Is Sanity returning? AP will cease using the term "homophobe" incorrectly

nope, no such limitation existed in the law. that's why you can't find a single law or court case limiting it until the 1970s.

 

Sure I can and have done so. And then you respond by stating that the laws only apply in that state, even though just one example completely refutes your argument.

 

You have never done so. Without a time machine it's not possible. No law or court case limitted marriage until the 1970s which is why you can't post one

 

Baker v Nelson dealt with state laws from the 60s. The word "marriage" limited the institution of marriage to a man and a woman, before during and after baker v Nelson.

 

nonsense. nothing limitted it until that ruling.

 

No, the exact same statute limited marriage to a man and a woman BEFORE that ruling. Baker didnt limit marriage to a man and a woman. Minnesota's marriage statute did that.

 

really? can you show the statute saying marriage is limitted to a man and a woman? Or do you need to break out the time machine again?

 

You are like a broken record. Like I said, the word "marriage" limits marriage to a man and a woman

 

Nope. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to specifically exclude same sex couples in the 1970s as a matter of law, or pass DOMA. Better dust off that time machine

 

Minnesotas law was the same before during and after Baker v nelson. It excluded homosexual couples from marriage before, during and after the decision. The word "marriage" excluded homosexual couples

 

Nope. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to specifically exclude same sex couples in the 1970s as a matter of law, or pass DOMA. Better dust off that time machine

 

They didnt. Minnesotas marriage statute was the same before, during and after the decision. Simple use of the word marriage was all that was needed to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, BY DEFINITION

 

Aren't you the one always going on about the laws only being for GAY people? You just contradicted yourself again.

 

No contradiction because you will find court cases creating gay marriage with many references to gays. Here is from the California case. Its all about winning respect and dignity for gays and nothing to do with equality

 

You really should start keeping your arguments in line.

 

You should be able to grasp the difference between statutes and court cases. Traditional marriage has no concern about ones sexuality. This new marrige for gays is all about their sexuality.

 

Nope, it is about equal access to government protections that come with a marriage license.

 

You are correct.

 

Equal access would involve extending marriage to any two consenting adults who desire it. This is about a special exception for gays, because of past animus towards gays.
Read that in Sweden, one half of one percent of all marriages are same sex marriages. This is a tiny expansion of marriage, just to accomodate gays. Has nothing to do with equality and is instead inequality by design.

 

AGAIN. You don't have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex. You can marry your buddy Joe from the lodge. There is no line on a marriage license that asks for your orientation.

The way the court works is a case is brought before it (SSM) THAT issue is decided. Not all other possible issues that are in any way related to the central issue.
This is why when prohibition was ended every illegal substance wasn't automatically made legal.
If you want marriage for you and your brother, you will have to go to court based on INCEST laws, not gender laws.
Do you think current man/woman marriage laws are unfair since a man can't marry his sister?

 

From the California case

Marriage is still limited to sexual couples.

 

Proven incorrect. There is no requirement for sexual relations to have a valid marriage.