Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Why do those that are so against gay marriage feel they need to infringe on the rights of the individual when they are often times the ones that try to scream the loudest about individual rights?
Essentially you are saying that you support slavery and the principle of separate but equal.
Nope, that is you confusing "correct" and "agree." I do not support slavery, I do not support separate but equal, nor do I support any ban on gay marriage. Those are all statements I am making, they should all be very easy for you to understand.
Nope, that is you confusing "correct" and "agree." I do not support slavery, I do not support separate but equal, nor do I support any ban on gay marriage. Those are all statements I am making, they should all be very easy for you to understand.
You said that you agree with the Plessy vs Ferguson and Dred Scott vs. Sanford decisions.
You can't agree with them unless you support slavery or the principle of separate but equal.
Besides, you said that the cases were decided correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
If you must think that, then yes both of those cases were decided correctly because a judge ruled them to be.
You said that you agree with the Plessy vs Ferguson and Dred Scott vs. Sanford decisions.
You can't agree with them unless you support slavery or the principle of separate but equal.
Besides, you said that the cases were decided correctly.
So which is it?
I do not agree with those two rulings, though the judges ruled on them how they felt were correct, thus made them law binding rulings. You are confusing what I do and don't agree with with how a ruling was done.
I have fully stated my answer to your questions that are now off topic, if you are not happy with it, you are welcome to message me, but I am going to move back to the topic and no longer continue this off topic conversation you are trying to have.
I do not agree with those two rulings, though the judges ruled on them how they felt were correct, thus made them law binding rulings. You are confusing what I do and don't agree with with how a ruling was done.
You cannot feel that they were decided correctly without agreeing that slavery and the principle of separate but equal are valid.
Did you also think that Bowers vs. Hardwick was decided correctly?
After all, it was a "law binding" ruling from the Supreme Court.
The Golden Rule was created by Jesus Christ - and liberals hate the people who accept Him as their Lord and Savior.
Many liberals are Christians. I know liberal ministers, pastors and priests.
People who do not accept Christ include Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Ba'hais, Zoroastrians, Shintoist, Wiccans, Atheists, etc. ... and they make up 70% of the world's population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.