Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who should have the greater burden?
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
Not even an honest answer eh? Fine.Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
OK prince harry what ever you say.
You got all the honesty you deserve, you sound just like prince harry before the surge. SCOTUS will decide who wins the battle come June.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #24
Sexual Orientation. Do at least try to use the correct phrase. And since being homosexual means you are in the minority, and since we don't have mob rule here and minorities are protected from the majority, and since equality is an American value, you, my little shit-kicker, are in a hell of a bad way.What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?
Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.
The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.
States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.
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.
Windor v. US
And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.
Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.
Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.
Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #25
They already have, or didn't you notice that?Not even an honest answer eh? Fine.Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
OK prince harry what ever you say.
You got all the honesty you deserve, you sound just like prince harry before the surge. SCOTUS will decide who wins the battle come June.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,701
- 15,271
- 2,180
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race?
By 'you folks', you mean the Supreme Court? Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they make 4 separate citations of race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.
Its unlikely that the courts are going to ignore themselves and instead accept your premise.
Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law.
Equal protection is protected by federal law. And in virtually all of the 44 of 46 federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans, equal protection violations have been the basis.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) all the laws of a state, including marriage law, where same-sex couples are eligible to participate in the marriage law of all 50 states.I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.
Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.
What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?
Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with the Federal government 'regulating' state marriage law; indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts, the Federal courts would have never become involved. The states therefore have only themselves to blame as their un-Constitutional measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law are invalidated.
Same-sex couples are not 'demanding' something 'new' or 'special.' The right to due process and equal protection of the law has been a settled, accepted Constitutional principle since the advent of the Republic.
The right of gay American to due process and equal protection of the law as required by the 14th Amendment can be found here in the Constitution:
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
They're not.What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?
Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.
The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.
States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.
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.
Windor v. US
And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.
Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.
Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.
Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
No one is trying to 'equate' sexual orientation to race.
The Constitution affords protections based not only on gender, religion, or race, but also on the right to make personal choices in the context of individual liberty absent unwarranted interference from the state.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally irrelevant; the Constitution prohibits the government from seeking to disadvantage citizens as a consequence of their decisions as individuals about matters both personal and private.
The protected liberty afforded gay Americans by the Fifth and 14th Amendments can be found here in the Constitution:
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Sexual Orientation. Do at least try to use the correct phrase. And since being homosexual means you are in the minority, and since we don't have mob rule here and minorities are protected from the majority, and since equality is an American value, you, my little shit-kicker, are in a hell of a bad way.Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.
The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.
States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.
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.
Windor v. US
And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.
Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.
Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.
Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
Screw you and your PC terms, does a bi person have a confused "orientation", no it's a preference just like gay is. I know a couple of lesbians who were perfectly happy heterosexual women with husbands and children, then the guys screwed them over, both chose to become man haters and lesbians. There is no scientific proof that gays have no choices, just opinions.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race?
By 'you folks', you mean the Supreme Court? Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they make 4 separate citations of race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.
Its unlikely that the courts are going to ignore themselves and instead accept your premise.
Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law.
Equal protection is protected by federal law. And in virtually all of the 44 of 46 federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans, equal protection violations have been the basis.
Yet the supreme court in deciding DOMA only struck down the portion where the federal government didn't recognize same sex marriages in States where it was legal at the time. That could be an indicator where they may go on the marriage issue itself, they may just leave it to the States.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) all the laws of a state, including marriage law, where same-sex couples are eligible to participate in the marriage law of all 50 states.I didn't vote because there wasn't a choice that jives with reality. Rational justification isn't good enough to take anyone's rights. First there must be a compelling governmental interest and then they have to meet the "strict scrutiny" hurdle, meaning there is no less intrusive alternative method to meet the compelling interest.
Civil unions are a less intrusive method than forced gay marriage.
What rights are taken from you if a gay person gets married?
Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with the Federal government 'regulating' state marriage law; indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts, the Federal courts would have never become involved. The states therefore have only themselves to blame as their un-Constitutional measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law are invalidated.
Same-sex couples are not 'demanding' something 'new' or 'special.' The right to due process and equal protection of the law has been a settled, accepted Constitutional principle since the advent of the Republic.
The right of gay American to due process and equal protection of the law as required by the 14th Amendment can be found here in the Constitution:
Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
They had equal protection for their gender. So yes they are demanding something new based on something other than biological gender, it's based on sexual preference.
They already have, or didn't you notice that?Not even an honest answer eh? Fine.Why do you even bother with this nonsense when you know it's not true and the battle has been lost?States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention. Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States. Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
OK prince harry what ever you say.
