Wrong. You are free to define marriage for yourself, but not for others. Not allowing a group the same ability to marry who they love, without justification (so no red herrings like pedophilia or marrying a pet).
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.
Second class citizen?
Yeah, I would be upset too if the court made me a second class citizen said my beliefs and vote do not count because it ticks off homosexuals and their supporters with their emotional and warped mantra of "equal rights." Hopefully the SCOTUS will make the right decision and let the states decide marriage for themselves and overturn DOMA under those grounds as well.
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.
Yay.... I'm shocked you know that considering progressives believe we live in a dictatorship where presidents can dictate at will.
Wrong. You are free to define marriage for yourself, but not for others. Not allowing a group the same ability to marry who they love, without justification (so no red herrings like pedophilia or marrying a pet).
Then why would you argue that it is some sort of right?
If they let individual states decide, then DOMA should stand, as most of them have already decided as has Congress (and the answer was to disallow).
Who are you to say someone cant marry a pet or even an inanimate object? - wouldn't that be you defining marriage?
Furthermore do you know what standards are? do you know what the purpose of a standards are?
Because me and you can do it, and homosexuals can't. Denying hem the same right we have, to marry he one we love, without justification is discrimination.
Why do so many like to argue stereotypes instead of the person before them?
You really don't want to answer the question.
Common knowledge seems to be uncommon these days.... 75% of adults today would fail a civics exam.
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.
I did answer it. You're mistaken in your proposition. I think I made hat clear.
Is is not a State decision since they are the ones issuing the licenses?
A pet can't consent. Neither can a table. Again, there is justification there.
Not completely, no. State laws must abide by the 14th Amendment EPC. And yes that is used a lot to justify striking down state laws because many states have laws in place or have put laws in place that violate that clause because they can't seem to understand that the 14th Amendment is a limitation to states' rights in favor of individual citizens' rights.
A gay person has the same rights as I when deciding who to marry. Would you disagree?
A gay person has the same rights as I when deciding who to marry. Would you disagree?
The States should be the only ones deciding...
I disagree. If you're a heterosexual, you can marry who you are attracted to and love, assuming they feel the same. The homosexual person can't do the same. To see the discrimination you have to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.
Again, that has nothing to do with what you said.
What is being applied in an unequal manner?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?