Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

And my grandpa wouldn't ride in a motorized boat ...

During WWII, one gay man helped crack the Enigma Code of the Germans by building one of the world's first computers - his actions saved an estimated two million lives.
For his efforts he was chemically castrated.

So please, spare me your righteous indignation of the loss of what, "used to be ...".

 

Im not aware of any. Different race couples procreate just like same race couples do. Children of different race couples, benefit from both their mother and father in the home , just as much as children of same race couples. And then there is the problem that purifying the white race isn't a legitimate governmental interest.

 

I just pointed out the limitation had nothing to do with morality. A grasp upon reality isn't
righteous indignation.

 

And the reality is that same sex marriage is legal and supported by the majority of Americans. The reality is that the Supreme Court and a number of
state courts have struck down bans against same sex marriage as unconstitutional.

That is the reality of the situation.

 

but my actual refutation refuted your claim.

 

Close counts in much more than that.

I happened to watch the CA supreme court rule in favor of civil unions and ruled that the civil union solved homosexuals problems in CA.

Again, the rule in Obergefell was not 9-0, the powerful dissent of 4 Justices aligns with my views.

You won by 1 vote.

 

I would guess that the majority of Americans are Catholics.

Are you honestly claiming the Catholics approve homosexuals getting married?

Does the Catholic church have ceremony to marry homosexuals?

 

Which means exactly - nothing.

 

Pew Research polls shows that 6 in 10 American Catholics now support gay marriage.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

 

All irrelevant to my assertion.

 

I understand why you need to feel that reality is irrelevant.

 

Your statement didn't even contradict my claim let alone refute it.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant to my assertion.

 

procreation is entirely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

and at the end of the day you lost just as hard as if it had been 9-0.

- - - Updated - - -

Directly refuted it.

 

Good catch. My major mistake.

Anthony M. Kennedy

Appointed by Ronald Reagan

 

Well you can believe that Kennedy was teetering on going the other way if that makes you feel better. Neither you nor I can know what he was thinking between the hearing and the time that the opinion was written But, his written words indicate that he felt strongly in favor of granting marriage equality as does his long standing support for gay rights.

 

Best response. /end thread/ There is nothing "moral" about marriage outside of what religious and government entities throw onto it. At its very basis marriage is nothing more than a contract and it should be treated as nothing more than a contract. The only time the state should be involved is in dealing with contract disputes and enforcing agreed upon terms.

If I was forced to get married for some reason my contract would basically be:

"You get the kids, we sell everything and split the money down the middle and part ways." Nice and short.

 

What about Catholics globally?

What about blacks? Blacks approval declined.

 

As the old saying goes, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

Marriage is a man to a woman.

Anything else is a sham.

 

That is also to say loudly, that when a man wants to marry more than one willing woman, it is none of our business. If an adult family member wishes to marry a willing family member, that too is none of our business.

What upsets me most about homosexuals is how selfish they are. They are a me me me group. They claim Obergefell was based on principle. Then they refute the principle marriage in the USA as it stands today is for anybody legally able to contract who freely wants to marry.

I recall how MacKenzie had sex with her famous father for a decade and they discussed leaving America to marry and live elsewhere.

I recall the local case of a mom who put her baby boy up to be adopted, and as a an adult man, he located her.

I am not sure of the circumstances yet they felt an attraction. They had sex and his mom and he had two children.

CA put both into jail.

The claims by homosexuals it is based on principle is just a con job.

This is a different Mom but the same results

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...netic-attraction-not-incest-article-1.1100677

 

You can believe that too. It doesn't make a lick of difference to those of us who are enlightened and support LGBT rights, and understand our system of laws and justice. And neither does it matter to those folks who fought the good fight and won marriage equality. Now we just have to get rid of those stupid, hateful and hypocritical religious freedom Jim Crow atrocities

 

Another the homosexuals do not support based on principle.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/mom-and-son-admit-to-incest-go-into-hiding-to-avoid-jail/

 

Are you speaking as part of the group or a person who is not part of that group?

Well, straight up, are you part of the so called LGBT group.

And since the issue was not about bisexuals nor transgenders, why did you wrap yourself in that cloth?

 

10 years from now, people won't even give it a second thought.
And Ronald Reagan helped defeat anti-gay legislation proposed by Anita Bryant.

 

Dude, if you want to marry your sister's daughter, then get up off your arse and take it to court - stop blaming gay people for
your laziness.

 

How about that. The prohibitions against them marrying didn't stop them from engaging in sexual relations.