Reply With Quote
You can't consent to a contract by not dissenting.
Marriage is a legal contract. And sometimes, a religious one. It has nothing to do with sex. Marriage is a LEGAL RIGHT granted by our Cons ution, which says very clearly you can't vote on rights, because that's what makes them RIGHTS, and you can't discriminate and say some citizens are en led to rights and some are not.
The only cons utional choices here are to make marriage a right all citizens can access, or to take away the right from all citizens. This, by the way, has nothing to do with religious marriage. Religious groups are free to marry who they want to marry, and discriminate against whoever they want to discriminate against they want to. Which they already do. Many religious leaders (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) will not marry two people of different faiths, not just two people of the same gender.
You can't consent to a contract by not dissenting.
Its amazing that with brilliant legal arguments like this your side lost. No really.
Your son went to law school, right? You should have this debate with him, imo.
Show me where the cons ution guarantees the right to marry
ing stupid people.
Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.
The judge that just ruled did. You're welcome to read Judge Walker's opinion on the matter. I linked it earlier in this thread or you can easily Google it. 14th amendment is a for you.
Game. Set. Match.
So Manny, give me your definition of marriage.
I agree. You can't win a debate with people who don't want to acknowledge the actual legal rulings and what was decided. You guys choose to make things up to fit what you want.
It pretty much makes you unbeatable.
Except in court.
Congrats on winning the internet.
A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states. You want to bring animals into this? Then prove they can enter into contracts.
Great, so the 14th Amendment, when interpreted this way, means I can use it to do whatever the I want!
Sweet! If gays can use it, so can basically any other argument under the "equal protection" clause if we are going to interpret it that way
1 Judge decided. Big whoop. I heard he's gay himself.
His decision is controversial and will be overturned by someone else. 14th amendment being used for this issue is hilarious.
If you say so. Let me know when your proven right in court.Great, so the 14th Amendment, when interpreted this way, means I can use it to do whatever the I want!
Sweet! If gays can use it, so can basically any other argument under the "equal protection" clause if we are going to interpret it that way
Then I'm in deep then because I've literally entered into hundreds of contracts between two people under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
I had no idea that under Manny's law I was a polygamist.
Ok. When it happens feel free to come back and say I told you so.
Animals don't need to give consent to get married. After all, you don't ask for their consent when killing them, either.
I know reading is hard for you, but did I say every contract was a marriage?
You're really, really, really bad at this.
Good argument. Let me know when that is argued successfully in court.
Actually, you did. If it was between two people. You're worse.
i can't believe manny is arguing with these knuckle draggers.
It's logically flawed.
It makes the assumption that sexuals are different from other citizens.
In 2010, there is no conclusive evidence that sexuals are any different from anyone else. Sexual preference is not enough to classify a people as "different" and therefore, requiring rights to afford their difference.
Otherwise, ANYONE with a "different preference" could claim the same exact argument, and demand the fed gov't to recognize each and every one.
It's a stretch and misinterpretation of the amendment.
Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from a judge.
also,
Using the 14th amendment would only work if sexuals were deprived of being able to marry, at all.
Not the case. They can enter into a heterosexual marriage if they choose to.
This is about certain citizens wanting their specific tastes recognized by the gov't and expanding the law to recognize their specific lifestyle.
With that argument, ANYTHING is fair game.
Get used to it. It's a slam dunk the 9th confirms and IMHO 80% chance SCOTUS confirms. The judicial branch has been politicized for a long time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions