I think any objective observer might look at post #17 and deduce a bit more than just a "Yes... and so... what??". Not that that can be said about your noticeably skeletal and facile riposte. The retort is, however, well within character.
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
One does not usually answer a rhetorical question because it is understood [by most] that the rhetorical question acts as a statement.You are aware the two were both questions... so why not make your point?
Your second error is assuming I wish to impose my beliefs on anyone. I have no power to impose my will on anyone. If I agree with the Constitutional reasoning used to end marriage bans...that has nothing to do with my "incorrectly precieved" imposition of my beliefs.
Last edited by 1750Texan; 03-22-14 at 11:24 AM.
Calling something a "gender-based" issue does not in any way make the issue subject to the equal protection clause.
The issue itself must be truly gender-based. This issue is not gender based.
Both the male and female genders have every right to be married, thus there is no gender discrimination in the matter.
That marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife is constitutionally acceptable, allowing both genders to participate, without bias.
Your erroneous application of gender-based would allow a woman to enter the men's locker room, strip, and take a show with the men, against gym rules .. or vice versa. For the sake of social propriety, there is nothing in the constitution that forbids the gym from creating these rules, banning any member who violates them.
If a woman/man who enters the opposite gender shower finds another of the opposite sex there who doesn't mind, or in fact encourages it, in no way constitutes a valid constitutional appeal to the gym's rule; just because a relative few are okay with the violation does in no way validate the violation, much less make the matter a "gender-based" issue.
That you lament my accurate dog/cat analogy is because again, it is an accurate commonly understood presentation that illustrates the oxymoronic "gay-marriage" violation of both definitive and social propriety, which, of course, flies in the face of your erroneous take on the matter.
Your concern of understanding "equal protection" is not at issue here.
What's at issue here is grasping when application of "equal protection" is not appropriate .. or, in your case, contrived for the sake of ideological gain at the expense of both definitive and social propriety.
Your attempt to apply the equal protection clause via appeal to "gender based" is rightly rejected.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
But rest easy, first marriages have taken place already, in spite of the villain AG's attempt to stay the ruling: First gay couple married in Michigan
"Glenna DeJong, 53, and Marsha Caspar, 52, both of Lansing, were married in the lobby after Byrum opened the clerk's office at 8 a.m. and issued them a license."
The degree of that authority would propotional over all married couples. Not one degree of authority over one lawful group versus separate and different degree of authority over another lawful group.
Authority over married couples is an irrelevant arguement.