Gay marriage in all 50 states!!

The topic is irrelevant, but I will answer it.
Yes, I am upset by Jewish fascism, points of which were stated by F. M. Dostoevsky.

 

I don't know if you recognize this or not, but neo-nazism is fascism. Jews aren't the fascist ones here.

 

Why is this the only amendment that is anachronistic? The second amendment doesn't apply only to guns that existed in the 18th century.

Why does the language of the 14th apply anachronistically?

 

Except that's not how it works. Otherwise, we wouldn't have free speech rights on the internet, the right to own, much less travel in, a truck, nor, as another poster has pointed out, the right to own an M-4. Your knowledge on Constitual law is severely lacking.

 

Not sure as well, what you are trying to prove here ans what proves my lacking of knowledge of constitution. We are talking about "gay marriage".
I already noticed how free speech is protected, especially looking at my removed statements, as well as existence of definition of "hate speech"-I can't hate things and I can't express that.
Pro-gay opponent can speak, act nasty and repeat himself, while when I fight back - it's removed. Also look at the multiple rules of this forum-what you can say and what you can't. It's not a free speech. Government also spying on you without a warrant.
Let's stay with the topic.

 

I am sorry, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here, regarding the guns. One error/misconception, etc can't justify another. Mother and son can then marry, father and daughter, underage people. They even man and woman and can't marry... It's logical to refer to the definitions of 1866 in order to understand what authors meant there. We are talking about the "gay marriage".

So, there was only 1 definition of marriage existed in 1866, which was a default definition and this is why it was not exactly specified as between man and woman in Constitution.
That means 14th amendment states that only man and woman has a right to marry.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't want to follow irrelevant topic. I stay with what I said.

 

Clearly that is not only wrong, but insane and unworthy of further discussion.

 

The owners and moderators can run this board however they want. Which gives them the right to censor your speech if doesn't adhere to the terms and conditions of being a member here. The First Amendment applies to the government not censoring your speech, it does not apply to a private message board on the Internet. You do have a right to express yourself, but you cannot demand access to someone else's printing press to espouse those views.

 

Show mewhere it says those exact words in the 14th amendment.

 

If the framers of the constitution meant to apply the 14th amendment so narrowly...they would have worded it so as to point out that narrowness.

Instead they worded it to afford "all persons" equal protection and due process under the law. Not just some. All.

Keep trying. The rulings already been made.

 

Exact words regarding what? You mean definition of marriage? There was only 1 definition, this is why it's obviously not there.
There is no words that brother and sister can't marry, son and mother, father and daughter, underage people - which are even "man and woman".
What if I want to marry an animal, tree or stone? Is it there? In some religions they have a soul and considered alive or they souls of trapped human beings.
This is why I am saying that if you want to understand what really authors meant there, you should go with relevant definitions of year 1866.

- - - Updated - - -

Here you go. Someone limits my free speech. It's unconstitutional, according to what one of your supporters said:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=414378&p=1065166663#post1065166663

Look, following you with justification that being "private" give right to have own rules and violate Constitution, why then I have to hire gay people? Lets say, I have a private company.
If I will start shouting or displaying anti gay slogans on the streets, will I not be taken by police? I bet I will.

- - - Updated - - -

Troll again: Keep trying... The rulings already been made... What basically means "shut up".
I will keep trying, I have a right to discuss anything I want there is still time to protest this ruling (30 days).
If you refer to something in the past, you have to stay with definitions of that time.
I will ignore this opponent for that.

 

When it comes to law it only matters what it says, not what was in the mind of the people writing it.

If it needed to be only respective of your definition of marriage than the congress should have passed a bill defining marriage.

 

I'm not even sure how to parse this. The posting you refer to doesn't seem to to talk about 1st amendment rights. It speaks about the 14th amendment.

The First Amendment is about the Government not restricting your freedom of speech. This is a private forum. It's not run by the government. Someone else pays for it and allows you and me the privilege of posting here. They have rules on appropriate behavior, use of profanity, backing up claims, not getting into personal attacks, etc. If they choose to alter a posting to remove those violations, they are fee to do so. If they censor someone for violating the rules, they are free to do that. If they choose to ban someone from a thread, or the site itself, for violating the rules, they are free to do so.

If you don't like it, you are free to find another message board to post on. Others have done exactly that and formed their own board with some limited success. A brief look at it today shows it has way less traffic this one, and seems to be full of people with similar political bents and not a lot tolerance for alternate points of views. This forum seems to be more balanced, has way more traffic than the other board, and a more diverse community of posters.

As to having to hire gay people, you are free to not hire someone is gay, so long as your decision to not hire them is not solely based on the fact that they are gay. If they don't have the necessary qualifications, you don't have to hire them. But if you don't hire them, you should be prepared to defend the fact that their sexual orientation wasn't a factor if you live in a state that provides protections for sexual orientation in hiring practices.

You are similarly allowed to stand on a street corner shouting anti-gay slogans and carrying signs that do the same. The Westbourough Baptist Church people do it all the time and the SCOTUS has upheld their rights to behave like complete asses in public. The Government can dictate time, place & manner, however, so as to guarantee that it is a peaceful assembly.

 

It never was conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate. That was the strawman.

 

Thats because it was decided on the grounds of Substantive Due Process, not Equal Protection. The clause that has come to mean anything they want it to mean. The right to not be enslaved required a constitutional Amendment, and yet they found a right to gay marriage, reading between the lines.

 

Sounds like you're trying to argue that the Courts cannot apply the laws to anything or anyone who did not exist prior to the last Constitutional Amendment (unless it something you agree with).

 

Cant imagine what lead you to think such nonsense. My problem is them making up the laws as they go along.

 

Which they did not do, they applied existing law to the case presented.

 

Actually, they had to overrule existing law to reach their conclusion.

 

dixon, isn't it about time for you to join the others in predicting that "Obergfell v. Hodges" will be

"overturned eventually"?


And continue to make that prediction for the rest of your life?

 

So what is it? First you say they made up laws, then you claim they overruled existing law.
Me thinks you are just making this up as you go. Not impressed.

 

Why they made up new law to replace the existing law they overruled. The conflict is only in your mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, like with these lower federal courts, they could just ignore the precedent.

 

I see you're still fantasizing over the law hatin' on the gays. LOL!!

 

Marriages limitation to men and women had nothing to do with sexual orientation. Its biology

 

But you seriously think Obergefell isn't going to be implemented....or will stop being implemented "some time soon"??? Or will be reversed "eventually"?

- - - Updated - - -

Notice how to try to stop gay marriage.....they have to destroy the idea of love?

How sad is that?