SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As usual you don't get it. The ruling about interracial MARRIAGE was just that, a ruling about MARRIAGE. There was no dispute that marriage required a woman and a man to be a marriage. What made inter-racial marriage laws a violation of the 14th Amendment was that they said white John can marry white Sally but black Bob cannot marry white Sally. That was a law that said what was legal for a white man to do was not legal for a black man to do. That was a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

This week's gay marriage ruling went further and changed the very definition of marriage, something that is not authorized by the 14th Amendment for the court to do.


So your typical slanderous innuendos don't hold any water, as usual.

BTW I am interacially married.

And we DO have constitutional amendments for civil rights. It's called the 14th Amendment.

I'm embarrassed for you when you make such a fool of yourself on here.

The 14th is plain enough not to require any more amendments. Like I said, have we not evolved enough as a society, that we need have amendments for civil rights issues?

Does any law deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, or equal protection of the law? If so, its unconstitutional and should be changed. its not that hard.