Yes, you've obviously built a spin around your mythology and you're just going to go on thumping your bible.<quoted text>
There *is* no higher court than the United States Supreme Court. When the USSC decided in the case of Loving v. Virginia that states did not have the right to prevent interracial marriages from being recognized, then all state laws (including amendments in state constitutions) that were intended to prevent interracial marriages were automatically rendered null and void.
You've never heard of organ donation?
Why the need for a "civil union" when a *marriage* already deals with it?
Nope. If a person has two medical options, and money isn't the issue for the two options, then the decision is made on some other basis (such as the likelihood of success or failure). The married partner may be the one making that decision.
Neither is heterosexuality. So what is your point? Who here was claiming that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would lead to "social engineering programs"?
People choose to enter into marriage. And they can choose to leave a marriage. And you call this "slavery"?
Tell that to the USSC judges who decided the Loving v. Virginia marriage case on the basis of how they interpreted the U.S. Constitution.
What state I am from is irrelevant, since the results of Loving v. Virginia were nationwide. It invalidated any and all state laws that barred interracial couples from marrying and having their marriages given legal recognition by every state.
If you've never heard of the case, then you're not exactly sufficiently prepared to debate the USSC's history of legal cases involving marriage.
Two things: first, even though the 14th Amendment is over a hundred years old, obviously it was not being enforced at a state level. This was a situation where existing law was being violated, otherwise it would never have gone to the Supreme Court where the judges were required to interpret existing Constitutional law, not just speculate on how to apply it to something that nobody had considered addressing in the past.
Second, you're obviously trying to use the "Equal Protection" clause, but marriage isn't a civil protection. From the State's point of view, it's a financial arrangement. Remember that other right, the one about freedom of Religion? The State virtually can't interpret marriage as anything but a financial arrangement.
Now, you can fight against subsidized breeding as unconstitutional, but you won't. We all know that. You're trying to craft every word to legitimize vigilante authority to judges. Everyone knows the strategy by now. That's why it's important to NEVER allow the word "marriage" enter into legal documentation concerning gay contractual relationships. Everything else is a reasonable fair treatment issue but not that word.
I think I've fully demonstrated what I've said right from the start, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the only forum function worth pursuing. It's politics! It just so happens that I'd rather that they stop giving bribes to married people as well, but I've got bigger fish to fry.
Fairness is important to you so get rid of tax breaks for married people, make sure that civil unions are available to everyone, regardless of any and all sexuality, and maybe even try to get Constitutional protection for privacy in the home, which doesn't really exist either, and you've got a plan! Not going to budge, are you?
The liberals let you into their midst. It's not my job to help them boot you out. They can get their own monkeys off of their back.
On that note, don't bother me. I really don't want to go chasing organ donation laws, but I'm fairly sure that you can't carve the dead up like a Christmas turkey without their pre-authorization! You're just being an obsessive-compulsive like so many others in this forum.