SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[AProudLefty]

^^^ Lefty is playing dumb, pretending that I didn't JUST say that.
This is his preferred form of trolling.

No. You're the one who has been trolling about marriage and homosexuals.

Homosexuals CAN reproduce.

 

[AProudLefty]

Then if the law never prevented gays from marrying what are pissing and moaning about? It can't be discriminatory if the laws didnt prevent gays from marrying because they were gay.

Playing dumb again? We are talking about SSM, not straight marriage.

 

[ZenMode]

Your example is an accurate analogy. First voting is a right, marriage is not.

Ok. And, as such, everyone can vote. No issues with limiting their voting options to only one of three actual options, right?

Second the govt is deciding who is eligible for marriage just like they decide who is eligible to vote.

Right.

Why would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex? Let see

Money
To gain citizenship
To make others think they aren't gay
To make someone jealous
Boredom

Great. Now, let's stop playing dumb and acknowledge that the LARGEST majority of gays who get married do it for exactly the same reason straight people do and not one of your one in a million reasons.

There's probably as many reasons are there are gay people.

Not realistic ones. Gay people get married for the same reason straight people to - because of the feelings they have for the person and the desire to have it recognized as a marriage. But, please, keep pretending all your "reasons" are relevant.

Want is irrelevant but it's all you people have. I want to rob banks but still be able to legally own a gun.

Nope, want is what matters in marriage just as it does in my comparison to voting. It's dumb to say "Well, everyone can vote, so what's the issue that they can only vote for one of three options regarldess of what they WANT to vote."

 

[ZenMode]

civil union = legal union
marriage = legal union
civil union ≠ marriage

Anywho...

If there's no difference, then why is necessary to have different names for what is nothing more than a legal agreement.

They are both being labeled as legal unions.

But ones called marriage and one isn't.

They are both being recognized in the exact same manner that all legal unions are recognized under the law. However, that doesn't make a civil union a marriage, and you cannot force a civil union to become a marriage by mistakenly referring to a civil union as a marriage.

ORANGE is a fruit.
APPLE is a fruit.
Orange IS NOT an apple.

And yet you would label them both "fruit" because they ARE both fruit.

They are both being labeled as fruits.

Right, you wouldn't call an apple a fruit and an orange a fruitini... because they're both fruit. I'm very confused by your confusion here....

They are both being recognized in the exact same manner that all fruits are recognized under the law.

But one is called a fruit and one is called a fruitini... but they're the same... but different so we don't call them both fruit because....?

However, that doesn't make an orange an apple, and you cannot force an orange to become an apple by mistakenly referring to an orange as an apple.

Correct. I'm not saying we should call gay people straight or straight people gay, so.....

I've directly answered all of your tripe multiple times; so have others.

Nope. You've yet to provide a sensical explanation for why two things that are the SAME, according to you, require different names.

 

[ZenMode]

Who, of legal age, currently can't get married who wishes to get married? Please provide one single concrete example.

Oh.... please try again! I didn't say anyone CAN'T get married. I said they can't get married to who they WANT to marry because they rules are stacked clearly in favor of heterosexuals.

Again, you know this, but insist on playing dumb.

So recognizing all legal unions in the same manner under the law is not equal treatment because there are different types of legal unions that happen to exist?

Actually, "in the same manner" means same. Same means equal, so just proved yourself wrong.

So displaying all fruits in the fruit section of a grocery store is not equal treatment because there are different types of fruits that happen to exist?

There are different types of fruits but they are all recognized "in the same manner", which is to say they are recognized EQUALLY as fruit.

 

[IBDaMann]

If there’s no difference, why label them differently?

Because legislators wanted to. So now there are differing labels. If you want the law to change, talk to your representatives in Congress.

Oh wait! You can't do that, because your representatives are probably Democrats, and they HATE all you LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+, whom they consider to be sexual FREAKS, and will never move a muscle to help anyone of you. When Hillary Clinton was a Senator from New York, with Democrats controlling the House, the Senate and the White House, she made it a point to not do anything to help any aspect of LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+, ... but the entire movement sang her praises while she ran for President, and bad-mouthed Trump, a lifelong Democrat who went to Elton John's wedding and who carried the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag.

