In 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct opened an inquiry and in 2019, Hensley received a public warning for violating a canon of judicial conduct, which prohibits judges from doing things outside their judicial role that would cast doubt on their ability to act impartially.

She sued in state court, and last year, after the Texas Supreme Court allowed her case to go forward, the judicial conduct commission withdrew its previous warning.

Meanwhile, another judge sued, seeking assurances that he would not be penalized for marrying only opposite-sex couples. Earlier this year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived that case and sent it back to the Texas Supreme Court to get clarity on the state law.

In response, the Texas Supreme Court amended the judicial canon that had been used to discipline Hensley, adding as a comment that “it is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct — Texas’ judicial oversight body — said in a filing earlier this month that this comment does not amount to permission for judges to perform weddings for opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples.

“The comment only gives a judge the authority to ‘opt out’ of officiating due to a sincere religious belief, but does not say that a judge can, at the same time, welcome to her chambers heterosexual couples for whom she willingly offers to conduct marriage ceremonies,” lawyers for the commission wrote.

Lawyers for the commission did not respond to a request for comment.

Mitchell said in the new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Waco, that this “astounding position” leaves Hensley at the same risk of discipline that she faced in 2016. The lawsuit asks the judge to block the commission from investigating and disciplining Hensley and declare that the commissioners have violated her constitutional rights.

And, Mitchell wrote, the courts should take this opportunity to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and throw the question of same-sex marriage back to the states, as they did with abortion in the Dobbs case.

“The Commission’s bullying of Judge Hensley and its menacing behavior toward other Christian judges is the direct result of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Obergefell that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right,” Mitchell wrote. “There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.”

>>1467922
>“The Commission’s bullying of Judge Hensley and its menacing behavior toward other Christian judges is the direct result of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Obergefell that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right,” Mitchell wrote. “There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.”
why are texans so fucking stupid? Its like the state supernaturally attracts truly moronic people in a similar way florida does

>>1467924
Playing the victim when you are really the bully is a republican trait all over the country, not just in Texas and Florida.

>>1467924
SCOTUS just told Kim Davis to take her fifth challenge to gay marriage and shove it up like a month ago, this is going nowhere, and is a waste of time and resources.
In a functioning system filing frivolous lawsuits like this would result in penalties for the filer for wasting the court's time
But rightoid wingnuts get treated with kid gloves in this country so they'll humor him all the way to the Supreme Court

>>1467919
How many times are these whiny little cunts going to do this?

>>1467927
Until they win, just like with abortion. People like this don't go away. They die after grooming their children to be just like them.

>>1467919
They literally just rejected almost the exact same challenge like, last month.

>>1467957
She was installed into that position by a christian conservative thinktank to play the victim and do exactly what she's doing.
https://firstliberty.org/hensley/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Liberty_Institute

>>1467919
You''l have to pry gay marriage, and adopting boys to rape with my sexually deviant HIV infected friend from my torn, prolapsed anus.
PS I;m posting from a cage right now and my husband hasn't changed my diaper in 3 days. I'm super stinky :).

>>1467979
It's wild to think that people post vile hateful shit like this online and then come to church and sit down next to me to worship the same God.

>>1467982
You think that retard's going to your church? He's definitely in one of those fuckass prosperity cult ones.

>>1467982
I haven't been to church for years. We used to have a gay priest boyfriend there that would provide us after hours alter boys if you know what I mean ;)

Homosexuality is an abhorrent aberration in mine eyes

>>1468022
If you're watching that much gay porn, that's a you problem.

>>1468028
libs don't understand
trans porn isn't gay porn because getting fucked by lady dick is still sex with a woman

>>1467922
>“There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.”
Correct.

>>1467922
I see that you're angry, but how do you refute the quoted portion above?

>>1468038
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness, retard. It also falls under the 14th amendment due to Equal Protection Clause meaning you can't deny marriage on a gender basis, which would include gay marriage.

>>1468039
>pursuit of happiness, retard
That's not from the Constitution, but of course you're calling me a retard because you have no self-awareness.

It's life, liberty, and property. As used in the 14th Amendment, it reads:

>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Which is ironic considering this gay marriage crap is a brazen encroachment of other people's property, riding on the back of frivolous litigation against people who wouldn't bake a certain cake, and threatening legal action against other citizens that have no legal or moral obligation to serve you. But here you are pretending it's about treating gays fairly while insisting they have transgressive access to an institution that is intrinsically heterosexual. No amount of "gender fluidity" can change that.

