afchief
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

Null - without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

Void - having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

Homosexuality is Repugnant. It is Null. It is Void!!!!

Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Valri
Homosexual relationships are two people of the same gender in a loving committed relationship to one another identical to a straight relationship. Only difference is they can't procreate.

"Repugnant" is just your opinion. Clearly it's not "null and void" with so many millions of people in homosexual relationships that work.

afchief
Nope! There is nothing normal, natural or right about homosexuality. It is deviant, perverted, and a mental disorder. It is sick!!! It is unclean!!! It is gross!!!

Valri
Mental disorder? What century are you living in?

afchief
[Long, uncited, homophobic copypasta]

TheKingOfRhye
Do you realize you quoted the case that established judicial review? You know, the thing you supposedly hate so much that says the Supreme Court gets to rule that laws are unconstitutional?

afchief
Wrong! Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

A “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are—opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that?