And what about other places? Who said that people can't be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation? Not WHO but WHAT - and that would be anti-discrimination law in numerous states. I'm confused why would ask this.
But it did because it used physical sex as part of the definition. Since the activity of sex is not a requirement of marriage, nor is love, there is no requirement for me to be sexually attracted to another man to seek a legal same sex marriage with him. So orientation has nothing to do with legal marriage. Crimes come in two basic forms: committed and attempted. The later would be unenforceable due to Lawrence vs Texas. However, because the resultant child would be evidence of the crime of deliberately risking the defects upon the child, it could be enforced that way. Keep in mind here that I am not advocating for or against a law against consanguinous breeding. Only noting that such a law would have more legal standing than laws against consanguinous marriage or sexual activity. Given that we have had legal marriages last for less than 48 hours and we also have couples that have been together as a single household for decades with no legal status, what makes you think that such a piece of paper truly indicates commitment? That's what most people mean when they talk about incest, either as sex or marriage. However it should be noted that many states in the US also have laws labeling incest as including those legally related such as through marriage or adoption, even though there is no more danger of birth defects than any other non blood related couple. No they are legal adults and can marry any other adult.
Here that is a vain attempt to twist meanings. Christians accept people yet they discern sinful behaviors. Guess you just accept anything. That's what makes you different and "special".
That is not entirely true. Their might be one husband and a "pretend wife", or a wife and a "pretend" husband. That is fine for your "pretend world".
Well no non-pregnant woman has ever been denied an abortion because no non-pregnant woman has ever needed one! And when you say "abortion when it is illegal", do you mean when it is too late in the term?
No, I specified the assumption that Roe vs Wade never occurred. My point is that a woman even when not pregnant, has a right to an abortion, but cannot exercise it because she is not pregnant. The same goes for a man. However, if the action is illegal, she is denied her right even if she has no need for it at that time. The same for a man. The lack of need to use a right does not negate that the right is denied.
Yes there is. See Article I Section VIII and the 10th Amendment. Congress can only legislate about the items enumerated in Article I Section VIII (and about anything added via amendments). All other legislative powers not relinquished by the States remain with the States. No, they have the power to regulate those things. Yes. Remember, regulate means "to make regular"...
I read his post just fine and DOMA was as unconstitutional as any other federal government legislation regarding marriage. See Article I Section VIII and Amendment X.
Where in the Constitution does it mention radio/TV transmissions? Actually use a dictionary next time.
Interesting that you completely ignored the entire first part of that post. And true, dictionaries do not define words. People do. It's why gay now means homosexual as well as festive. Dictionaries track and compile those definitions. If you believe that definition to be inaccurate provide your proof.
And yet you still don't answer the questions asked. Let's see...I believe that would Avoidance Fallacy(TM). Plus you have failed to support your assertion of the definition of "regulate". And quite honestly, given the nature and purpose of dictionaries, your False Authority Fallacy is a Fallacy Fallacy.
You have answered nothing. You have not shown how Article I Section VIII nor the 10th Amendment gives the government power to regulate transmissions but not legal marriage, nor have you supported your definition of "regulate". Cite otherwise.
Right, so then state laws must give people equal protection under the law. Why should Spencer be discriminated against on the basis of his character trait of racism but another person can't be discriminated against on the basis of their character trait of homosexuality?