>>1468050
>Which is ironic considering this gay marriage crap is a brazen encroachment of other people's property, riding on the back of frivolous litigation against people who wouldn't bake a certain cake, and threatening legal action against other citizens that have no legal or moral obligation to serve you. But here you are pretending it's about treating gays fairly while insisting they have transgressive access to an institution that is intrinsically heterosexual
How is marriage inherently heterosexual?

>>1468050
>But here you are pretending it's about treating gays fairly
A woman was being taxed higher because she had a wife instead of a husband. That was the facts of the case. Shut the fuck up.

>>1468051
The same way voting is inherently masculine.

>>1468050
>threatening legal action against other citizens that have no legal or moral obligation to serve you
Actually if you refuse to serve someone on the basis of race, sex, or religion, you actually DO have obligation to do so regardless of your personal beliefs under the 14th amendment. You're literally taking away their right to equal treatment. You are infringing on their rights; don't like it, move to another country.

>>1468054
So in no way at all?

>>1468039
It's still equal without gay marriage. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa.
Everyone has equal rights.

>>1468056
Yes, that's the joke.

>>1468052
>A woman was being taxed higher because she had a wife instead of a husband.
Are you opposed to all tax breaks that support viable family growth, or just this one? I won't be stfu because I'm not the one being a subersive faggot.

>>1468055
>don't like it, move to another country
lmao I've been rooted here since before there was a constitution. You're not going to be telling me off anywhere.

>>1468057
See
>>1468052
and, again, shut the fuck up.

>>1468059
I am opposed to all tax brackets based on immutable characteristics such as race or sex, yes.

You'd be throwing a bitchfit if blue states started taxing whites higher.

>>1468059
>Are you opposed to all tax breaks that support viable family growth
It was a tax on spousal inheritance. The fuck does that have to do with familial growth?

Also gays can have families.

>>1468057
But only a man can get married to a woman and only a woman can get married to a man. That's not equal that's literally giving each one rights the other does not have.
>But marriage is between two different genders!
Says who? Your personal beliefs? That's not in the constitution either.

>>1468062
>Tax break for spousal inheritance*
Also the argument wasn't that straight married couples should be taxed more. Although obviously doing that would have been a way of eliminating the discrepancy.

Nobody's arguing that all government benefits relating to marriage should be eliminated (except, ironically Republicans, since doing so might let them start discriminating against gays again).

>>1468062
>Also gays can have families.
They can't grow them, so quit being histrionic.

>>1468064
It's not a discrepancy, you kike. Nobody gets every tax break. Only Jews and Sodomites would ever be so cynical and petty as to use that as an excuse to sue the states on a Constitutional basis. You would have us believe this was protecting people from getting lynched in the street but by your own admission it's a tax code technicality that you exploited.

If being gay were fundamentally about getting married, you might have had a case. In reality, everybody knows it's not, so stop lying about it and stfu.

>>1468065
is any sexuality fundamentally about getting married? you sure are impossible to take seriously as usual

>>1467924
They've mastered the art of judge shopping where their cases will be heard by only the most fringe right wing judges.
The only reason the republican supreme court won't ban gay marriage is Roberts oversaw them making it legal in the first place. If he overturned his own ruling just because he had political cover. Any shred of legitimacy that the republican supreme court still had after declaring trump is a king is lost.

>>1468065
>They can't grow them
They can?

>It's not a discrepancy, you kike
Yes, opposite sex married couples qualifying for tax breaks on inheritance but same sex married couples not

>Nobody gets every tax break.
Right, and if there were a tax break only for Blacks, you would bitch.
>Only Jews and Sodomites would ever be so cynical and petty as to use that as an excuse to sue the states on a Constitutional basis.
Lmao at the idea that it's petty to care about how much of your dead spouse's assets they can leave you.

>You would have us believe this was protecting people from getting lynched in the street but by your own admission it's a tax code technicality that you exploited.
Nobody said you'd get lynched if you didn't give the gays what they want. And it's about equality under the law. That includes tax law.

>If being gay were fundamentally about getting married, you might have had a case
The case was about whether taxing someone based on the sex of their partner. If everything about the case were the exact same, but the woman suing were a man, she'd have gotten a tax break. Also, she had a case. She literally won.

You don't have a case, fuckstain.

