You conveniently ignored my post where I proved you wrong, let me repost it:
1. All of those laws are unconstitutional.
2. The right to be unconstitutional is NOT reserved for the states and the people which is why the 14th amendment was added to ensure equal protection under the law.
2. States and citizens have the right to create rights and laws that are constitutional - 14th amendment adds equal protection.
Defining marriage between a man and a woman is inherently unconstitutional because it goes against the 14th amendment. The Constitution does not specify any moral or ethical guides for defining marriage; therefore, it's definition must, by the 14th amendment and by the absence references to marriage, not exclude any citizens.
It's not hard to understand that not everyone see it as a violation, clearly, or the SCOTUS would have struck down SSM prohibitions.
You conveniently ignore states rights.
No they haven't. Has it been proven that homosexuality is anything other than a choice?
States are not allowed to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. That's why every state had to abolish slavery, every state had to integrate schools and every state had to give black people and women the right to vote.
Why should choice matter?
If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been challenged and overturned anywhere by now?
Why shouldn't it?
These things take time, it took Jim Crow laws nearly a century before they were eradicated.
Because religion is a choice, and you can't deny someone rights based on the choice of religion.
Why do they take time? Stop bitchin and giterdun.
If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been challenged and overturned anywhere by now?
Right, and that's specifically protected in the Constitution.
Why do they take time? Stop bitchin and giterdun.
Nonetheless, time is not a defense against whether or not something is constitutional. The only reason you're attacking time is because you can't argue with constitutionality since it's already been proven.
It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize this just like it didn't matter how long it took us to realize that excluding blacks from voting was unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize or act on that something that is unconstitutional; if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.
Admit that you're wrong mac. It's unconstitutional 100%. Stop attacking choice and time. Stop distracting everyone. Admit it.
But you would take it out, since it's a choice right?
Stop distracting everyone.
The only thing that has been proven is that you think equal protection applies to SSM, I don't think it does and obviously enough other don't either....which is why so many laws exist banning SSM.
Actually it wasn't unconstitutional until an amendment made it so.
Right, and it having taken a while to realize it doesn't necessarily mean you're right.
From what? Saving homosexuals?
No, from the fact that you won't directly address our arguments.
I've directly addressed every one. Every single one. Usually repeatedly and frequently.
The 14th amendment = equal protection. The Constitution has no opinion on marriage. A law that excludes people in its definition is unconstitutional.
Explain how this is not a fact and simply a matter of 'what I think'.
You know what I meant. Although Title IX and many laws against discriminating against the handicapped were passed after the 14th amendment, so you're wrong again (well not wrong, but my point is proven).
I never said that taking long makes something unconstitutional; I said that things can be unconstitutional regardless of how long it takes.
No, I think things we have no control over (race, sex, ethnicity) are protected as rights, things we do have choices over need specific protections. Things such as Religion, Sexual preference...etc.
The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under law, so it doesn't matter if sexual preference is mentioned in the Constitution, and even if it is a choice(and I know I didn't chose *****, ***** chose me) it doesn't matter. Equal protection is guaranteed to everyone who is a citizen of the US.
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?