Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

Nope, every one of them insist upon justification for excluding homosexuals. Justification for an actual intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Demanding justification for that which has no justification.

 

An argument I have not made. Argument I have made is that two heterosexual men are excluded for the same reason two homosexual men would be excluded. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is their relative genders, REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation.

 

Your so called calls are baseless and meaningless, void of even a shred of substance. No embarrassment at all.

 

Even with the assumption that you are correct (which I don't for a minute think you are) then banning SSM would be unconstitutional based on the fact that children cannot be punished in an effort to control the conduct of adults, this has been already decided in at least three Supreme Court decisions that are parallel to what banning SSM would do.

Levy vs Louisiana - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/68/case.html
Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/164/case.html
Plyler v. Doe - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

and was touched upon in Justice Anthony Kennedy's Windsor opinion, as follows;

The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. ... DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199. And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child) online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

 

Lies are the last bastion of a scoundrel.

 

Actually the courts keep asking for a reason to ban same sex couples.

- - - Updated - - -

Except,they are proven lies.

 

Of course, dixon....because of all the times that two heterosexual men wanted to marry each other. Has nothing to do with the law discriminating on sexual orientation.



BTW, notice? He proved my point, if in reverse. He claims the ban isn't discrimination against gay men....since it "also" bans two straight men from marrying each other.

Again, I'd LOVE it if the lawyers defending state marriage bans would use dixon's line of argument.....I think even some conservative Republican judges would laugh them out of the court-room.

Even better....given his expertise....why doesn't dixon volunteer to work pro bono for those defending lawyers????

 

Constitutional law doesnt vary based upon how how much something is "wanted"

 

Your argument isn't based on constitutional law though. It's why you keep losing in court.

 

It is based upon constitutional law. And the courts dont disagree with my constitutional law, they disagree with my factual determination.

 

Dixon....again. Why don't you volunteer your legal services to the next appeal or overturning of a state gay marriage ban?

Or is it that your "facts" wouldn't impress even the United States Supreme Court???

 

It isn't. That's why you keep losing and bans keep getting ruled UNconstitutional.

You aren't using a constitutional argument. And you aren't making factual determinations. You are making easily disproven assertions.

It's why you keep,losing.

 

BTW, has anybody notice how despite his claim of "debunking the inter-racial marriage argument"....

AmazingSam hasn't returned to this thread since....his "debunking"...was debunked?