Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

No, it was first, the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation that advocated "specifically" for homosexual couples to be included. Then Massachusetts and other courts that "specifically" insisted that homosexuals to be included. States responded by enacting legislation, MAINTAINING the limitation to men and women, for the same reasons it had always been limited to men and women. Because only men and women have the potential of procreation.
Would be like a court declaring that Mormons have a right to polygamy, and then when states respond by enacting legislation maintaining the limitation of marriage to just one per person, then those same courts who created the only focus on Mormons, declaring that this limitation to one marriage that has existed since the states have existed, suddenly becomes an intent to discriminate against Mormons. Would be absurd in that situation and it is absurd in this situation

 

And you don't need to be heterosexual married. You support government implementing your version of marriage and he supports them implementing his. Either are no more or less enforcing one of your beliefs upon the other.

 

Keep trying.

We still keep winning in court, you still keep losing with those same old arguments,

- - - Updated - - -

No, what makes you a bigot is the fact that you think you have the right to force your beliefs on others.

 

Try reading the links provided and actually learn something.

 

Same sex bans were specifically put in place to exude homosexuals. Pretending to ignore reality only makes you look foolish.

 

rahl....it's not "foolishness". It's dishonesty.

 

Its reality you two cant come to acceppt

 

Except you've been proven to be completely incorrect.

 

How did you do that?

 

Over 20 federal court rulings.

 

No, dixon, there's a reality YOU can't accept....

that some day very soon....your ex-sister-in-law and her girlfriend will be allowed to marry legally across the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep in mind, dixon is like the guy in the 1950s, who kept citing "Plessy v. Fergusion" ....in the face of the "Brown v. Board of Education" decision.

 

What does any of his have to do with my point. Or is it my point you are trying to avoid here?

 

Youve lost track of what it is that you allege is incorrect. Typical.

 

It has to do with you accusing OTHERS of not being able to accept reality.

I predicted and stand by the prediction....WHEN gay marriage is legal nation-wide? And others have "moved on"....you'll still be trying to fight it and want all the marriages annulled.

 

Looks like this African-American judge just did a little debunking of his own:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...judge-compares-marriage-discrimination-racism

"A state judge in Louisiana has written one of the most stinging rebukes yet of marriage bans, comparing them to the racist "separate but equal" laws upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, then later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education."

 

Actually I specifically pointed out how and why you are incorrect, you just aren't able to comprehend why.

 

You claimed you had proven me incorrect. I nor anyone else denies that you have repeatedly claimed I was incorrect, I was looking for this proof you speak of. You know, instead of your usual, baseless declarations. Repeated again and again and again.

 

Even if you exclude homosexuality and sexual orientation in the reasoning to ban SSM and say it is all about gender only... there is no constitutional reasoning for that ban.

If SSM ban is to promote heterosexual marriage, the courts have discounted that ridiculous reasoning.

If it is to promote procreation, the courts have discounted that reasoning.

So what reasoning do banners have left?

The shift has happened. It is not the onus of SSM couples to have to prove their constitutional right to marry...the onus is now on states that want to ban SSM to define their reasoning constitutionally to ban SSM.

 

???? Its not. INCLUDING heterosexuals promotes heterosexual marriage. Cat owners arent excluded from receiving dog licenses to encourage dog owners to obtain a license

 

The homophobes are in a bad way...

1. Their arguments fall apart under logical examination.

2. The courts are going against them.

3. The POLLS are going against them (majority support for SSM, vast majority of young Republicans support it).

4. There is no political will for new State bans....none for a Constitutional "Federal Marriage Amendment".

5. The Republican Party is gradually "moving away" from them, because there's no political "up-side" in pandering to them anymore.

 

Actually I specifically pointed out how and why you are incorrect, you just aren't able to comprehend why.

- - - Updated - - -

And as the courts keep pointing out. You need a reason to EXCLUDE same sex couples. It's why you keep losing.

 

dixon has several....when one gets shot down, he moves to another one. You get the whole cycle in about a week of posting.

BTW, it's so odd, you'd think there would be attorneys as smart...or even smarter than dixon....taking on these marriage ban cases for upholding the ban....and winning????

 

The state has a reason for excluding couples of the "same sex". These courts demand reasons for excluding homosexuals when there is no such intent.

 

This is a little "word-play" "trick" of dixon's. He argues-

The State is not excluding homosexuals from marrying...it's excluding people of the same gender from marrying.

It's a variation on the "Gays aren't discrimnated by marriage bans...a gay man is free to marry any woman he wants."

Which merely shows how illogical and weak their case is. I would REALLY hope all the defenders of state gay marriage bans would use it in every court case....it would make the Inevitable come so much faster.

(BTW, here's where he denies what I said...asking me to QUOTE him....but you'll notice he doesn't say it's...wrong.)

 

Actually the courts keep asking for a reason to ban same sex couples. I have no idea why you feel the need to lie in almost every post on this topic. It must be beyond embarrassing to get called on it so often.