Max Fischer

Read the opinions. Not agreeing with it is your opinion but fact is, it's the 14th is the basis for the new law of the land.

I see troll is code for not belonging to this lemming club where everyone has to agree with you. Otherwise, you are branded an idiot, a moron or a troll. Nice job message board cowards. The club motto must be "Run Away". You havent grasped logic and deduction. Just as hominem attacks on what confuses you. BTW, there is no flaw in what I wrote and countless respected historians have said.

Now you're talking.

You should have just said I was right. Your last post made no sense.

Typical bull **** from a message board coward who can't make a logical argument. It's not my fault you two can't stand up to a challenge.

Sorry about. Change "outcome" to "means" and it's the same. I see you get frustrated when challenged with facts.

Ah, just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean "his opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution." That's your opinion, it's not fact. Very few matters are expressly stated in the constitution. That's why we have courts, and judges of all stripes use their brains to determine what they believe is right. The document was written by humans, and to be interpreted by humans. Otherwise, we would just use a computer to search terms.

The right to marry is in the 14th amendment. Undue burdens are a basic legal definition. You seem smart enough to not employ 2nd grade arguments.

See the 14th Amendment. Better yet, read Kennedy's opinion. He does a good job of explaining it. While you're at it, read Loving vs Virginia and let us know where they're wrong.

Do you believe that gay and interracial marriage are basic right under the constitution? Poll tax is undoubtedly unreasonable and reasonably argued by the Supreme Court. I have the same concerns about photo ID simply because there is insignificant evidence that it's necessary and can impede voting. Whether there is the evidence that ID impedes marriage I do not know. Same for common law, I would lean toward a recognition of common law marriage but I don't know enough about the arguments for and against. I would say the burden of proof would have to be on those trying to restrict the recognition

You are confusing basic rights (are you allowed to marry) with a few reasonableness questions. I do think common law will be challenged and I'm curious about the legal restrictions (property, health, insurance, kids, etc). I think fees are a reasonablness question and whether there is sufficient evidence that fees are indeed a barrier to marriage (doubtful). Haven't heard about the photo ID issue but again, why does the law exist and is it a barrier to marriage? As for cousins, I always thought that was a medical issue but if not sufficient scientifIc proof it's harmful, then an argument could be made they have the right. Anything else? Tell me again why you don't think interracial and gay marriage is not a basic human right? That's a weak cop out. You don't think interracial marriage and dozens of other logical and basic human rights are protected by the Constitution? Either you do or you don't. To hide under the "constitution is silent" argument has been a long standing crutch that has been steamrolled by common sense for generations. Ah, the "you idiot" argument. Took you long enough. The Supreme Court (and history) says otherwise.

So, you do not believe the U.S. constitution gives a white person the right to marry a black person? That a black person does not have the right to drink from a publicly designated "white" fountain?

The evidence that the Civil War hinged on the question of slavery is indisputable. Even contemporaries on both sides said it. It was only later did apologists (yes, including the KKK) whitewashed the question with the broad states rights propaganda. The South wanted to preserve (and expand) slavery and said they had a right to protect the institution by ceceding from the union. That was the overarching reason, all other factors were fairly insignificant and would not have led to treason, ah, war. Yes, at first, the Union would have traded slavery to bring back South, but that was not going to happen because the South didn't trust the Union on slavery and the abolishinists were growing strong each year.

Interracial marriage was a result of pulling the nation to the left? If that is the definition of progress why would you be mad? Or, are you're saying that because gay marriage only effects a small minority of people that the court was wrong? What was wrong? The state bans on interracial or SCOTUS making those laws illegal?

Yeah, like making interracial marriage and separate but equal illegal. This country is going to hell. Ha-rumph, ha-rumph. We need a country that preserves the sanctity of states rights over human rights.

I can't speak to the biology, but I'm quite certain that like miscegenation, your viewpoint will soon be history.

When correct and supportable, the brevity of a post is irrelevant.

Amusing use of "whitewashed." States rights to preserve slavery. No slavery = no Civil War.

I picture you saying, "Worst. Hearing. Ever."

One player has travel problems that resulted in missing one practice -- in June. This is why sports radio blows. Fans confuse vague radar blips for an impending mass invasion. Keep Calm and Carry On.

if you like this girl, do yourself a favor and stop talking about her on the internet.

This topic is embarrassing. Would earn a spot on a "Wall of Infamy."

WGR - keeping the website the same since 1997.

A Big Deal because people got hurt or something.