Drawing a Line In the Sand

Repetition of the lie does not make it true. I defy you to show evidence that any of the couples that married in the period between the In Re: Marriage decision and the passage of Prop 8 were required to prove or attest to being homosexual.

As usual, you resort to false framing. It was the law that limited marriage to one man, one woman that was found unconstitutional. Overturning that law opened marriage up to any same-sex couple not prohibited from marrying under separate restrictions, such as close relation, incompetence or being a minor deemed incapable of providing their legal consent.

The only truth behind your posts is that the court examined the animus toward homosexuals that surrounded the passage of the law and how it affected gay couples in determining whether it had a legitimate purpose. It remains true that it was the law's foundation in animus while advancing no compelling interest that made it unconstitutional. The effect of it being rendered unconstitutional did not extend marriage only to "homosexual couples", but to same-sex couples, as the quote I posted from In Re Marriage shows:

Read it and weep, Dixon. The court said in ruling the law unconstitutional that marriage had to be extended to "same-sex couples". They did not say to "homosexual couples" nor "gay couples" nor "GLBT couples" in declaring the effect of their ruling.

SAME SEX COUPLES.

No amount of you quoting other portions of the ruling changes this.

Continue with pointless repetition and I'm just going to end up putting you back on ignore. Find something new to argue, or go right on making an ass of yourself.

Your choice.

 

Unconstitutional because it excluded homosexuals. Not unconstitutional because it excluded couples of the same sex.

 

Squawk, Squawk.

Unconstitutional because it was based in animus and advanced no compelling interest, with the effect that marriage was extended to same-sex couples (as the ruling states).

You have nothing new, and are therefore returned to ignored status.

 

Again, you are just restating what Ive said.

 

You are spot-on!

 

Do opposite sex couples in California have to prove they're heterosexual?