Legally, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is just marriage. States that allow same sex marriage do not have separate statutes governing gay marriage, or use different forms, they simply allow all of their citizens to legally marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.Marriage and “gay marriage” is vastly different.
There is no state interest in the nature of the relationship. You lack of rational basis is pathetic.The NATURE of the relationship are a valid argument, and your dishonesty about them is sad.
I frequently acknowledge the truth.Why respond to a person who can’t acknowledge the truth and throw an insult because of their cluelessness?
Our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.
Actually, that is exactly what you do. You wish to exclude some people from being able to legally marry absent any rational reason to do so.I don’t argue against equal protection, which again shows your bent, but I am for clear definition which is absolutely appropriate.
Oddly, I wish I could say your responses are hysterical. Unfortunately they are simply pitiable.LOL... That’s even more hysterical than your insults.
The courts have found in both of those cases that providing the service in no way infringed upon the religious freedom of the parties in question. Your argument has already been dismissed as incorrect in the courts, and they were right to do so.Not in the case of the baker or wedding photographer, but I calk that up to your intellectual dishonesty.
Business owners do not have the right to project their religious beliefs onto their customers, or to force them to comply with the religious moral standards of the proprietor in order to obtain service. Were they to do so, then it is the religious freedom of the customer that would have been infringed.
You have offered no way in which allowing same sex marriage infringes upon anyone's free exercise of religion. Keep in mind, the court in Colorado ruled that providing a cake for a same sex couple wasn't an infringement upon the baker's rights, and did not infringe upon his freedom to exercise his religion.I have but you ignore it because of your bent... It’s your right to be ignorant.
He doesn't have the right to project his religious beliefs onto others, or to refuse to serve those who believe differently.
It is about equality under the law, nothing more. That you are trying to make the argument that it is about anything else speaks volumes to your character, as does the fact that you are arguing for fellow citizens to be treated as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.It’s not, and your dishonesty proves it.
Simple, it's two people involved in a relationship seeking equal status and protection of the law.AGAIN, SHOW HOW A GAY RELATIONSHIP IS THE SAME OR EQUAL TO A HUSBAND AND WIFE RELATIONSHIP, and I will concede to you...
That they are physically unequal is irrelevant. A straight couple that is impotent is physically unequal to a fertile couple, yet they can both marry. Interracial couples are different that same race couples, yet they can both marry. Your arguments of physical or biological difference are utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
No, actually, they are not entirely equal, they afford most, but not all protections afforded by civil marriage, and only a very foolish or ignorant person would claim otherwise.Read the law and you will see that they are, so what does that make you?