Yep, the most gullible people on the planet, who will routinely vote against their own best interests just to be thoroughly manipulated by a political party who HATES them.

So, yeah, go talk to the Democrats about getting that changed. They'll do that for you, right? (hint: the Democrats were probably the ones who made it the way it is today, just to fuck with all the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ that they HATE with a passion.

Once you answer that, actually answer that question, I’ll respond to the rest.

If you're going to put it that way, let's just say we're done. You never answer any questions anyway.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ok. And, as such, everyone can vote. No issues with limiting their voting options to only one of three actual options, right?

Right.

Great. Now, let's stop playing dumb and acknowledge that the LARGEST majority of gays who get married do it for exactly the same reason straight people do and not one of your one in a million reasons.

Not realistic ones. Gay people get married for the same reason straight people to - because of the feelings they have for the person and the desire to have it recognized as a marriage. But, please, keep pretending all your "reasons" are relevant.

Nope, want is what matters in marriage just as it does in my comparison to voting. It's dumb to say "Well, everyone can vote, so what's the issue that they can only vote for one of three options regarldess of what they WANT to vote."

Weird that you defend Trump and then also defend the Constitution. Weird!

 

[Yakuda]

Playing dumb again? We are talking about SSM, not straight marriage.

Thr fact is the law one man one woman marriage never prevented a gay person from getting married because they were gay. Now you can either accept that fact or not, I don't really give s shit.

 

[AProudLefty]

Thr fact is the law one man one woman marriage never prevented a gay person from getting married because they were gay. Now you can either accept that fact or not, I don't really give s shit.

Again, who said they couldn't?

 

[IBDaMann]

I said they can't get married to who they WANT to marry...

You are clearly too stupid to be in this discussion.

Obviously you can't get the Mahi-Mahi that you want when asking for the swordfish platter.

You still don't get it do you? You're still stuck on why the swordfish and the Mahi-Mahi have different labels.

You're still fuming that the swordfish isn't also called Mahi-Mahi.

because they rules are stacked clearly in favor of heterosexuals.

There are no stackings of rules. You're an idiot.

 

[Yakuda]

Ok. And, as such, everyone can vote. No issues with limiting their voting options to only one of three actual options, right?

Right.

Great. Now, let's stop playing dumb and acknowledge that the LARGEST majority of gays who get married do it for exactly the same reason straight people do and not one of your one in a million reasons.

Not realistic ones. Gay people get married for the same reason straight people to - because of the feelings they have for the person and the desire to have it recognized as a marriage. But, please, keep pretending all your "reasons" are relevant.

Nope, want is what matters in marriage just as it does in my comparison to voting. It's dumb to say "Well, everyone can vote, so what's the issue that they can only vote for one of three options regarldess of what they WANT to vote."

You're sti.paying with want. Want is not a condition of the law. I get the individuals want to marry and marry who they want but that's not relevant to the govt. The govt shouldnt make laws based on my on what people want.

 

[ZenMode]

Because legislators wanted to. So now there are differing labels. If you want the law to change, talk to your representatives in Congress.

Nope, right now they're all called marriage, but only because SCOTUS did the right thing.

Oh wait! You can't do that, because your representatives are probably Democrats, and they HATE all you LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+, whom they consider to be sexual FREAKS, and will never move a muscle to help anyone of you. When Hillary Clinton was a Senator from New York, with Democrats controlling the House, the Senate and the White House, she made it a point to not do anything to help any aspect of LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+, ... but the entire movement sang her praises while she ran for President, and bad-mouthed Trump, a lifelong Democrat who went to Elton John's wedding and who carried the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag.

I love it when things go off the rails....

Yep, the most gullible people on the planet, who will routinely vote against their own best interests just to be thoroughly manipulated by a political party who HATES them.

So, yeah, go talk to the Democrats about getting that changed. They'll do that for you, right? (hint: the Democrats were probably the ones who made it the way it is today, just to fuck with all the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ that they HATE with a passion.


If you're going to put it that way, let's just say we're done. You never answer any questions anyway.