>>1468067
Marriage is fundamentally about what you call hetero sex, which has been an obvious and unanimously understood fact throughout all human history which you don't "take seriously" because apparently your entire understanding of it is based on the past few decades of the West (like a serious intellectual, amirite).

>>1468071
So is any marriage that doesn't have kids just invalid then? Do I have to submit proof I'm fucking my wife to keep my certificate?

>>1468071
is this supposed to convince us you're white and american

>>1468072
Tell it to the court, faggot.

>>1468076
why would we tell a court that you're a silly faggot, that's not a particularly pertinent legal matter

Obviously this whole case is a bullshit set-up, but applying the same logic would somebody whose religion prohibits eating beef be allowed to get a job at McDonalds and refuse to serve hamburgers to customers?

>>1468078
I mean they successfully argued that about gay cakes. But that's if you're a christian only.

>>1468028
>If you're watching that much gay porn, that's a you problem.

Since I'm dog spelled backwards, and therefore a impotent and have created man in mind image, and am only one sex (yin no yang) I created man to have sex with a rib bone and dirt. Men having sex with men is abhorrent in my eyes. Therefore go forth and have sex with those inferior things that I created from dirt and a rib bone.

>>1468083
I forgot to mention that woman having sex with woman is completely okay as there's no Divine spark of mine in a woman like there is in man

>Ugh, we're treated so unequally! They won't even bake us a cake or give us tax breaks most people already don't get. Ugh! Like, can't you reinterpret the Constitution or something? Also if we get preferential treatment that's actually a good thing, teehee.

>>1468087
>They won't even bake us a cake
Most people can actually go to a bakery and ask for a cake and the baker won't decide to refuse purely on the basis who the customer fully willing to pay them is.

>>1468089
This case is more like the bakery shop owner accepting the order but the baker in their employ refusing to do their job and bake the cake and then asking the federal government to outlaw that kind of cake.

>>1468091
More like the homos in Colorado went to the ACLU to make him comply with their demands.

>>1468089
Most people don't go straight into high-profile litigation over one (1) bakery refusing you service. If you think your willingness to throw money at something gives you the right to receive service on your own terms, then you're basically a lobbyist.

>>1468094
>Most people don't go straight into high-profile litigation over one (1) bakery refusing you service.
>God they should've just sat back and taken being explicitly discriminated against
Also it's illegal under the constitution for businesses to discriminate based on gender, sex, or religion.

>>1468094
i'm surprised you're not dead already if you're this mad about gay people existing. or is it all really performative

>>1468094
>If you think your willingness to throw money at something gives you the right to receive service on your own terms, then you're basically a lobbyist.
This is hilarious considering the million dollar think tank sponsoring the Judge's activism from the bench >>1467974

>>1468095
They weren't sitting back. They instigated every bit of it.

>>1468096
Leave it to the assless chaps brigade to accuse you of being performative.

don't tell esl shill, but he's having vivacious gay fantasies again

>>1468095
>Also it's illegal under the constitution for businesses to discriminate based on gender, sex, or religion.
Actually that's under the Civil Rights Act, which, to be clear, Republicans think is unconstitutional and want repealed.

>>1468087
>most people already don't get
No? The majority of people either die married or lose a spouse to death.

Also, how many people get a tax break is irrelevant as to whether or not it is discriminatory.

Once again, if taxes were based on race, you would bitch. Pretty sure you bitch even when they aren't.

>>1468099
>the assless chaps brigade
You do know most gay people don't wear assless chaps, right?

>>1468109
I know most gays supported an extremely performative lawsuit. There's no doubt about that.

>>1468108
>if taxes were based on race, you would bitch
My brother in Christ, have you listened to the NYC mayor talk about taxation?

>>1468110
>Most gays support equal rights
Yep.

>>1468111
What did he say that triggered you?

>>1468113
he's not pretending to be an american like esl shill is

>>1468111
Have you seen how NYC tax brackets actually work? Poorer neighborhoods having higher tax values than rich ones. The primary difference: how many minorities are in them.

Mamdani is objectively right the whiter neighborhoods should be paying more taxes. They've been underpaying and dumping that share on poor minority neighborhoods for decades.

>>1468113
He wanted to tax white neighborhoods more.

>>1468117
>Mamdani is objectively right the whiter neighborhoods should be paying more taxes.
What specifically about being white means they should pay more?

