So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

No. excluding homosexuals from marriage is what requires a compelling interest.

 

That's what I said Einstein.

 

It is the foundation of their argument, without which they have no argument

 

Nothing in marriage laws were EVER limited to straight people. Sexual orientation was irrelevant.

 

Used to be they were offered to improve the wellbeing of mothers and children. Now the only purpose remaining is so homosexuals can feel better about their homosexuality. Or giving sexual couples a stable home to have sex in. Certainly doesn't seem to be a "compelling" interest that would justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried.

 

Then do away with marriage benefits. But to restrict it based on GENDER is discrimination absent of compelling interest

- - - Updated - - -

Do I really need to keep repeating GENDER discrimination? Really?

 

OR, extend marriage to any two consenting adults who desire to be married, instead of this silliness of "gay marriage" based upon sexual orientation.

 

Fine with me. I could care less if a brother and sister marry.

 

Actually this is what you said.........

And I corrected you. The compelling interest is required for the exclusion. Not the inclusion.

Which is why you lost.

 

It's not part of the argument at all. You keep lying that it is despite being called on in dozens of times. Why?

 

Misleading. Which one of the five is this imaginary "majority of one"?

The Supreme Court doesn't decide "right or wrong". They interpret the law and determine whether it applies to the situation brought before them.

 

Human society is extremely fragile.
The line that separates us from anarchy and barbarism is two missed meals.

Things like LGBTQ+ erode this thin precious line. Once we say one thing is OK, then the dominoes start falling one by one, faster and faster.

Remember 2014 guys? Yeah, in 2014, before "Caitlyn" Jenner was a thing, we didn't even have to worry about "pan-sexual" or "gender fluid". Men went to men's bathrooms, our kids weren't being told there's no such thing as boys and girls, pronouns were still "he" and "she".

Now look where we are today and how the dialogue has changed.
That's just 2 years people, 2 years.

Imagine where we will be in 10, 20, 50.

 

That is your opinion. Many people feel society is getting better

 

Most people are sheep who feel whatever they're told to feel.
Those who still keep to their own beliefs are the ones who find men walking into girl bathrooms kinda not OK.

 

America is not run by Americans, it's run by the Vatican.

 

And those who believe in freedom and liberty fight for those that are discriminated against

 

Searching on the Kennedy Quote I posted

About 6,300 results (0.56 seconds)

Its the foundation of all the gay marriage cases since the Court decided Windsor V case. The foundation in different terms going as far back as In Re Marriage in California.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean if they are gay. The others, you don't seem to even be concerned.

 

They are not supposed to decide right or wrong, but that is exactly the role they have taken. To quote Thurgood Marshall, “you do what you think is right and let the law catch up”

 

Your claim is without evidence. I participate on several different subjects on this forum ....all in the name of defense of liberty and freedom.

 

Not part of any argument. It's dicta outlining the history of the discrimination against homosexuals. The ruling in same sex marriage cases revolved around gender discrimination and the 14th amendment.

So now that you've been corrected for about the 50th time can you please stop lying about it now?
["

 

Yes, indeed, the discrimination of grown men "identifying as female" who like to casually walk into girl's bathrooms is a real issue in this country. Clearly one of our top priorities.
Don't worry though, Obama is on it. Pretty soon all bathrooms in American schools will be unisex!

 

You would have to read the case to know any differently

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Lets se YOUR evidence that the case was instead decided on the basis of gender discrimination.

 

I've read it. Quoting the dicta in no way helps you.

So, having been corrected again can you please stop lying about it?

 

Correcting me would involve you pointing to where in the decision they speak of this "gender discrimination" you allege. Because the one I read says

"The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry"

and says NOTHING of this "gender discrimination".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

Corecting you on the ruling vs the dicta. But you knew that.