Yep. Off the rails.

 

[ZenMode]

Weird that you defend Trump and then also defend the Constitution. Weird!

I defend Trump in situations where he deserves to be defended...which is very few. I might have the same opinion as Trump on a certain topic, but obviously I'm not going to change my opinion because he's a douchebag.

 

[ZenMode]

You are clearly too stupid to be in this discussion.

Obviously you can't get the Mahi-Mahi that you want when asking for the swordfish platter.

You still don't get it do you? You're still stuck on why the swordfish and the Mahi-Mahi have different labels.

You're still fuming that the swordfish isn't also called Mahi-Mahi.


There are no stackings of rules. You're an idiot.

Bad news.... I'm not the idiot here.

 

[ZenMode]

You're sti.paying with want. Want is not a condition of the law. I get the individuals want to marry and marry who they want but that's not relevant to the govt. The govt shouldnt make laws based on my on what people want.

Want isn't always relevant to the government, but equal protection is. The government can't discriminate, hence SCOTUS ruling regarding same-sex marriage.

Again, if the voting rules were setup in the same manner as marriage, you'd be losing your shit because it wouldn't fair because you WANT to vote for a Republican and should be able to vote for who you WANT!

But, you're more interested in playing word games so you can mark what you see as your "territory" called marriage.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope, right now they're all called marriage, but only because SCOTUS did the right thing.

Actually, SCOTUS went rogue on that decision, and all 50 States should have ignored SCOTUS. It was totally unconstitutional. SCOTUS does not have the power to legislate marriage in any sovereign State, much less in all of them.

But all this means is that you have been wasting everyone's time with your unnecessary whining.

 

[IBDaMann]

I defend Trump in situations where he deserves to be defended.

You just don't ever think he deserves to be defended.

Bad news.... I'm not the idiot here.

Bad news, yes, you are the idiot who thinks he's a genius.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Sure they can. The law doesn't and has never prevented a gay person from getting married because they were gay.

Of course federal and state laws prevented gay marriage until 2015.

Before the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, many state constitutions and statutes explicitly banned same‑sex marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1996) barred federal recognition of such marriages. These laws were invalidated or rendered unenforceable after Obergefell, and later the Respect for Marriage Act (2022) ensured federal protection for same‑sex and interracial marriages.

• Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1996):
  
  • Defined marriage federally as between one man and one woman.
  • Allowed states to refuse recognition of same‑sex marriages performed elsewhere.
  • Struck down in part by United States v. Windsor (2013), which required federal recognition of same‑sex marriages.
  • Fully invalidated by Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

• Respect for Marriage Act (2022):
  
  • Repealed DOMA.
  • Requires all states to recognize marriages legally performed in other states, including same‑sex and interracial marriages.
  • Provides federal protection even if Obergefell were overturned.

​

• Constitutional bans:
  
  • By 2015, 26 states had constitutional amendments banning same‑sex marriage (e.g., Alabama, Texas, Michigan).
• Statutory bans:
  
  • About 30 states had statutes prohibiting same‑sex marriage or civil unions.
• Practical effect:
  
  • These bans meant same‑sex couples could not marry or have their marriages recognized in most states until Obergefell.
  • Example: Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee were directly involved in Obergefell because they refused recognition of same‑sex marriages performed elsewhere.

​

• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015):
  
  • Declared that the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection prohibit states from banning same‑sex marriage.
  • Legalized same‑sex marriage nationwide, overriding state bans.

​

Yes, both federal and state laws prevented gay marriage until 2015. DOMA and dozens of state bans denied recognition or access to marriage for same‑sex couples. Obergefell struck them down, and the Respect for Marriage Act now ensures protection even if the Supreme Court revisits the issue.

 

[Jake Starkey]

A deflection. We're talking about same-sex marriage.

I just posted source material showing that Yakuda is wrong.

His definition is simply wrong.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I defend Trump in situations where he deserves to be defended...which is very few. I might have the same opinion as Trump on a certain topic, but obviously I'm not going to change my opinion because he's a douchebag.

Such as? Your memes in support of him say different. Weird!