOTUS heard the case and even though SCOTUS rules in favor of free speech in even ridiculous and offensive cases as an unwavering rule, it found exception in NY v Ferber for one reason: children. The Court found that if a person exercises a constitutional right that somehow hurts children either physically or psychologically, then that right cannot be exercised. Gay marriage systematically strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole from this mental prison. Infants and contract law has a clause that says if adults want to change a contract involving children, if there is even a shadow of a chance that change might hurt them, their new contract is VOID (not "voidable" but void upon its face). The burden is upon the adults to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers does no harm to them. Citing "single parenthood" isn't allowed because we are talking about THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, not other situations outside it. Marriage, remember, exists for a reason. So, "gay marriage" cannot be, because that new revision harms children in predictable ways. There is AT LEAST enough evidence to cast doubt on "the benefits of stripping a child of either a mother or father"..and so...gay marriage everywhere is void. Children cannot suffer as a convenience...or even an extension of compassion to adults...Marriage was and is for children.
7. Children caught up in gay lifestyles are unfortunate...as are children caught up in single parenthood and polygamy. So, if you use the logic that "children are being harmed by their parent(s) not receiving the official blessing of society, you cannot disinclude children of polygamy or of monosexuals (single parents).. So says the 14th..
8. Obergefell may have been a nice phasod...a lovely parade of compassion for adults wanting to shack up together...but since the most important people in marriage were not invited, nor had representation at that Hearing, Obergefell is void upon its face. That Opinion is void. It is an illegal opinion for all the reasons above.
(Below: vv You won't think it's funny a year from now..)
This has been discussed over and over. Your claims of bias are comical.
The discrimination faced by Blacks in the 1960s was not constitutionally mandated. In fact, laws found that set up thee shaky scaffolding of bigotry then were found to be unconstitutional. The same precedents apply to the bigotry faced by homosexuals today. Bigotry is not a constitutional right, no matter how you slice it.Commit these words to your English studies tonight: Public Accomodation [sic] laws.Those who said NO were breaking the law of the land.
The First Amendment is the law of the land. Calling for it to be disregarded and violated leaves you in no position to speak of the rule of law.
Illegal violation of the First Amendment's implied freedom of association. The Constitution is the highest law, and lower laws cannot legitimately override it.
Again, arguing against the Constitution, demanding that it be disobeyed, disqualifies you from making any argument based on any purported support for the rule of law.
Matt Viser ✔ @mviser 
