Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

Nope. Identical.

Gender is not part of the criteria. It's why there are thousands of same sex marriages. Lol

 

What benefit does a 88 year old male and a 89 year old female who get married offer government?

Rights aren't based on a benefit to government. They are protected by the the constitution. The 14th amendment precludes government from banning same sex couples from marriage. Sorry.

 

Nope. Completely different.

The Courts are why there are thousands. Gay marriages, Transgenders, the courts gave us all this stuff....this is why America took Trump.

 

None, but they don't require you to rewrite criteria to fit in with the Established Institution like 2 Guys who could never reproduce do.

Im sorry too, that you can be so wrong and keep insisting you aren't. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, and the 14th Amendment mistake you keep making is only relevant if the exact same thing is only offered to one and not the other.

Marriage has always been on the table for everyone, under the same rules. just because those rules don't excite you, doesn't mean it was not offered.

 

Nope, and I've demonstrated they are identical.

Yes, that is function of the courts, to apply the constitution. Bans on same sex marriage violated the constitution.

Huh? American voters chose Clinton over trump.

 

Nope, and you haven't.

The courts made a political decision, as they have been doing and Americans don't like it. So you got Trump, and his chance to fix the courts to Americas approval. Gorsuch is on, and theres a couple who dont look like they'll last through trumps terms.

If this were true she'd be in the WH. Wrong yet again Rahl, you elevate that to an artform.

 

Nothing was rewritten. Restrictions were removed. That's it.

[QUOTE Im sorry too, that you can be so wrong and keep insisting you aren't. [/QUOTE]
I am demonstrably right. Which is why you lost in court, and thousands of same sex marriages exist.

The judiciary disagrees. Sorry.

[/QUOTE]Marriage has always been on the table for everyone, under the same rules. just because those rules don't excite you, doesn't mean it was not offered.[/QUOTE]
This argument didn't work in loving v Virginia either.

 

They really didn't and this argument should go away. Not going to go off topic with back and forth, but if the rules for winning were popular vote, each candidate would have campaigned differently and voters would have either stayed home or not stayed home, depending on their state and situation. You can't predict the outcome of an election that didn't happen.

 

Rewritten, just like all the verbage on official documents where things like "Bride and Groom" or "Husband and Wife" had to be changed. A restriction makes it sound like those were always there and someone made them unavailable for a limited time lol. It was never meant to be and was rewritten to suit a group it was never aimed at for Political reasons alone.

the Judiciary is often wrong and changes it's own decisions. They aren't infallible.

No, because its a completely different topic. Racial discrimination. Also addressed were water fountains, restaurants, you name it.

 

Yep, and of course i have.

You not agreeeing with them doesn't make it political.

Wait, don't tell me you weren't aware that over 3 million more Americans preferred Clinton?

 

Edit: the weird quote made me think you were saying something else entirely, and to me instead of the other poster who made that quote. Sorry curious, you obviously didn't need this reminder.

 

Nope, and course you have not.

Except that the Constitution clearly doesn't make the case for it....the voters said no when it was on ballots....and then the court steps in?
Smells like politics from here.

Wait don't tell me you weren't aware that each state holds a "popular vote" and Trump won more of them?

 

Nothing was rewritten. Gender restrictions were removed.

It is the identical topic. The same argument you keep making is just as invalid for same sex marriage as it was for interracial marriage.

 

Yep, and of course I have.

Voters don't get a say in the matter. 14th amendment doesn't permit same sex marriage bans.

Lol, now you have trouble with 2nd grade math? You understand the person who gets MORE votes is the preferred candidate right?

 

That's a rewrite Rahl. No way around it.

Nope, totally different. Race is in inherant, birth trait that cannot be changed. Choice of sexual partners? Nope. You don't have to approve of someone elses choices, you do have to avoid treating them differently due to such immutable characteristics as genetic traits.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

Nada, you have not and cannot.

14th Amendment is irrelevant to this argument as you already know. Everyone was offered the same Institution, under the same rulesets. There is no violation. Just because you wish the rules of said institution were different, doesn't matter to the 14th. You were treated equally. And the court made a political decision.

Not in our System Rahl. It is the candidate that wins more electoral votes. Guess how we get those? The States.
I don't think it's my trouble with 2nd grade math, I think it's your trouble with reality and understanding what kind of system we run here.

It's all about the states, and points they give you. Trump won more of them...by a blowout.

 

No it isn't. It's the removal of a restriction. Nothing else changed.

Totally identical.

Lol, marrying someone of a different race is a choice.

Totally identical, which is why you lost in court.

 

Yep, and of course I can, because I have done so.

The judiciary says I s very relevant. It's why you lost.

This argument didn't work in loving v Virginia either.

I never said he didn't win the election. I was correcting you on Americans preferred candidate. It wasn't trump.

Yes. But Americans preferred candidate was Clinton.

 

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the Government can give different rights and benefits to married people and single people?

Need I remind you that a Constitution is a framework upon which the laws of a Nation are built.

 

And the supreme court case where they fabricated laws that don't exist is where.....

 

Can you show me the specific restriction you are talking about, prior to it being taken out?

If you cannot, guess what....it's a rewrite to include a group that was never meant to be there.

So show me.

Couldn't be further apart.

Deciding to get Married at all is a choice, that's not really going to cut it Rahl. You cannot refuse to let someone get Married on racial grounds...that is discrimination. It is not discrimination to tell a single Man he cannot marry himself. It is not discrimination to tell 1 man he can't have 9 wives. Neither of those conform to the Institution of Marriage.
Know what else doesn't?

2 Grooms.

Lost in court yes. But not because a provable genetic trait like race is the same thing as what you choose to do in the bedroom lol. How could you even type such nonsense.

Lost in court yes, but not identical at all.

 

You may not like the example but it is reality. Here's another. People don't become another race yet people "come out" as homosexual after living years as a heterosexual. How can you possibly pretend that's equal to race or sex?

 

Same sex marriage bans.

I did.

Proven they are the same.

refusing non gender grounds is also discrimination.

Already addressed this and showed you to be wrong.

Demonstrated it's identical.

 

Sorry Baghdad Bob, but you haven't because you can't.

They said no such thing, or they don't belong on the bench. The 14th Amendment canbe read by anyone here to verify. it's only concerned that we're all offered the same thing. it doesn't matter if that "same thing" isn't to your taste...just that you were also offered it.

Why would it? It's not the same thing.

Except to correct anyone, you have to be right...and you aren't. If Clinton was the preferred Candidate, she would have won more states. it doesn't matter that a bunch of illegals piled on the vote in CA. At the end of the day it is still only giving you 55 points.

Sorry, but if that was the case...she'd be President. Now you're just showing what little credibility you actually have. If you'll go full nonsense on this easily verified topic...why should anyone take any of your posts seriously?

 

Proven otherwise.

The judiciary says otherwise.

Exact same thing.

You have a terrible habit of arguing against a position that is demonstrably correct. It is an indisputable fact that 3 million more Americans preferred Clinton over trump.

[WUOTE]If Clinton was the preferred Candidate, she would have won more states. it doesn't matter that a bunch of illegals piled on the vote in CA. At the end of the day it is still only giving you 55 points.[/QUOTE]
Prove a single illegal voter, and they they voted for Clinton.

Why do you insist on conflating winning the election, with who Americans preferred?