"Lie"? Is that what you call an opposing opinion?
No- a lie is what I call when you knowingly misrepresent what the court cases actually said.
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.
"Lie"? Is that what you call an opposing opinion?
What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )
Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.
You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.
.
Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .
No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.
All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.
What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )
Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.
You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.
.
Also then you'd agree that when Obergefell is overturned (don't laugh, Windsor was fundamentally overturned in just two years), the Legislative branch cannot dictate to states the type of marriage they allow (outside of race, country of origin and religion).
If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.
What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )
Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.
You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.
.
Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .
No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.
All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.
Four different illegal judicial coups on legislative powers and the power of the states doesn't make them right. l.
Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool
It is pretty much a dead issue except for a few die hards.
Now they have all moved onto complaining about transgenders.
If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Why else would states lose money providing benefits to married couples....just to shack up together? If that was the case, then any combination of adults could marry without any qualifications whatsoever.
What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )
Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.
You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.
.
Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .
No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.
All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.
Obergefell is IN FACT the fed dictating morals to the states. .
What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )
Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.
You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.
.
Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .
No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.
All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.
Obergefell is IN FACT the fed dictating morals to the states. .
You don't even know what a fact is.
DOMA was actually the Federal government imposing moral judgment on the states.
Obergefell was the Supreme court overturning an unconstitutional law- without any moral judgement.
It isn't the Court's job to reverse DOMA and then reinstall Gay-DOMA against the Will of the governed and their elected representatives (the Legislature)
It is pretty much a dead issue except for a few die hards.
Now they have all moved onto complaining about transgenders.
Wrong. Obergefell (Gay-DOMA) is in fact going to be revisited, just like Windsor was and reversed within two years.
One (A)moral DOMA replaces another moral DOMA.
Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool
Something refreshing that this thread made me realize... nobody starts threads about gay marriage anymore. A few years ago, every other thread was some rant against gay people. But now, very few people seem to still care at all. Very cool
That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.
If I ran the question in front of juries in the various states "Do you believe marriage laws anticipate the arrival of children to the contract"? The answer would be a resounding "Yes!" .
And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.
And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.
And people concerned about a brand new contract forced on states (by five unelected lawyers, two of which displayed over bias before the Hearing) that deprives children in marriage by law of either a mother or father for life....That's because most people have moved on to more pressing issues at hand. The only people that are still squawking about gay marriage are the diehards and queer bashers like Sil, but most people don't give a shit.