- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The 9th amendment reinforces my point.Tell that to the 9th amendment.
Strawman. Please reread my last 5 or so posts.Gay marriage is not a federal "right."
Strawman. Please reread my last 5 or so posts.
And it was previously two same-race people. Your argument is as sensible as saying interracial marriage bans did not deny the right of marriage to interracial couples. Clearly such bans did do so, just as same-sex marriage bans deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The question is if denying the right to certain groupos is constitutionally justified or not, not whether the right exists.Marriage is two opposite sex people.
And it was previously two same-race people. Your argument is as sensible as saying interracial marriage bans did not deny the right of marriage to interracial couples. Clearly such bans did do so, just as same-sex marriage bans deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The question is if denying the right to certain groupos is constitutionally justified or not, not whether the right exists.
Before the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, did the law deny the right of marriage to interracial couples?It is not my argument, it is the law.
I do not support state intervention into marriage.
Before the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, did the law deny the right of marriage to interracial couples?
Ok then. If the law denied the right of marriage to interracial couples even though SCOTUS had not yet ruled on interracial marriage, then the law is currently denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples even though SCOTUS has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage. The logic isn't difficult to follow.In Virginia absolutely.
Ok then. If the law denied the right of marriage to interracial couples even though SCOTUS had not yet ruled on interracial marriage, then the law is currently denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples even though SCOTUS has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage. The logic isn't difficult to follow.
Already refuted.Marriage is two opposite sex people.
Marriage is two opposite sex people.
Reposting the exact same-post I already quoted and refuted makes no sense. Nor does repeating myself. If you want to argue in circles be my guest--it is clear you do not want an actual discussion.Links to a post you made makes no sense.
It is not my argument, it is the law.
I do not support state intervention into marriage.
scatt said:Marriage is two opposite sex people.
I don't know why but I'd bet my bottom dollar now that marriage between same sex couples can and is legal... you'd probably support the state dropping in to intervene in same sex marriages to tell them that they cannot be married.
amirite?
Reposting the exact same-post I already quoted and refuted makes no sense. Nor does repeating myself. If you want to argue in circles be my guest--it is clear you do not want an actual discussion.
Do you think it should stay that way?
I've noticed that the "I don't think the government should be involved in marriage" line of reasoning and the push toward marriage equality seem to have evolved simultaneously. Smacks to me of "If it's not just ours anymore, nobody can have it!"
Everyone can have it once the state is not involved, you silly goose.
There's no reason everyone can't have it with the state involved.
The state is the reason (as you can see).
The reason for what.
There's no reason everyone can't have it with the state involved.
Marriage is two opposite sex people.
I do not support state intervention into marriage.
Not in 18 States and DC.
OK, don't get a Civil Marriage license for about $35 dollars and when you find the person you want to spend your life with - just have a religious ceremony. Then spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and estate planners to achieve only a fraction of the things that others have for that simple government recognition.
You are free not to have the state "intervene" in your marriage
I know the state intervenes, you just agreed. I do not support that.
You don't like it, then don't get married. Don't try to dictate the terms for everyone else.
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?