(June 27, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Lek Wrote: I agree with Justice Warren. This decision was aimed at interracial marriage. There wasn't any same sex marriage at that time and marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman, so when he spoke of marriage, that is what he was referring to.
The decision wasn't what I was pointing at. The definition of marriage as a fundamental right, one that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, is what I was pointing at. If you agree that even with his definition of marriage he was right, now you have to provide a reason that two men don't qualify for equal protection and due process under the law, and why this fundamental right becomes exclusionary.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
