Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

Lol, marriages are made up of individuals. The issue is one INDIVIDUAL can't marry another INDIVIDUAL of the same sex. The 14th amendment precludes this, which is why your argument keeps losing in court.

 

Strawman. The issue is gender, not orientation

 

Not according to every court that has created a right to "gay marriage" because current laws were held to be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

Marriage is a right.

14th amendment equal protection clause precludes gender discrimination. States do not have the right to violate the US constitution.
If a state wants to recognize same sex marriage through an amendment or legislation, good for them. If the

Nope. The states can not pass any law in violation of the US constitution. That's why interracial marriage laws were struck down, why anti sodomy laws were struck down. Why gun bans were struck down, etc. that is the purpose of the judiciary.

 

"Gays" weren't restricted until the 1970s

- - - Updated - - -

Nope.....

 

No, gays didnt start whining about marriage until the 70s. Baker V Nelson ruled that the use of the term "marriage" restricted gays from marrying each other, just as it always had since the nations first marriage laws were drafted.

 

Nothing prohibited same sex marriage until that ruling. Sorry

 

More emotion-based nonsense.

All "individuals" are held to the SAME RULES, which is why the ridiculous LGBT Attack Squad attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment, always fails LEGAL TESTS.

Fascist judges are now being taken to task for their attempts to create "imaginary protections" based on sexual behavior, which is NON-EXISTENT, in the actual Constitution.

 

Of course it is not. The Court said that IF a marriage is legal in a state, the feds must recognize it. YOU said that this decision gave the States a blank check to override the US Constitution in their definition of a marriage - that is, a blank check. This court decision did not address the constitutional limits on prohibiting marriage. That wasn't the issue being contested. Again, READ the decision.

 

True enough. The current controversy is over the limits on these restriction. There are two sorts of limits - constitutional limits, and "legal test" limits. In general, the judiciary doesn't look kindly on laws that injure a class of people without any discernable social benefit to doing so. For example, there's probably no constitutional prohibition against a state law saying left-handed people aren't allowed to drive cars. But such a law probably wouldn't last anyway, because it flunks the principle that society needs some compelling societal reason for making life hard on certain people. If they don't deserve it and nobody benefits, it won't last long.

 

That is a false statement. Gun laws have been changed by Federal decree. You can not buy machine guns, tanks and other weaponry without federal approval. Federal decree overruled laws about interracial marriages.

Licensing have been done by states following Federal guidelines.

 

An interesting set of claims. Seems like every case being brought is decided in favor of civil rights. It's the current laws that fail the legal tests. And of course, none of these judges are being "taken to task", nor are they fascist, nor is the constitution imaginary, nor is sexual orientation non-existent.

The sheer density of untruths in two sentences challenges for the record even from grokkie.

 

As has been long recognized, when one is reduced to blatant falsehoods to defend a position, (1) that position has no merit; and (2) those lying to protect it are incapable of changing their mind because for them, the facts don't matter.

This situation is a bit more complex, as you say. The US Constitution does not define marriage, it defends equality for everyone under the law. But how equal is equal enough? In this sense, the constitution provides lines in the sand, beyond which state regulation may not tread. There are many different state regulations regarding marriate - age of consent, degree of consanguinity, price of licence, length of waiting periods, etc. The US Constitution doesn't regulate these. Whether the US Constitution requires that people married according to the regulation of their state become magically unmarried if they cross a state line, is now being considered. The principle has always been that you can't be punished in one state for doing something legal in another.

So there are limits that state laws must stay within. It's dishonest to pretend these limits (and the US Constitution) don't exist.

 

It seems that there are NO "CIVIL RIGHTS", based on sexual behavior, nor are there any laws that only apply to gays.

ONce again...leave the EMOTION-BASED FALLACIES behind, and you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

"It has long been recognized":, by HONEST PEOPLE, that there are no Consitutional protecti0ns based on SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, and it is nowhere near the same thing as RACE...the contiued attempts of the LGBT cabal to illogically pretend otherwise, notwtihstanding.

 

But you can not infringe on an individual's right to marry except for close relatives and that is more about gene defects than marriage.

BTW, what is the horror about polygamy? I think that it is a stupid thing to do but, if consenting adults agree to it, where is the problem? I believe that it complicates a marriage but it, too, would not harm the institution of marriage.

Of course, it would also have to include the right of a woman to marry many men.

Rightists can still argue about child marriages (although they seem to like 15 year ago marriages) and bestiality.

Now here comes the rants about the horrors of polygamy and its terrible affects on other marriages.

 

Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage don't apply only to gays? Can you EVER tell the truth about anything?

If you should ever take this advice, you might actually tell the truth by accident someday.

- - - Updated - - -

Constitutional protections apply to people. You know, the citizens who live under that constitution. The guarantee is equal protection under the law for everyone. Not "except you and you, you don't get equal protection." READ the constitution sometime. HONEST PEOPLE tend to notice that it applies to everyone, even those you fear.

 

Lol, in case you missed it, court after court has struck down bans on same sex marriage on equal protection grounds.

Strawman. Nobody is talking about behavior. The issue is gender discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman

And RAWR random caps lock

 

Law prohibiting same sex marriage apply to EVERYONE, not just gays, as I have correctly stated, numerous times.

Try LOGIC., instead of EMOTION...just for a change.

 

It used to be blacks that were the whipping boy/girl in this country because they insisted in trying to be equal to whites,now its the homosexuals turn. Not only do they want "equal rights" they want indoctrination of kids,they don't want us allowed to tell our kids the correct way things are to be and are. My oldest came out of her room just the other night and said dad I am not gay because I don't dress in fancy clothes...perfect chance to explain to her unless you like other girls sexually or if you are a guy and want to screw another guy in the butt you aren't gay. Somehow I had missed a show I thought I had blocked from her TV and had to fix it...I love seeing these tyrants in robes throw their weight around and show the MILLIONS of people in Utah,California and Oklahoma so far that their votes mean nothing. Now if the homosexuals had won the voting battle and homo marriage was allowed there would have been no lawsuits but since another cry baby minority didn't get their way its an automatic lawsuit and more rights of the people destroyed. The sooner people wake up and realize voting is a joke and if it truly actually did anything worth a crap it would be banned. The US is like a rotten tree that is leaning just waiting to fall,allowing (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ry a place on the mantle as normal is just another step in pushing that tree over. Personally the sooner the better.

 

This argument didn't work for interracial marriage either grok. RAWR random caps lock

 

Now you're additing stupidity to dishonesty. If there were a law that all men under 6 feet tall should be put to death, this law would apply to EVERYONE, since it doesn't specify individuals. Now, shorter men might complain, but the LAW applies to everyone, so they're wrong. Aren't they?

Try thinking instead of kneejerk lying. If you should ever learn what that means, of course.

 

How come you can infringe the individual rights of closely related couples? Because you say so? And two closely related people of the same sex cant produce genetic defects. And what do you mean its not about marriage? They are denied the right to marriage.

 

Speaking of "Stupidity". See how you have to MAKE UP ridiculous nonsense, to try to justify the EMOTION-BASED illogical of your fallacies?

Pease explain how a person's PHYSICAL STATURE = " BEHAVIOR".

Duh....

As I said, the rules of marriage APPLY TO EVERYONE SEEKING TO WED, EQUALLY, regardless of your preferred sexual behavior.

Keep making up silly crap; it's funny.

 

Correct. The law applies equally to two heterosexuals of the same sex.

 

Same argument,net didn't work against interracial marriage either. RAWR random caps lock