Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights before the ruling as straights. The judges didn't like the law, so they wrote a new one they did like. A conservative should be a lot more afraid of that then happy at whatever transactional win you get

Oh? What bill did they pass? Where do I go to read the new law they wrote in the code of laws for the federal government?

Wow, you're quite a card

I'll take that as admission that they did not in fact write a new law, rather they threw some state laws out as being unconstitutional restrictions on liberty.

Take it however you want. You're an emotional woman on this, not a guy with a set. Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That is the job of the courts, and their Constitutional role was to then bow out after determining that. But they didn't like it, so they rewrote the law, which is legislating from the bench.

Not liking that did not mean you had no option, it meant your option was to take it to the legislature. But that would be work, which leftists aren't interested in

First off, you're being a complete moron.

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

Fourth, moving the goal posts from "creating/writing" a law to "rewriting" a law IS NOT GONNA HELP YOU. You are still LYING.

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Well Kaz was posting.

So of course he was lying.

 

[kaz]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

 

[RKMBrown]

Second, there is a fundamental reason why you can't name the law that you say the SCOTUS created. That would be because you are lying.

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

Third, the actual laws that the SCOTUS tossed out for BANNING GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES certainly did impact the ability for gays to get married in certain states. So again YOU ARE LYING.

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Fifth, if not to rule over constitutional issues regarding laws, what the hell do you think the SCOTUS is there for?

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Sixth, what do you call a person that acts like a moron, and lies with nearly every sentence they utter?

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

 

[kaz]

They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution. They made it up. They legislated from the bench.

Seriously, your argument is you want a name for the law? All States and the Federal government have to follow what they decreed even though there is no law that says what the Court ruled. The court made it up

I never said it didn't, idiot. I said other States don't have to recognize it by the Full Faith and Credit Clause

It's not in the Consitution, do you know who gave the Supreme Court that power

Yes, of course, the inherent truth of liberalism. Everyone knows that liberalism is truth, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. Grow a pair, Darlene. And seriously, you're modeling your arguments after Faun and Syriusly? Now that's striving for bottom.

The idea that what you want changes a law is retarded

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

Got it, you know what I think, Darlene. When I need a hug I'll let you know, girlfriend

 

[kaz]

Yet you can't name anyone who was treated differently under gay marriage.

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

 

[WorldWatcher]

Edith Windsor


>>>>

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

So if she were straight, the government would have recognized her same sex marriage and given her money back? How do you know that? I think you're full of shit, but go ahead and give it a shot

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

Being black changed WHO you could marry. Being gay did not

 

[WorldWatcher]

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

Being black changed WHO you could marry. Being gay did not

If being black, a biological condition, changed WHO you could marry.

Then gender, being a biological condition, changes WHO you can marry.

(Not one ban in this country was written in terms of sexual orientation, they were written in terms of gender.)


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

You said... "They made up that all gay marriages have to be recognized by every state, there is no such law and there is no basis for that in the Constitution."

That's not a law, that's a "ruling" that such laws are unconstitutional. Making such rulings is what the SCOTUS does. That's why we have a SCOTUS. Do you understand the difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making a law?

The court did not make up marriage laws. The states did that.

Wrt. the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" see the constitution for support of the right to life, which includes marriage.

If you want to throw out the SCOTUS entirely, well that's a different topic. And yes, I'm fully aware of the history of our supreme court.

I've proved that you are lying, stop lying and I'll stop calling you out for it.

ROFL now you are moving the goal posts to "changing" a law. No, they did not change those laws they threw them out as unconstitutional. But yes they did change the code of laws for the states by removing said laws, because said laws were ruled by the supreme court of this land as unconstitutional. Note: calling it a "change" is not a lie.. not if by law you meant in the plural, so if you want to say that, I will concede that point, since change by remove is a change. Just don't try to sneak change by create or write in there

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

Got it, you know what I think, Darlene. When I need a hug I'll let you know, girlfriend

You already stated what you think, ya fool.

 

[Faun]

If Edith had married a man, then the government would have recognized her legal Civil Marriage.

Since Edith was married to a woman they denied equal treatment.


>>>>

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

Being black changed WHO you could marry. Being gay did not

Too retarded as usual. Of course being gay changed who you can marry -- you can now marry the person you love.

 

[kaz]

It's funny how three weeks of the month you're a pretty docile guy and the fourth you are a bitch on wheels. Maybe it'll get better after menopause.

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking. Despite your being a chick who thinks you know, obviously you don't. And that you have to keep going to to that and emotions is a reflection of your weak argument. The weakest is your word parsing over what legislating from the bench means. It means making law, not interpreting law. Which by the Constitution is the job of the legislature, not the courts. There is no law that says gay marriage must be recognized in all States. Yet it must be followed now by all States. It's a pure Constitutional coup.

Now go ahead and tell me what I think and feel again, Darlene

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

Got it, you know what I think, Darlene. When I need a hug I'll let you know, girlfriend

You already stated what you think, ya fool.

And I said that I lied? Show me that quote. And pull down your dress, your twat is showing. That you can't focus on the points but have to keep going to how I feel and what I think shows even you know your argument is weak

 

[kaz]

You said that her being gay changed how the law applied to her then failed to provide an example

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

Being black changed WHO you could marry. Being gay did not

Too retarded as usual. Of course being gay changed who you can marry -- you can now marry the person you love.

Nope, if you are straight, you still can't marry the same sex. Nice try, but it wasn't. Here's a home version of our game

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. Your statements have been proven to be lies.

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

Got it, you know what I think, Darlene. When I need a hug I'll let you know, girlfriend

You already stated what you think, ya fool.

And I said that I lied? Show me that quote. And pull down your dress, your twat is showing. That you can't focus on the points but have to keep going to how I feel and what I think shows even you know your argument is weak

Where did I say you said you lied you dumb ass piece of shit liar? The effing point is you can't state a single post without lying.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I did. Edith Windsors Same-sex Civil Marriage was not treated the same as a different-sex Civil Marriage.

A different-sex couple Civilly Married in Canada was recognized, a same-sex Civil Marriage was not. The difference being who Edith was married to.

>>>>

You didn't, you gave two different scenarios. One a man married to a woman, the other a woman married to a woman. In neither case did the orientation of the woman change how government treated them

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

In no case did the race of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.

Men can marry.

Women can marry.

In no case did the gender of the individual deny them marriage. Only when they choose as a couple to marry did the ban kick in.


***************************

You really still going with the same logical argument that Virginia tried to make in 1967?


>>>>

Being black changed WHO you could marry. Being gay did not

Too retarded as usual. Of course being gay changed who you can marry -- you can now marry the person you love.

Nope, if you are straight, you still can't marry the same sex. Nice try, but it wasn't. Here's a home version of our game

Sure you can. No one will ask about your sexual orientation. However, would you want to if you're not gay? Of course not although I did here of a case where two straight guys- much to the chagrin of gays did get married as a stunt.

So now, as we know anyone can marry someone of either gender. And both gays, like straights can marry the one who they desire. That is, after all, what marriage is about, at least in part.

 

[kaz]

Proven by the three Idiotos, Syriusly, Faun and you

I don't think it matters who proved you're a liar. I think the issue is that you need to get help regarding this misgiving.

Got it, you know what I think, Darlene. When I need a hug I'll let you know, girlfriend

You already stated what you think, ya fool.

And I said that I lied? Show me that quote. And pull down your dress, your twat is showing. That you can't focus on the points but have to keep going to how I feel and what I think shows even you know your argument is weak

Where did I say you said you lied you dumb ass piece of shit liar? The effing point is you can't state a single post without lying.

you may want to re-read this