>>1468117
>They've been underpaying and dumping that share on poor minority neighborhoods for decades.
So the white people have a greater burden, is what you're saying?
Interesting.

>>1468121
so you don't know english is what you're saying.
nobody is surprised

>>1468118
That isn't what he said. You're quoting Curtis Sliwa's campaign disinfo. Here is what he really said:
>NBC interviewer Kristen Welker asked Mamdani about a policy proposal on his campaign website to shift the tax burden "to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods".

>Asked whether he might alienate key constituents by invoking race, he denied the policy was driven by race and said: "I think I'm just naming things as they are."

>>1468111
>My brother in Christ, have you listened to the NYC mayor talk about taxation?
Yes, I have. In fact, I was explicitly making the comparison to bait you into bringing this up to prove YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKING BELIEVE YOUR OWN FUCKING POSITION.

Took you long enough to take the fucking bait, asshole. I accept your concession.

>>1468112
>Most gays support their convenience being on parity with other people's fundamental rights.
ftfy

>>1468129
you already lost the argument shill, sorry

>>1467919
>“subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”
So she’s a retard

>>1468128
You baited yourself by condemning discrimination while simultaneously demanding a special carveout based on idpol. The same as that retarded mayor did and every other liggeral does all the time.

>>1468133
esl

>>1468127
>You're quoting Curtis Sliwa's campaign disinfo.
It was on his campaign platform, retard. You literally quoted it.
I want you to keep defending this, by the way. The sooner white Americans adopt racial consciousness the better.

>>1468133
>You baited yourself by condemning discrimination while simultaneously demanding a special carveout based on idpol
I don't recall demanding a special carveout, period. You are, though. Either discrimination is wrong or it isn't.

>>1468130
Not really.

>>1468143
i know you're going to be posting while everyone is asleep, but at no point will anybody take you seriously

>>1468144
Speak for yourself. Given how quickly you've been replying I get the impression you're literally monitoring this thread. Don't have too much fun with that.

>>1468146
i can't have fun making fun of you now? sorry knowing english is "monitoring the thread" now

'For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support'
You're going to be surprised when you learn who said that

>>1468136
There's nothing to defend. You keep misquoting him. Most white Americans don't give a shit anyway, only the ones indoctrinated by online racial propaganda like you. Most Americans aren't that gullible. Also most Americans in general don't care about what happens in NYC. in the first place.

>>1468147
I think you're autistic.

>>1468157
>There's nothing to defend.
Bro, you're unironically breaking the civil rights act with this shit and pretending like it doesn't exist.

>>1468063
>That's not equal
It's completely equal

>>1468159
You took a quote from Mamdani and warped into something he didn't say. The thing you think is happening isn't actually happening.

>>1468165
See
>>1468070
>The case was about whether taxing someone based on the sex of their partner. If everything about the case were the exact same, but the woman suing were a man, she'd have gotten a tax break.

>>1468159
1. The civil rights act has jack shit to do with local tax rates
2. Mamdani isn't mayor yet
3. There isn't any law that says the government can't charge different blocks different tax rates. Address is not an immutable characteristic.

>>1468169
>There isn't any law that says the government can't charge different blocks different tax rates
That sounds discriminatory as fuck, in practice it's going to result in whites (mainly Jews) paying much higher taxes than anyone else.
It's absolutely against the civil rights act.

>>1468172
They were already paying lower rates than the brown neighborhoods around them. Mamdani only wants to make the rates equal. You people always try to cast this as discrimination against whites when it's really equalizing things.

>>1468167
OK and she wasn't married to a man.
>I didn't get me EV tax credit!!!
>Bro, you bought a fucking pickup truck

>>1468172
>That sounds discriminatory as fuck
Yes. It is. Where were you under the impression that government can't discriminate? If the government sends a pedophile to jail, do they have to send everyone to jail to be fair?

>>1468175
>OK and she wasn't married to a man.
Which is discrimination based on sex. Thank you and goodnight.

>>1468183
How so?

>>1468169
>There isn't any law that says the government can't charge different blocks different tax rates.
The Civil Rights Act you stupid fuck. The government cannot legally discriminate based on immutable characteristics like race, nor can it fund programs that do.
If he had just said "we want to tax the rich more", that would've been fine. But he specified white people instead.

>>1468185
>>1468173

>>1468185
>The government cannot legally discriminate based on immutable characteristics like race, nor can it fund programs that do.
That's not what the Civil Rights Act is about you dumb fuck.

