Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

The buybull has ZERO credibility if you don't believe it's own claims that it is the inerrant werd of gawd. You can't use biblical quotes without at least inferring that circular logic. As for using the law to quote the law, the FACT is that the law DEFINES marriage. We're not talking "holy matrimony" here, which is a religious ceremony like baptism or communion, and which the law has no right to regulate. We're talking SECULAR law.

 

Nope, such agreements have been enforced with married and unmarried couples.

 

Weve been over this. You didn't comprehend last time so not much point in repeating.

 

I just answered the actual question. The question of yours, quoted within my response to it.

 

Thats just what Virgina told the Lovings- "you have just the same marriage rights as anyone else- you can marry anyone you want- as long as you marry your own race.'

 

Oh, we all get it just fine. But you're right, no point repeating it. You wouldn't own up to it the last half dozen times you said it, and you won't this time either.

 

And yet another example of "nobody understands me except me, so it's all everyone else's fault. I explained in detail, but I won't say where, won't repeat it or link to it, and won't try again."

 

Yet another person who looks at being permitted to marry the one they love, and being prohibited from marrying the one they love, and just utterly unable to see the slightest bit of difference. Maybe we should point to the words "permitted" and "prohibited" and ask if they're familiar with them?

 

Do you or do you not think that married, same-sex couples are capable of being just as good parents to adopted children as Biological parents would be?

 

im happy for my state, it's about time. I still don't see why this is still an issue nor why every state hasn't followed suit even for just the financial benefits of selling all those marriage licensees. I'm also sure that PA's divorce attorneys are also salivating at this ruling.

Yeah sure sexual preference has nothing to do with parenting skills. There are also a lot of single parent households out there so Id say its likely that the 2 same-sex parents are better than 1 parent let alone no parents but this is a different discussion for a different thread.

 

???? You accused me of "avoiding answering the actual question" when in fact I had directly answered the question. You just didnt like my answer so instead wanted me to answer a different question.

 

Half dozen times I said what?

 

What myth?

 

One wonders....what will dixon say when gay marriage is legal nation-wide some day soon?

Still arguing against it...claiming "Just wait...in another 5 years, the courts will 'wake up' and rule hundreds of thousands of legal marriages illegal?"....

or will it be like others....posting "Homosexuality=pedophilia" smear posts...knowing it does nothing but foster hate in those who ALREADY hate? A form of textual masturbation...or even...a circular form of mutual masturbation (imagery which I'm sure needs no elaboration).

 

The same thing Im saying now. "Gay marriage" is unconstitutional discrimination in favor of the favorite identity politics group of the day. Continue to speak for marriage equality and an end to government indoctrination to win more respect and dignity for the homosexuals. Not a proper role of government.

 

Nothing to comprehend. Your retarded argument was demolished.

 

Lol. Less discrimination is actually MORE discrimination.

The stupidity in your posts is unending

 

Sir, can you cite a court case where that argument was tried and prevailed? Seems to me, with all of the resources and determination, that someone else would have thought of that as a tactic to stop same sex marriage. Just asking

 

Pretty much what Virginia said when arguing that "Mixed Raced" marriage laws should stay in place.

Just favorite identity politics group of the day- of course it was Blacks then.......

And the bigots were arguing against equality and and the end of government indoctrination to win more respect and dignity for African Americans.

'not the proper role of government'.

Because apparently you think the proper role of government is to perpetuate marriage discrimination against homosexuals, just like Virginia sought to perpetuate marriage discrimination against blacks and white from marrying.

 

No, so far its only gays who think the world must adapt to meet their demands. Most anyone else excluded from marriage wouldnt even question their exclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, nothing like it at all.

 

Thank you for admitting that your legal theory-that granting rights to gays would be unconstitutional-Is bovine excrement that you can't support. It's a theory that does not exist except in the dark reassesses of you twisted mind. Gays want the world to adapt to them? What do you think it is that they want the world to do besides allowing them to simply live in peace?

 

The Lovings did.

 

As did

Andrea Perez (a Mexican American woman [white]) and Sylvester Davis (an African American man [black]) met while working in the defense industry in Los Angeles.[2]

Perez and Davis applied for a marriage license with the County Clerk of Los Angeles. On the application for a marriage license, Andrea Perez listed her race as "white," and Sylvester Davis identified himself as "Negro." Under the California law, individuals of Mexican ancestry generally were classified as white because of their Spanish heritage.

The County Clerk (named W.G. Sharp) refused to issue the license based on California Civil Code Section 60, which provided, "All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void" and on Section 69, which stated that "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race".[3] At the time, California's anti-miscegenation statute had banned interracial marriage since 1850, when it first enacted a statute prohibiting whites from marrying blacks or mulattoes.

Perez petitioned the California Supreme Court for an original Writ of Mandate to compel the issuance of the license. Perez and Davis were both Catholics and wanted a Catholic marriage with a Mass. One of their primary arguments, adopted by Justice Douglas Edmonds in his concurring opinion, was that the Church was willing to marry them, and the state's anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony.[

 

The world didn't prohibit interracial marriage. Not all states prohibited interracial marriage. Race restrictions are not a fundamental element of marriage and are instead a fundamental element of racism in American history. And interracial couples procreate just like same sex couples. There is no rational relation between race and the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Wasn't any adaptation required

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.