This

That's kind of a weird statement... Considering that 'gay' is a sexuality and 'black' is a skin colour/race. There are gay black people. Also, gay people used to have it really bad as well. They used to be killed, beaten, and banished in a lot of places (and still are). It's not as hard for gay people now but comparing it to what black people used to suffer through is not a fair comparison.
I think that any discrimination against anyone for something they can't control is baffling. No matter what size.

Do gays have abortion?

didn't read shit else, but marriage should be between 2 people that love each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
We shouldn't be against love, it's common fucking sense
this world makes me sick

So if a seven year old girl is in love with a 40 year old man, they should get married?
Nice thought.

^ only guy posting a joke.
thumbed down.


this really is a Fag Junk.
I think 4chan had some funny content.. or even 9gag. bye

This motherfucker knows whats up

Religion defines marriage between a man and a woman. Would you say that not allowing gays to marry is an obstruction on their religious freedom? And if so, what about non-religious marriages? Legalizing gay marriage as a religious expression has never been a pathway that gay rights groups have taken. Rather, homosexuals have tried to convince the court that gay marriage is a substantive due process right. Brief history: The right to privacy, contraception- Griswold, the right to procreation- skinner, the right to sexual activities- Lawrence v. Texas (banning sodomy laws in Texas). They have also gone along with the equal protection angle: the right to marriage should be allowed for white couples as well as interracial couples- Loving v. Virginia. The problem is, is that the state has its police powers which allows it to pass laws regulating the morals of society (which allowed anti-sodomy laws in the first place). The question is: should a state be able to pass a law banning gay marriage? The state's powers are distinct from the enumerated powers of the federal govt. (that's why some states can allow gay marriage). What gay rights groups want is for the supreme court to declare marriage a fundamental right and afford it strict scrutiny and, thereby, strike down all the state laws to the contrary. This is a heavy burden because for years the court has specifically declared that the states can encourage pro-creation. Hope that helps anyone interested. If you want to learn more, read Lawrence v. Texas.

It is illegal because the police powers of the state dictate that they can make policy "in ways that the federal govt would be considered oppressive in doing so." If the state feels that it is threatening its morals, it is allowed to pass laws that stop that behavior. Now, you keep stressing the religious angle, but it doesn't have to be religious. Marriage as an institution is not necessarily a religious one (remember, you can go to the court to get married). A society can feel that gay marriage is immoral and not necessarily be "but hurt christians" and the state can stress procreation (having kids) and in doing so, discourage gay marriage. I'm not saying either side is correct, I'm just laying out the problem. Read up on your federalism.

No problem. Needless to say, I'm in law school and I just took constitutional law this semester. I'm not trying to be malicious, just trying to explain somethings that may help your analysis. And, no doubt it has something to do with religion. Religion, as much as we deny it, is related to the laws that we pass and live with.