>>1468184
>How so?
Okay, you seem slow. What do you think discrimination based on sex means?

>>1468189
OK, but both sexes have the same rights in this situation.

>>1468199
Does a woman have the right to marry a woman like a man does, and does a man have the right to marry a man like a woman does? No? Then that's a right discriminated against by gender.

>>1467919
>Le Project 2025 Agenda
>Literally everything on the list would be objectively good for America and Americans
Sweet. Get the damn thing going faster, holy shit.

>>1468235
Shitty bait

>>1468159
Funny you invoke the civil rights act, when denying gay marriage is a direct violation of it.

>>1468223
I mean men being able to marry men and women being able to marry women also sounds equal.
But Men being able to marry women and women being able to marry men is equal as well.
Also marriage isn't a right and I'll not be lectured on rights from some asshole who wants to stymie, kneecap or simply end the second amendment and probably used the term "freezepeach".

But anyway, let's talk about how men marrying men isn't equal.
Homosexuals ARE BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Tax credits are given to couples due to the expenses of raising children.
Therefore homosexuals are not using tax credits for the intended purpose and have a close to 0% chance of doing so.
Therefore it's simply a tax break for the bourgeoisie.

>>1468199
>OK, but both sexes have the same rights in this situation.
Both sexes were not being treated the same. A woman whose wife dies and a man whose wife dies were being taxed at different rates.

>>1468254
She was already fucking married (in Canada, with New York also recognizing her marriage). The case was about federal recognition of the fucking marriage and the impact of that on tax rates.

>Tax credits are given to couples due to the expenses of raising children.
We're talking about an inheritance tax, fuckwit. Her wife died.

Spousal inheritance tax breaks have jack shit to do with raising children.

>>1468243
>we need to do X to prevent discrimination
>yes this discriminates against you, but that's acceptable
Pick a lane retard.

>>1468285
>We're talking about an inheritance tax, fuckwit. Her wife died.
No we weren't.

>>1468289
Yes, I was. I first brought up taxes in this thread
>>1468052
in reference to the federal case that got same sex marriage federally legalized.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
Shut the fuck up you ignorant weasel.

>>1468297
>Shut the fuck up you ignorant weasel.
Ad hom? Really? That's what you do when you can present a better argument?

>>1468312
>Ad hom?
That's not ad hom, fuck for brains. Learn what words mean.
>That's what you do when you can present a better argument?
My argument was you're trying to tell me what I fucking said in a thread that is still up. I cited you both a specific post and the relevant SCOTUS case.

See, shit like this is why I called you an ignorant weasel, you fucking ass's ass.

>>1468317
>ignorant weasel, you fucking ass's ass.
I'll take it you concede then, huh?

>>1468336
>I'll take it you concede then, huh?
I take it your bot broke, huh?

>>1468339
Rajnesh, after you've conceded, fix your bot. It's infected with ad hominems.

>>1468339
Nowhere was I discussing the merits of the government stealing from the relatives of the dead, which should be illegal.
Alls I'm sayin' is you cussed me out and ran away, so I suppose I won.

>>1468341
>It's infected with ad hominems
Look, gibbon, ad hom doesn't mean insult. It means a rejection of someone's argument through an attack on their character irrelevant to the argument they are making. If I call you a fuckwit, that's not an ad hominem attack. If I say nobody should listen to your claims about the price of tea in China because you are a fuckwit, that's an ad hominem attack. If I say nobody should listen to your claims of not being a fuckwit because you are a fuckwit, that's not an ad hominem attack again.

Please learn what words mean.

>>1468342
>Nowhere was I discussing the merits of the government stealing from the relatives of the dead, which should be illegal.
You are literally arguing relatives of the dead aren't related to them. As it turns out that is, and was when this shit went to court, relevant.
>Alls I'm sayin' is you cussed me out and ran away, so I suppose I won.
Now who's engaging in ad hominem? Also lying. I don't recall running anywhere.

Although maybe I should, you haven't been engaging in good faith for a while.

>>1468349
>You are literally arguing relatives of the dead aren't related to them. As it turns out that is, and was when this shit went to court, relevant.
But those two weren't related. And estate tax should be illegal itself.

