In response to:
Wrong on marriage being defined as a personal right. It was referred to as a right in those cases as being for society to have, not for individual persons to engage in. Now engage in independent thought: Is there a right to a first date too? Is there a right to a relationship that precedes marriage? No in both cases. That is why per common sense there is no right to be marriage. Marriage is NOT a right.jj
Loving V Virginia that you keep citing still maintained marriage as 1 man: 1 woman only. It didn't say that anything goes pertaining to it. Nothing on same-sex marriage, marrying one's sibling, more than 1 person, etc.
"Once again, informed consent is required for marriage." Congratulations. You just ADMITTED that there is no right...
The word “ban” is negative.
Like “taboo,” the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior.
That’s why the media describe California’s Prop. 8 constitutional marriage law as a “ban,” not the codification of something positive and timeless. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been misreported for years as the “federal ban on gay marriage.” So when “smarter than God” federal Judge Joseph Tauro in Massachusetts dispatched DOMA on July 9, the media thundered as one: “Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.”
Similarly, in California, federal Judge Vaughn Walker was widely...
You do not get to demand anything. Your questions are irrelevant barring conclusive and incontrovertible proof that harm will come to children raised by same-sex parents. Your side has failed to make your case. With that failure, you also lose because there is no legitimate and compelling interest for the state to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The burden of proof is always on the government when it singles out a class for disparate treatment and denies rights, privileges or benefits to a minority.
You do not get to demand anything. Your questions are irrelevant barring conclusive and incontrovertible proof that harm will come to children raised by same-sex parents. Your side has failed to make your case. With that failure, you also lose because there is no legitimate and compelling interest for the state to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The burden of proof is always on the government when it singles out a class for disparate treatment and denies rights, privileges or benefits to a minority.
Are you going to force Louisiana to abandon Napoleonic law?
The Court recognised that...