Then in the liberal world everything can be tied to the equal protection clause and the states have no rights at all. Marriage is backed by centuries of history and precedence as well as the votes of the people in the states. It is common law, it isn't in the Constitution, and it is up to the people, not the courts to determine what is right in their state. Marriage isn't in the Constitution. You want it there, put it there.
I knew you couldn't answer. Because you know that any way you do answer will inevitably bring up the exact same questions about same-sex marriage. Your argument was that marriage isn't in the constitution. I agree. It's not. You know what also is not in the 14th amendment? Race.
But hey, you don't want to back up your own argument, that's fine. You know full well that "marriage isn't in the constitution" is not enough to deflect the 14th amendment. Because as you just admitted, Loving says otherwise.
One of you will end up here next!
What's that got to do with what you said?
You said go out and get a Civil Union, I showed where your State (Texas) like mine (Virginia) doesn't allow Civil Unions. As a registered Republican since 1978 and someone that has been bad mouthed as to my conservative stances on fiscal responsibility, defense, and immigration (I'm more a Goldwater Conservative then a modern Social Authoritarian Conservative) - I voted against the Virginia amendment, how did you vote pertaining to the Texas Amendment?
A decade ago Social Authoritarians voted to enact discriminatory bans for BOTH Civil Marriage AND Civil Unions when they felt they were in a position of power and that public opinion wouldn't shift. Instead of acting to recognize that same-sex couples deserved the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits as different-sex couples and working for a compromise at that time - State level Civil Unions with equal Federal recognition - Ohhhh no. Your side fought for no recognition at all.
Your side took Civil Unions off the table and now same-sex Civil Marriage is winning in the Courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box. Well that came back to bite you in the ass.
Last edited by WorldWatcher; 10-15-14 at 06:38 PM.
Even not being born with a sexuality, but rather it developing in early life, well before any sexual attraction sets in, would suggest choice has nothing to do with it. Researchers have been able to predict the sexuality of children as young as 4. I suppose 4 year olds choose to be gay?
This also makes no sense because claims of an adult permanently changing their sexuality, despite the pressure to do so, are way too rare. Even heroin addicts claim to kick the habit with greater success.
You clearly don't know jack all about epigenetic research either. Twin studies like in MN revealed that it must be partly genetic. The current leading theory is that hormonal influence while in the womb interacts with genes, so there is no "show me the gay gene," because it's biological but more complicated.
states have input only at most. You act as if these arbitrary boundaries are where life and culture begins and ends. So one small town on one side of the border will have entirely different views on minority rights than a small town 3 miles away in another state? Give me a break. There's a reason the entire deep south is out of its mind and new england is more liberal. Interaction between the states takes place! If you want to deny that happens, build a wall first