>>1468349
>you haven't been engaging in good faith for a while.
Just because you're angry that I'm right doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. In fact you can admit you're wrong an trying to twist logic to push your opinion and just straight up say, "I think gay marriage should be allowed" and quit trying to mask it as an equality issue. I'd respect that more than dealing with your mental gymnastic shit.

>>1468349
>If I call you a fuckwit, that's not an ad hominem attack. If I say nobody should listen to your claims about the price of tea in China because you are a fuckwit
>most of the tea sold in countries which drinks more of that than coffee comes from India & Sri Lanka
>I take it your bot broke, huh?
Rajnesh, after you've conceded again, fix your bot. It's still infected with ad hominems.

>>1468357
>But those two weren't related
They had a valid marriage license. How were they not related? They literally had more ties than you need for a common law marriage.
>And estate tax should be illegal itself.
Fucking irrelevant unless you think the estate tax is the only place married and unmarried couples are treated differently

>>1468359
>I think gay marriage should be allowed
Man if you think I'm hiding that position, you have brain damage.
>Just because you're angry that I'm right doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. In fact you can admit you're wrong an trying to twist logic to push your opinion
>I'd respect that more than dealing with your mental gymnastic shit.
I. Am. Referencing. The. Case. That. Legalized. Gay. Marriage. Federally.

>>1468360
I was referencing an English idiom relating to non sequitur argumentation of which ad hominem is a subcategory.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_that_got_to_do_with_the...%3F
Oh my fucking god, I've been dealing with some ESL fuckwit that isn't even an American. That explains a lot.

God, get over your impotent rage about the gays gaining acceptance in the cultural capital of the world and go bitch about your own country's laws on /int/.

>>1468361
Well, as explained, there's a reason married people receive tax breaks. There's no need for the same consideration of simply bourgeoisie attempting to bolster their wealth by evading taxes.

>an English idiom
>a foreign idiot that is >>1468371
Get over your impotent rage about gays and those who don't have a problem with them - unlike you - Rajnesh. Even an AI is calmer than an Indian fuckwit reduced to projection. Which explains even more about the likes of you.

>>1468383
>Well, as explained, there's a reason married people receive tax breaks
Yeah, to incentivize marriage.
>There's no need for the same consideration of simply bourgeoisie attempting to bolster their wealth by evading taxes.
Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. You'll hurt yourself.

>>1468388
>>>/int/

>>1468397
>>>/pol/

>>1468371
>I. Am. Referencing. The. Case. That. Legalized. Gay. Marriage. Federally.
And. I. don't. care.

>>1468397
>>1468336

>>1468408
Not him but you lost. Just take the L.

1468423
>>1468336

>>1468071
lol marriage is fundamentally about lineage and money. which then leads to inheritance and birthright.

gay marriage isn't a thing in the past because it automatically undermines a fundamental tenet of marriage: lineage. a gay marriage produces only bastards.

>>1468428
I'll spell this out for you because you're obviously some kind of retard. I'm a different person pointing out that you lost the argument.
>>1468437
According to whom?

>>1468441
>The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies dates back to Mesopotamia around 2350 BC, where marriages were primarily economic and political contracts between families to secure lineage, property, and alliances, rather than for love, evolving from broader family groups into more stable, structured unions as societies settled

And other people will point out that, especially after late 2028, you will lose due to your opinions being proved wrong after a Democrat administration denies the likes of you of the right to be homophobic, 1468441. More so in revenge for the previous & ultra-corrupt & hypocritical one being so homophobic.
Why shouldn't such a replacement administration be the diametric opposite in being so extreme: making homophobia in word, action & thought a criminal offense? Legislate such unjustifiable opinions out of existence. Forced tolerance: Or Else.

>>1468442
Progress is a bitch for some people (You), sure, but the point is humans don't do things like they did in 2350 BC or even 100 years ago.

>>1468401
Not caring about someone's argument isn't the same thing as having a counterargument.

>>1468450
OK, goalpost mover.

>>1468448
>Progress
lol.

>>1468509
Yes.

>>1468447
>Forced tolerance: Or Else.
Yea. Imagine that. Laws that prevent people from being gigantic assholes for shit that doesn't even affect them.

Honestly just move to russia like that other guy did to escape the gays.

>>1468517
How?

>>1468533
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress
>Progress is movement towards a perceived refined, improved, or otherwise desired state.

>>1468287
>Equality is discrimination
Always loved the conservative clown world

>>1468536
>we can only be equal if we discriminate against you
>everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others