No kumquat, Loving v Virginia had to do with certain states applying restrictions to marriage that weren't applied equally to all citizens. No where in the case was "one man one woman" ever discussed. Glad I could clear that up for you.<quoted text>
Loving v Virginia had to do with one man marrying one woman.
Of course not princess, because there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage. And "marriage" most certainly is there. It's discussed as being a fundamental right for ALL. No mention of just straight people.<quoted text>
Nothing there about gay marriage.
But when the laws DON'T apply equally (as in the case with all the states that currently have constitutional amendments prohibiting only same sex couples from marrying), they are struck down. And after they are struck down, we are left with a bunch of cry baby fundies like yourself.<quoted text>
About me having my own way, I do and you marrying your same sex partner won't change that. States define marriage and as long as the laws apply equally to every citizen of the state they are fair, gay marriage or not.
Oh, and just fyi, no matter how many times you type out "gay marriage", no such institution will ever exist. There is only one institution, and it's called "marriage".
Have a great day pumpkin head. I look forward to your next ridiculous rant.