You got all the honesty you deserve, you sound just like prince harry before the surge. SCOTUS will decide who wins the battle come June.
Really, can you post a link to that decision?
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,701
- 15,271
- 2,180
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race?
By 'you folks', you mean the Supreme Court? Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they make 4 separate citations of race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.
Its unlikely that the courts are going to ignore themselves and instead accept your premise.
Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law.
Equal protection is protected by federal law. And in virtually all of the 44 of 46 federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans, equal protection violations have been the basis.
Yet the supreme court in deciding DOMA only struck down the portion where the federal government didn't recognize same sex marriages in States where it was legal at the time. That could be an indicator where they may go on the marriage issue itself, they may just leave it to the States.
Windsor was about a case where the State authorized same sex marriage. So of course they ruled on that matter. Windsor never so much as mentions state same sex marriage bans. Its a non-issue to the Windsor case, as no such state same sex marriage bans exist within it.
Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then tell me that you think the court is leaning toward same sex marriage bans.
44 of 46 federal court rulings overturned state gay marriage bans. And the Supreme Court preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception. 13 states requested stays to prevent gay marriage from going forward in their States. The Supreme Court denied every single one of those stays. Also without exception. And the most telling part? Every single denial of cert preserving rulings overturning gay marriage bans was done on a 7 to 2 basis. Every single denial of stay was also 7 to 2.
This won't even be close.
And worst for gay marriage opponents? There are three landmark cases in gay rights over the last 20 years. Romer V. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas, and Windsor v. US. Justice Kennedy wrote every single one of them. Justice Kennedy is also known as 'Mr. Swing Voter'.
They're not.Don't ask me, ask the States that have chosen not to endorse them. I just gave an example where the courts haven't met the strict scrutiny standard because there are less intrusive ways to accomplish what is being demanded by the faghadist.
States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. How are you rights violated if someone else is allowed to be married?
The answer is simple: they aren't. You're completely unaffected. So is anyone else save those getting married (or denied marriage).
There's no 'strict scrutiny' standard in preventing States from violating individual rights.
States have always had the power to set marriage standards and this particular "right" is an invention.
The 'power', huh? Then all talk of the 'strict scrutiny' standard goes out the window. As it applies only to the abrogation of rights of actual people. There is no 'strict scrutiny' standard for state powers. Making your references to it irrelevant. Now that that is settled.....lets move onto your new claims.
States powers are subject to constitutional guarantees.
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.
Windor v. US
And marriage is a constitutionally recognized right. Both are well established precedent.
Show me in the Constitution where the feds are given the power to regulate marriage laws within the States.
Equal protection is the most common basis for overturning state gay marriage bans. So that would be the 14th amendment.
Gays have always had marriage equality with everyone of their gender, now they are demanding something new and special, like I said, an invented right.
The standards restricting marriage must meet constitutional muster as well. Interracial marriage bans applied 'equally' to blacks and whites. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. Likewise, same sex marriage bans must also meet constitutional standards.
Ironically, this is where the 'strict scrutiny' standard kicks in. Read Romer v. Evans on discrimination against gays.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race? Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law. What's next, a bisexual demanding to marry one of each gender?
No one is trying to 'equate' sexual orientation to race.
The Constitution affords protections based not only on gender, religion, or race, but also on the right to make personal choices in the context of individual liberty absent unwarranted interference from the state.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally irrelevant; the Constitution prohibits the government from seeking to disadvantage citizens as a consequence of their decisions as individuals about matters both personal and private.
The protected liberty afforded gay Americans by the Fifth and 14th Amendments can be found here in the Constitution:
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Lawrence only said what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, nothing more.
So you agree that merchants have the liberty to decide who they do business with and whether it's a personal choice or a religious belief is irrelevant, and they can't be disadvantaged as a consequence of their decisions as individuals about matters both personal and private?
Pineapple.
Damnit ... You beat me to Pineapple.
Captain Obvious strikes again.
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race?
By 'you folks', you mean the Supreme Court? Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they make 4 separate citations of race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.
Its unlikely that the courts are going to ignore themselves and instead accept your premise.
Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law.
Equal protection is protected by federal law. And in virtually all of the 44 of 46 federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans, equal protection violations have been the basis.
Yet the supreme court in deciding DOMA only struck down the portion where the federal government didn't recognize same sex marriages in States where it was legal at the time. That could be an indicator where they may go on the marriage issue itself, they may just leave it to the States.
Windsor was about a case where the State authorized same sex marriage. So of course they ruled on that matter. Windsor never so much as mentions state same sex marriage bans. Its a non-issue to the Windsor case, as no such state same sex marriage bans exist within it.
Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then tell me that you think the court is leaning toward same sex marriage bans.
44 of 46 federal court rulings overturned state gay marriage bans. And the Supreme Court preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception. 13 states requested stays to prevent gay marriage from going forward in their States. The Supreme Court denied every single one of those stays. Also without exception. And the most telling part? Every single denial of cert preserving rulings overturning gay marriage bans was done on a 7 to 2 basis. Every single denial of stay was also 7 to 2.
This won't even be close.
And worst for gay marriage opponents? There are three landmark cases in gay rights over the last 20 years. Romer V. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas, and Windsor v. US. Justice Kennedy wrote every single one of them. Justice Kennedy is also known as 'Mr. Swing Voter'.
Yet a majority may decide like the 5th circuit did, ya just never know.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,701
- 15,271
- 2,180
Why do you folks keep trying to equivocate sexual preferences to race?
By 'you folks', you mean the Supreme Court? Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they make 4 separate citations of race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.
Its unlikely that the courts are going to ignore themselves and instead accept your premise.
Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution or federal law.
Equal protection is protected by federal law. And in virtually all of the 44 of 46 federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans, equal protection violations have been the basis.
Yet the supreme court in deciding DOMA only struck down the portion where the federal government didn't recognize same sex marriages in States where it was legal at the time. That could be an indicator where they may go on the marriage issue itself, they may just leave it to the States.
Windsor was about a case where the State authorized same sex marriage. So of course they ruled on that matter. Windsor never so much as mentions state same sex marriage bans. Its a non-issue to the Windsor case, as no such state same sex marriage bans exist within it.
Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then tell me that you think the court is leaning toward same sex marriage bans.
44 of 46 federal court rulings overturned state gay marriage bans. And the Supreme Court preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception. 13 states requested stays to prevent gay marriage from going forward in their States. The Supreme Court denied every single one of those stays. Also without exception. And the most telling part? Every single denial of cert preserving rulings overturning gay marriage bans was done on a 7 to 2 basis. Every single denial of stay was also 7 to 2.
This won't even be close.
And worst for gay marriage opponents? There are three landmark cases in gay rights over the last 20 years. Romer V. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas, and Windsor v. US. Justice Kennedy wrote every single one of them. Justice Kennedy is also known as 'Mr. Swing Voter'.
Yet a majority may decide like the 5th circuit did, ya just never know.
The 5th circuit ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You may be referring to the 6th circuit. And it seems.....unlikely that the USSC will follow them. If it was the intent to preserve gay marriage bans, the courts could have done so with any of the previous lower court rulings where gay marriage bans were overturned. There were almost 4 dozen to choose from.
Yet they denied cert on every single appeal of every single decision that overturned gay marriage bans, preserving every such ruling.
The only decision they agreed to review was the lone Appeals district that affirmed gay marriage bans. And after agreeing to hear the case, denied an appeal from the federal court that oveturned Alabama's gay marriage bans, and denied a stay for Alabama.
The court's position on the matter is so overwhelmingly clear that Scalia and Thomas actually released a statement complaining about how unprofessional it was that the court should so obviously telegraph its future ruling. With Scalia finding it was 'inevitable' that the court would apply the logic of the Windsor ruling in overturning state gay marriage bans.
But hey......maybe everyone is wrong. And you're right.
The issues in Windsor had nothing to do with the current issue before the Court.
Windsor concerned a Federal law that sought to disadvantage married persons of the same gender with regard to Federal benefits and treatment under Federal laws, in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
With regard to the marriage cases now being addressed by the Supreme Court, at issue is state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The conflict in Windsor was between citizens and the Federal government.
The conflict in the current marriage cases is between citizens and their states' governments.
Windsor concerned a Federal law that sought to disadvantage married persons of the same gender with regard to Federal benefits and treatment under Federal laws, in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
With regard to the marriage cases now being addressed by the Supreme Court, at issue is state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The conflict in Windsor was between citizens and the Federal government.
The conflict in the current marriage cases is between citizens and their states' governments.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
If I get my way, leftists still have their own choices intact. If they get their way, my choice is eliminated, I am forced to their view. Should those who remove the rights of others have a greater onus to justify that removal of rights? Or do we just vote and that's it? You disagree, you're screwed?
You're not forced to any 'view'. You are forced to act in compliance with the law, while still being free to piss and moan about it.
- Thread starter
- #40
Pineapple.
Daffuck are you on about now?
Seriously, the guy who likes to tell leftists they aren't liberals doesn't get it?
What is complicated about that? It must suck to have so much happen in the world around you and you understand so little of it
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 195
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 107
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 134
- Views
- 510
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 164
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8295
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-