And they were wrong, seeing as how the Constsitution specifically proscribes denial of rights on the basis of race in the 15th Amendment (passed by the Congress and ratified by the states NOT by judges). Care to show me the similar amendment concering homosexuals?

To suggest that positive societal change can only happen with the wilfull substitution of the law with their own preferences by judges is to ingore the abolition of slavery, sufferage.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Nope, the 15th amendment gave the right to VOTE, nothing else. It said nothing about marriage. There is nothing giving the right to marry to anyone in the constitution. Yet in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court forced the states to recognize interracial marriage. Should that decision be overturned? After all, by your logic, the court had no right to impose such a sweeping societal change.

However, if you'd like to discuss the XIV amendment,

Let me ask you this. Do you feel like you have the "right" to marry any (opposite sex) person you like? Is being able to marry whomever you want for reasons of love or money or whatever a right?

I did not suggest that. Would you prefer we had a civil war to decide same sex marriage?

No, the courts have stated that the legislature MUST recognize the same legal rights, but have oh so kindly given them 6 months to decide whether it will be CALLED marriage or something else. But that doesn't change the fact that the courts have simply made up a previously non-existent right to these legal privileges for same-sex couples.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

But that is not a fact. it is your opinion and your reading of the issue. I would suggest that the ruling was made BECAUSE not to do so was unconstitutional.

That's not what I have stated. There isn't any mathematical, scientific, biological, or historical reason for the government to license or promote threesomes, foursomes, incestral or homosexual conduct.That's not what I said.Yes I can. It's called morals.I use my brain to think everyday. I think that your questions have no basis, that I never said what you claimed I said, that marriage is under attack including by the Leftist judges appointed by former New Jersey Governor, James McGreevey, who resigned in shame after cheating on his wife in a homosexual harassment claim.



It doesn't require that much thinking to understand who is attacking marriage.

__________________
United We Stand.

It doesn't seem to be working in your case since you have been making unfounded accusations about me on this site and you have dodged my requests for something to support your outrageous contentions. You can't even find scripture to support your scurrilous claims.

It's difficult to have any respect for the kind of morals you are displaying on this site, Kinetic.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Is there some compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the same legal rights that hetero couples enjoy?

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Please provide the quote so I may judge the seriousness of your allegations. I do believe that homosexual conduct is immoral. I have never denied that.What morals would you prefer be used?

__________________
United We Stand.

Maybe the morals where you live by the teachings of Jesus would be a good start. You probably heard of Him, He said things like love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek, let him who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not lest ye be judged...stuff like that. As far as I know He never said to call people names, tell them that they are immoral, and deny them full citizenship.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

There isn't any evidence that bisexual, homosexual or other kinds of behavior was promoted for marriages.

I haven't been using Christianity for a guide but, math, biology, history and science instead because the biological design of the human species reproductive system it fairly clear. Christianity is clear about adultery and abominable behavior that was never introduced because biology is enough of an explanation.

Everyone has the same exact rights. I have no more rights. You have no more rights. We each have precisely the same opportunities.

__________________
United We Stand.

Jesus H Christ - why are we even ARGUING about this? Being gay is something you cannot help - as is being straight too. It's a personal preference out of their control. How does being gay or bi even constitute punishment and a strain on their rights?? I just don't get it...

You don't get it because you aren't listening.

Each of us has the exact same rights. You cannot marry your family members. Neither can I. You can acquire a one-woman one-man marriage license. So can I.

The cause for homosexual conduct is a decision made within the brain, for whatever reason. However, there isn't any biological reason to promote behavior like sodomy with a license. None. The government doesn't have an obligation to license any non one-woman one-man couples or groups for anything.

__________________
United We Stand.

That's odd, because as far as I know, Massachusetts and Maine you can marry... maybe more states... even Jersey is passing a law for gay marriage too