Gays can already get married in all 50 states and everywhere abroad.

Thats because being black, has no relation to ones ability to serve on a jury and being chinese has no relation to ones ability to do laundry. The distinctions have no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental interest and is instead nothing more insidious discrimination against blacks and chinese

Thats because being black, has no relation to ones ability and need for attending school. The distinction has no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental interest and is instead nothing more insidious discrimination against blacks

No, unlike the distinctions of being black or chinese which have no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental interest and are instead nothing more than insidious discrimination against blacks or chinese, gender has a very real relation to the governmental interest in encouraging mothers and fathers to join together to provide and care for their children. Only men and women can create their own children.

 

Then please explain to the class why marriage is still available to friends of the opposite sex, sterile couples, elderly couples, couples who do not want children.

If your answer is simply that they belong to a certain group of people and thus are entitled to benefits then your entire argument is based around discrimination.

 

actually, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional.

 

"equal protection under the law"

now, would you like to address the post you quoted now?

 

No mentioning of the words "race, gender, or religion."

 

this argument failed in the very case I cited, which you ignored.

 

???He is no more telling you what to do when he advocates for marriage remaining as it has since the dawn of civilization, limited to men and women, than you are telling him what to do by advocating that marrige must be changed to include gays.

 

It is part of advancing an agenda and keeping the image of an oppressed people.

I live in Vancouver with the highest population of gays and lesbians per capita in North America. I have many gay friends and even they are tired of hearing the mantra.

 

You cited Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the court ruled that the equal protection clause can be applied to maintain "freedom of choice to marry." This means a right to marry whoever you want, not for that marriage to be legally recognized.

 

"equal protection under the law"

I have over 100 years of court precident backing me.


would you actually like to address my post now?

 

except of course that same sex marriage has existed for thousands of years, and has only been prohibited in the US since the 1970's. As you well know.

 

nonsense. they ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, which can't be denied based on race. Because of that ruling, declaring it a "basic civil right" they've enabled same sex couples wishing to marry, solid legal ground to challenge the current legal definition of marriage. And they're winning.

 

That doesn't even resemble an argument.

 

Agreed. Supreme court in Skinner v Oklahoma stated-

And then in Loving v Virginia, Also regarding marriage between a man and a woman, they quoted Skinner, shortening and paraphrasing-

And the gays and their promoters try to argue that this includes gays. Which of course is absurd since human civilizations "existance and survival" has done just fine for thousands of years without gay marriage. Gay marriage isnt even relevant to "existance and survival" of the human race, let alone "fundamental".

 

I think DOMA is unconstitutional, although on 10th Amendment grounds, not equal protection. Maybe the full faith and credit part too. However except in regards to bankruptcies, DOMA still is the law of the land. The Boston court decision only covers that Federal court district.

 

I agree. I also think it is unconstitutional since it improperly nullifies the full faith and credit clause. The equal protection clause argument is a bit farfetched because it incorporates language within the 15th amendment into the 14th amendment.

 

Oooooh lets see ANY evidence of same sex marriage's existance in the US prior to the 1970s. You can go all the way back to our beginning in 1776.

And in your case, thats a rhetorical question. Not asked expecting an answer but instead asked to demonstrate that you have none.

 

not sure what you think this does for your argument? marriage and procreation are two seperate rights not dependant upon each other.

Civil rights can't be denied based on race, religion, or GENDER.

and that is why you're losing in federal court.

 

it's still the law of the land, because the judicial process has not been exhausted yet. And, the obama administration has stated they have no intention of defending DOMA in court. It's not going to be the law of the land for long.

 

DOMA has no effect upon states ability to define marriage any way they please. It only defines who is eligible for FEDERAL tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Nothing more.

 

doesn't matter. no law or case precident existed banning same sex marriage before the 1970's. this upsets you, but stomping your feet doesn't change reality.

same sex marriage has only been banned for about 40 years in the US.

 

That is the reason why there is the argument that it improperly nullifies the full faith and credit clause.

 

The 10th amendment is as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government cannot infringe upon the reserved power of marriage requirements for any reason.

 

The courts have addressed your silly logic repeatedly. And it fails everywhere except for 4 states.

And the Supreme Court of the US agreed the only time it has ever been considered by the supreme court.