Michael Ejercito wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:15 am, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) •• NO FACTS Support
> RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas! •• " wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:43:17 GMT,
>> Hateful BIGOT, Bill Taylor ("LeRoy Blue") wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Jensen wrote:
>>>> Meh. The prop is going to get overturned by the Supreme Court (of
>>>> either CA or the US) anyway, so enjoy your pyrrhic victory while it
>>>> lasts, psychopath.
>>> Neither of the courts are that stupid now and neither will they be at
>>> any time in the future. Thirty states now have bans on homo-marriage.
>>> No court is going to tell them that they are wrong.
>> ROTFL!!! That's what NINE states thought before the U.S.
>> Supreme Court SCUTTLED **all** of their laws against interracial marriage
>> with "Loving vs. Virginia" in 1967!!
>>
>> When same-. marriage gets to THAT egalitarian court, it will
>> become legal in all 50 states in a HEARTBEAT. Just as happened in
>> 1967. And once AGAIN, society will be **laughing** at its BIGOTS!
>>
>> It'll be BEAUTFUL!!
> Except that the fourth amendment only grants equal protection
> on the basis of RACE.
No, it doesn't do that, either. It gives equal protection to anyone who
might be discriminated against on the basis of some irrelevant
consideration, such as race. If a law grants some kind of benefit to
military veterans, and then black or female or Republican military
veterans are denied the benefit and it can be shown it was due to their
race or . or party affiliation, then an equal protection violation has
occurred. But if the law specifies that marriage is between a man and a
woman, and a man calling himself queer shows up at the courthouse
seeking a marriage license to marry a woman, he will be granted the
license; the clerk will not deny him the license to wed a woman based on
the man's declaration of being queer. |
