Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

That demonstrates total ignorance. Sex between man and woman might lead to pregnancy, that is why government impose serious responsibility on heterosexual couple. So we can stop right here, since we cannot pass even first step on our they way to equality.

 

Boy this is a tired and debunked myth. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. If you don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding you don't have to. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage you are free to associate with other people that believe the same thing. You are free to consider it whatever you want to consider it. You are not allowed to discriminate if you own a state licensed business. You are allowed to discriminate if you are non-profit religious organization. So you are perfectly free to go on believing what you want you just cannot use it to legally discriminate against the rest of us.

- - - Updated - - -

Ye olde canard about marriage being related to procreation...it is NOT. This is well travelled and well debunked myth. You are arguing in circles.

- - - Updated - - -

I care about the fallout what you are saying simply is not true.

 

Ok, so you seems to understand the difference between two types of relationship, but still refuse to admit it.
There was no myth and no one ever debunked it. The notion that we have childless couples, is silly, because government has no idea which couple will be childless.

 

Procreation is not prerequisite for marriage and never has been. You are dreaming.

Again...ad nauseum...there is no legal difference in the relationship. The SCOTUS has ruled as such. You have no legs to stand on.

Again...if you missed it the first hundred times...legally there is no difference in their relationship.

 

Failed to convince people? An overwhelming majority of people support same sex marriage. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

This is incoherent.

- - - Updated - - -

Young girls have no relevance to same sex marriage.

Are you able to post anything besides non sequiturs and red herrings.

 

Well said!

 

You can deny until the cows come home, but it is a fact that activist's have forced a new definition of a well established term, have forced behaviors of business, by removing the long and well established business standard/practice "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". It is a fact that the activist's have forced their beliefs upon society by a law passed by just 5 individuals.

You can continue to deny forever and it will not change the facts.

Your claim is empty because your own words defy you...where have you stated that what has happened to little girls is school is wrong?

You are saying that two new laws that do exist ...don't??? Seriously?

The links I provided are factual...your denials do nothing to remove this fact

 

The fact that the generous, the kind, the caring, the seekers of equality, the seekers of fairness progressives/liberals...simply lie.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that supporting gays, LBGT's is far more important than protecting our youth, it is just one more step closer to protecting pedophiles. You all say one thing yet you certainly have proven you act another way when push comes to shove.

Young girls rights and confused teens all get your support if it happens to work well for the end you seek through any means...but if others get hurt and lose there liberties and freedoms (even children) get tossed aside...so be it, you all are over it.

I love how a leftist arguer considers laws passed in two states (CA and OR) are non sequitur's and red herrings...because the fallout doasn't serve your cause...you all make me sick to my stomach.

 

That is your opinion only, there is nowhere in the ruling anyone said, that relationship are the same.
I hope you have no problem to show me when SCOTUS actually associated gay sex with marriage, even though the same ruling it says that gay relationship is not a marriage.

 

None of this has anything to do with the topic. You are reduced to ranting and fuming. Pitiful.

 

Read the opinion. Claiming it doesn't say what it says at length simply shows you haven't done your homework. You have repeatedly been challenged on your claims. You said the constitution didn't mention slavery, were presented with the three places where it does, and you fell silent. You claimed that marriage was mentioned in the constitution, you were challenged to find it, and you ran away from that one to. Why not READ first, and lie second? Your lies would be more subtle that way.

 

That's how our system works. If you don't like the result, you can work on getting a Constitutional Amendment passed, but the chances of that being successful are essentially zero. But, unless you're a Member of Congress, or your State Legislature, you don't get a vote. Hell, even the President doesn't get a vote, nor a veto. When it comes to Constitutional Amendments, your participation and input are identical to the POTUS, except to the point that more people listen to POTUS then to you or me. We do NOT live in a direct democracy. For a very good reason. Actually for multiple good reasons.

 

Hetero married couples are perverts. They engage in sex without covers on, with the lights on, and the women on top. Those pervertes. Damn all humanity to hell.

Do you even know what a hypocrite is? Read the definition. Look in the mirror. No innocent children are hurt by gay marriage.
You somehow think public showers is private. Read the definition of public. No also that there will be gay girls/women in the same public shower.

