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.
Why would we want to do that? The licensing requirements were found to be unconstitutional, just like the ones that said that people could get married as long as they married their own race. By trying to claim that everyone was treated equally under laws that denied SSM you are making the exact same argument that they tried in Loving v Virginia. One was based on which races could marry which race, the other which sex could marry which sex.
If you want to be that person go ahead, but it's not a good look.
This again. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. The Supreme Court shouldn't be using the 14th Amendment, and logical fallacy, as a basis to rewrite the marriage laws, the legislator should retain that power. I don't care how that viewpoint looks to you.
Are people being willfully obtuse? It’s not that hard a concept. If Bill and Sue can marry each other, but Joe and Jim cannot then that’s discrimination based on sex. Simple and clear.
Not sure if folks are being willfully obtuse?
I think it's likely some are attempting the same or similar legal argument as in Loving v. Virginia.
To clarify: the legal issue or question before the SCOTUS was: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The lame legal argument in the Lovings' case was to claim it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both Mr. Loving (white) & Mrs. Loving (non-white) were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation.
To use your example: the lame legal argument is to claim it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both Joe & Jim are being punished equally by not allowing them to marry someone of the same sex.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 10-07-2020 at 06:00 PM..
Conspicuously absent from that list are Wickard v Filburn and Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe, but at least they didn't forget - or intentionally omit - Korematsu and Kelo.
Also, the Bush V Gore ruling was nowhere near the worst. In fact, it was one of the best rulings. Why? Because the Florida Supreme Court could not give a valid reason to the U.S. Supreme Court why the endless hand recounts were going on. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly put a stop to it.
Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term that does not include abortion.
And yes, we have already dealt with separate but equal. It never was equal.
Live and let live by forcefully desecrating the definition of a religious institution? I don't think so.
Gays should be able to become legally bound with the same rights and privileges as married couples (within certain limits having to do with child welfare). No serious person contests that.
In order to get along with a large part of this nation, because you know that compromise is what adults do when they want to get along, the move was to call it something other than "marriage" in the legal documents.
They can even call it marriage at home, or whatever they wish of course.
The Left specifically fought against that.
To demand the "privilege" of being wed under the same mechanism and legal definition as married people, which isn't necessary to realize the same legal effect
Yes, it is, as has been partially pointed out in this thread.
Quote:
is a purposeful and spiteful slap in the face to this nation's religious communities.
No, it isn't. The Obergefell decision didn't force churches to change and order them to perform same sex weddings.
Quote:
Which is unfortuante because it means that this large religious community isn't likely going to be as politically flexible this time around. You have to give respect to get it.
Not going to end up mattering.
Quote:
Last, gays and their marriage supporters in 2020 tend to disrepsectfully speak to conservatives in this nation in the false context of gay marriage resting on something stronger than a supreme court decision. Which is not smart in terms of the long game.
Nah. As one person put it in this thread, it's a genie that won't be put back in the bottle.
Quote:
Neither was tranny story hour and childhood hormone blockers, which are now all wrapped up into the same box as gay marriage in the mind of the Nation.
In your opinion. That doesn't make it a fact.
Quote:
You should have taken your win and held fast instead of declaring the next hill almost on the very next day.
All that gays did by doing that is bring their last legal triumph along for the ride should this go the other way for them, in that gay marriage plainly looks like a legal step for things that this nation will never stomach.
So now you know where to put your "live and let live". The irrelgious Left wanted to be defined in religious terminology in order to attack the boundaries of religious life, and wanted childhood hormone blockers and tranny exposure. The rest of the Nation, in the coming couple of decades and in response, as well will tell you where to put your phrase in case you are still confused.
Not sharing your religious views doesn't make someone 'on the left'.
I'm a real American and know what the 14th amendment equal protection clause actually originally meant. It was speaking to criminal laws and the freed black citizens. I don't need you or any liberals to redefine its original meaning.
Meaning what exactly ?
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.
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.
?