You have the same protection as I have and can marry just like I did. How is the right to marry equal protection for anyone?
You have the same protection as I have and can marry just like I did. How is the right to marry equal protection for anyone?
This isn't about sexual orientation, but gender. Why should a women not be allowed to enter the contract of marriage with another women, and the state must show a state interest in denying them that contract based on their gender.
Because it is the law, change the law as we are a nation of laws where the majority rules. you can enter into a civil union and thus a contract but why is it so important for you to call it a marriage? You have the same equal protection as I have for and from the laws of the land.
You were able to marry the person you wanted to marry, while Young Star was not. Under your logic, if neither whites can marry blacks, nor blacks can marry whites, then it doesn't violate equal protection. Do you agree that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry?
Young star can marry any person of the opposite sex she/he wants or would have him/her. That is the law. you don't like the law, change it. Good luck with that. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman per the law.
Because it is the law, change the law as we are a nation of laws where the majority rules. you can enter into a civil union and thus a contract but why is it so important for you to call it a marriage? You have the same equal protection as I have for and from the laws of the land.
The people had their will overturned by activist judges. My state doesn't and never will recognize same sex marriage. That is the will of the people.
A civil union doesn't hold the same legal standing as a marriage. And your right, marriage between a man and a women is the law right now, and I'm saying that is in violation of the 14th Amendment. Provide me one reason why the state should restrict same sex marriage, based on gender?
Several decades ago, marriage was the union between a white man and a white woman per law, or a black man and a black woman per law, and this was overturned by activist judges. Do you want your state to revert back to the traditional form of American marriage?
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking and not finding WMD; they had to leave because Bush was about to invade even there was no reason to invade.I wasn't the only one wrong about WMD but there were 22 reasons that were approved by the Democrat controlled Senate and WMD was only one of them. The world got it wrong but Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program and it was ready to be reconstituted. Saddam Hussein was a continuing and growing threat and Bush addressed it, like it or not.
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking and not finding WMD; they had to leave because Bush was about to invade even there was no reason to invade.
You want to discuss gay marriage start a thread. I am done with that topic on this thread.
Good, that is the way it should be and that is why marriage was established. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage and it is because of people like you that a Constitutional Amendment has to be considered. Better leave well enough alone and live with that civil union. why should a state restrict same sex marriage? Because that is the will of the people.
People like me? Reasonable people who just want to have the same protections for the person I love, and our children like every other couple who wishes to choose to enter the contract of marriage. Yeah, seems like a reasonable thing to deny me that.
And the will of the people is not enough, nor will it ever be enough in America, if it was, and you agree that the will of the people should define such things, then you must be against Brown v Board. Damn those activist judges forcing white people to accept black people! Seriously, you say you are a constitutionalist, but have you even read the document?
Tradition and Presidence, sorry
My state doesn't and never will recognize same sex marriage. That is the will of the people.
Moderator's Warning: |
So if I am currently worried about international terrorist and state sponsored terrorism, according to your logic, I should vote for a Democrat in the next presidential election since history shows they are the ones most likely to wage war and keep us safe?
I figured as much. Neither would hold up to denying someone equal protection based on their gender.
That's what Texas said about slavery and the civil rights movement. And they were wrong. Gay marriage is next. Do you want to secede over it this time? Didn't work out to well for you guys before. Liberalism is a natural product of political evolution, deal with it.
Since marriage isn't defined in the Constitution your argument is moot. You could use equal protection as a defense in just about anything but if it doesn't relate to a civil right you aren't going to win. Only activist judges overturn the will of the people and it is going to take a Constitutional Amendment to stop this bull****. Better be careful what you wish for.
Well you're getting part of it, they the one's most likely to get us into another war.
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?