- - - Updated - - -

It's taken humanity a long time to leave the perverted lifestyle you want to return. Let's leave your perversion behind.
When you can stop with the perverted thinking you're trying to instill on all people. Then you can stop worrying if others are perverted. Start with your own house.

 

Good. You've been asked to provide it before and COULD NOT, but you bring it up again.
Cite this brand new law, specifically written to protect homosexuals. You FAILED before, you will fail again. There is NO special law.

- - - Updated - - -

You've been forced into a homosexual marriage. Move to the USA, where we have freedoms. And not religious lunatics forcing you.

 

Reduced? All there is, is ranting and fuming. And no logical reasoning.

 

You are right...if you work the system correctly you can force foolishness though the courts, the thing is you hypocritically just argued about nobody forcing anything...So drop the stupid forcing argument.

You are correct, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic (If we can keep it), it is supposed to protect the people from exactly what is happening, the problem is as we keep defying that Constitution, the sooner we will collapse...of course you will point fingers of blame and just keep acting hypocritical, denying silly "little" things like the SCOTUS not iterpreting law, but making decisions based upon assumptions of intent. Nothing new under the sun,

 

What I am citing is the decision by the court not based upon interpretation , as the SCOTUS is to do, but by assumption of intent...the court assumes something that does not exist, that homosexual relations is the same as heterosexual relations. Once you start with a premise this flawed, just like with a math problem and an early error, it just magnifies that into an outrageous and purely wrong solution/conclusion. You see, perversion works that way. In fact it gets so whack that today people that would normally be outraged over young girls losing their expectation of privacy, defend this loss of critical rights...because they are so out of whack and have become so perverted to logic and common sense.

The thing is you cannot know light if you are in the dark...darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.

 

So NO NEW LAW?
Why did you say there was a NEW law?

You wouldn't lie to this forum? Or post on pure emotions?

 

I thoroughly appreciate your candor. It is refreshing to read just how whack the liberal mind has to be in order to stand for the perverse while not defend the helpless (victims of laws made specifically to protect people for their particular perverted sexual preferences).
.

 

Defying the constitution? Are you being all emotional. More equal rights for more people is defying the constitution?

 

Good. I don't appreciate you immoral perverse beliefs. I guess we're even.
Meanwhile you continue to ignore if there is any sexual behavior by married heteros that would not be blessed by God.
Your ignoring only means you'd come of as hypocritical. I understand.

 

Silly lib. They mis-interpreted existing law (altering it) and you are just playing silly debate games. They came to the table with an agenda and created a way to make the existing precedents and existing amendments by connecting enough dots...work to meet the pre conceived notions.

The fact that we lost something so vital in the process means nothing to you and some others(honor and principles duty and devotion)...I can assure you that this will come back and bite us all in the ass...and you all will never admit it was this pandora's box you opened. Sometimes you get exactly what you are asking for, but not thinking long term can leave many others vulnerable, as this has done.

 

Silly you. YOU said there is a new law. Many times now. Are you now saying there is no new law? Because you can't give us the new law.
Misinterpreting an existing law, is NOT a new law. Only a stupid opinion about misinterpreting. Based on perverse morals.

It means a lot to me. It means we have more equality in our nation. Just like the constitution wants.
Why do you hate the constitution and continue to live in this great free country?
Move to the mid east if you want strict immoral laws enforced. Perversion runs rampant.

 

Technically she did not lie. There was never a right specifically to same sex marriage. But was one for marriage in general. The issue with the bans is that in order to restrict anyone from a constitutional right, a state must prove that they have a legitmate reason to. For example, different sex incest endangers the gene pool through imbreeding, and as such incest marriage is illegal. There is an actual argument behind it.

No such argument can be made against same sex marriage. That is why the federal courts began to overturn the bans. Because the states failed to make a case for refusing gays the right to marry.

 

I have not ignored anything. There are perverted acts by married couples... adding another to the marriage bed - adultery etc...

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry...but when convenient the argument about children/procreation is considered moot, now for convenience suddenly this is relevant?