Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

 

[Syriusly]

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

To prove I lied, Syriusly, you have to know what I am thinking.

I have proved that you lie repeatedly. I don't have to know what you are thinking when you knowingly post a falsehood.

How do I know you knowingly post falsehoods? Because we point out that they are false and you just make the same lie again.

 

[Faun]

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

You're as stupid as ever. First of all, even if you're straight, you can marry someone of the same gender, though I can't imagine why anyone would. But even more relevant, it changed for gays, who can now marry the person they love; so of course it changed for people.

 

[kaz]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

 

[kaz]

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

You're as stupid as ever. First of all, even if you're straight, you can marry someone of the same gender, though I can't imagine why anyone would. But even more relevant, it changed for gays, who can now marry the person they love; so of course it changed for people.

Back to the kindergarten for you, ay? Though one could ask if you ever actually left...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

 

[kaz]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Same equine excrement-different day. I told you that I am not taking a position on anything else besides the equality between gay and straight couples with respect to marriage under the current laws as to what is permissible. Apparently you do not have the ability to comprehend that simple fact.

 

[kaz]

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Same equine excrement-different day. I told you that I am not taking a position on anything else besides the equality between gay and straight couples with respect to marriage under the current laws as to what is permissible. Apparently you do not have the ability to comprehend that simple fact.

So you don't support our ability to make our own choices in marriage, only the ones you approve of. You're no different than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line. So stop saying you support marriage equality, you just want you to pick

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

.


Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Same equine excrement-different day. I told you that I am not taking a position on anything else besides the equality between gay and straight couples with respect to marriage under the current laws as to what is permissible. Apparently you do not have the ability to comprehend that simple fact.

So you don't support our ability to make our own choices in marriage, only the ones you approve of. You're no different than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line. So stop saying you support marriage equality, you just want you to pick

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.y

Yeah- the court rejected your theory.

Because they understand the Constitution and you don't.

 

[Syriusly]

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

.


Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Same equine excrement-different day. I told you that I am not taking a position on anything else besides the equality between gay and straight couples with respect to marriage under the current laws as to what is permissible. Apparently you do not have the ability to comprehend that simple fact.

So you don't support our ability to make our own choices in marriage, only the ones you approve of. You're no different than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line. So stop saying you support marriage equality, you just want you to pick

And you don't support gay couples being treated equally to you and your wife.

You are fine with gay couples being forced to pay for your marriage bennies- but you want to deny them to gay couples.

You have yours- and you want gay couples to be forced to pay for yours.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Again from Obergefell:

The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

That's what this is about. That is all that it's about. Polygamy is another issue altogether. All that you are doing is diverting attention away from the fact that neither you or anyone else has an intelligent and cogent argument against same sex marriage. If you want to marry two other people, or your mother, your dog, your gun or the fucking bible, go the fuck to court and try to win that right, on its own merits, the same way that gays have. Good luck

 

[Faun]

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

You're as stupid as ever. First of all, even if you're straight, you can marry someone of the same gender, though I can't imagine why anyone would. But even more relevant, it changed for gays, who can now marry the person they love; so of course it changed for people.

Back to the kindergarten for you, ay? Though one could ask if you ever actually left...

Above is what kaz looks like when he runs away as fast as his walker will allow after his idiotic post gets destroyed.

 

[kaz]

Great argument to make to the legislature, irrelevant to courts following the law

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Again from Obergefell:

The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

That's what this is about. That is all that it's about. Polygamy is another issue altogether. All that you are doing is diverting attention away from the fact that neither you or anyone else has an intelligent and cogent argument against same sex marriage. If you want to marry two other people, or your mother, your dog, your gun or the fucking bible, go the fuck to court and try to win that right, on its own merits, the same way that gays have. Good luck

Dude, you already proved you are full of shit. Your argument was that people should be able to marry who they want. So when I asked if you meant that, you said no, only gay people. You don't get to go back and forth, you mean it or you don't, and you don't. Discussion over. You're a hypocrite

 

[kaz]

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

You're as stupid as ever. First of all, even if you're straight, you can marry someone of the same gender, though I can't imagine why anyone would. But even more relevant, it changed for gays, who can now marry the person they love; so of course it changed for people.

Back to the kindergarten for you, ay? Though one could ask if you ever actually left...

Above is what kaz looks like when he runs away as fast as his walker will allow after his idiotic post gets destroyed.

LOL, you think going to kindergarten insults is destroying anyone's arguments.

I'd say you probably actually believe that except you turned around and made a desperate plea for people to believe you, so obviously you don't

 

[NYcarbineer]

 

[Faun]

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

You're as stupid as ever. First of all, even if you're straight, you can marry someone of the same gender, though I can't imagine why anyone would. But even more relevant, it changed for gays, who can now marry the person they love; so of course it changed for people.

Back to the kindergarten for you, ay? Though one could ask if you ever actually left...

Above is what kaz looks like when he runs away as fast as his walker will allow after his idiotic post gets destroyed.

LOL, you think going to kindergarten insults is destroying anyone's arguments.

I'd say you probably actually believe that except you turned around and made a desperate plea for people to believe you, so obviously you don't

No, I think pointing out how gay marriage has changed who gays can marry utterly destroys your idiocy that gay marriage didn't change who you can marry for anyone.

Keep on kazzin'.

 

[Syriusly]

And...your legal theory behind that assertion is what, exactly? From Obergefell.....OBERGEFELL v. HODGES US Law LII Legal Information Institute

.


Have you even bothered to read the opinion or have you just brushed it aside as though you know more about the constitution that Kennedy?

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally. All citizens can enter a man/woman marriage. No citizen can enter a single sex marriage. The job of the courts is done.

Note that is fundamentally different than being black, which did change who you could marry

You said

The theory behind it is the Constitution which is clear, you must apply the law to all citizens equally.

which proves our point. And equality includes the equal ability to make a personal choice in marriage. For gay people that means the ability to chose someone of the same sex as was made clear in the majority opinion from Obergefell which I posted above. I asked you what your legal theory is for claiming that doing so was not the proper role of the court and you have nothing because apparently you don't even understand what a legal theory is. All that you can do is to reiterate your same inane assertions and ridicule people when your challenged on your bovine excrement. The hallmark of desperation

So you support polygamy, that you can marry yourself or you can get married to a book or you can be married to no one?

Again from Obergefell:

The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

That's what this is about. That is all that it's about. Polygamy is another issue altogether. All that you are doing is diverting attention away from the fact that neither you or anyone else has an intelligent and cogent argument against same sex marriage. If you want to marry two other people, or your mother, your dog, your gun or the fucking bible, go the fuck to court and try to win that right, on its own merits, the same way that gays have. Good luck

Dude, you already proved you are full of shit. Your argument was that people should be able to marry who they want. So when I asked if you meant that, you said no, only gay people. You don't get to go back and forth, you mean it or you don't, and you don't. Discussion over. You're a hypocrite

Stop being such a Kaz.